Category: Communications

Digital advocacy nearing the real deal

Digital advocacy has been effective on issues that capture the public imagination because the web is an effective grassroots mobilisation tool. From whale hunting to GMOs, pressure groups and concerned citizens have expressed anger, spread the word and mobilised likeminded people. Were Greenpeace to announce a big-time campaign tomorrow on, say, mink farming in Europe, it could be web-centred, with offline elements operating around it.

However, the vast majority of advocacy issues don’t capture the public imagination: nobody cares; media pays no attention. Until a short time ago, these were the sort of issues where advocacy was done off the radar i.e. primarily with stakeholders and policy-makers sitting down face to face. There’d be no large-scale media campaign or the like in support because it wouldn’t have been worth the effort seeing as all stakeholders were a phone-call away.

Digital advocacy is now nearing the real deal for niche issues as well. It is ubiquitous enough – even in public policy land (see Fleishman’s EP Digital Trends or Edelman’s Capital Staffers’ index) – to work as a direct advocacy tool.

In practice, if you plan and execute the online element of your campaign well, you can safely assume that you’ll reach relevant policy-makers directly, as well as engage and/or mobilise the aforementioned stakeholders that are just a phone-call away, using primarily online channels. By no means does that mean that traditional advocacy or media relations are a dying breed, but they can now be supported, enhanced and sped up no end. Exciting times ahead.

Image source

Agencies and the commodity temptation

The role of the communications agency in political hubs such as Brussels, London and Washington is crammed with potential for exciting work. Issues experts and communications specialists join forces to formulate strategies that help organisatons navigate a complex political landscape…. a landscape that may involve all sorts of players from the pesky blogger to the virulent politician picking up steam in the press, cross-border nuances and awkward political realities, the sudden PR calamity…

It’s a shame then that agencies often fall into the commodity trap, where the goal goes from helping a client reach their business and communications objectives to doing just enough to rack up billable hours. The toolbox – reading up on the latest developments from whatever relevant government department, media monitoring, basic content production, website maintenance, event logistics and so on – become the commodity.

Sure, the dirty work has to be done, and I understand the temptation: the long hours, the lacklustre client, the short-term targets all conspire to lure you into simply doing enough to meet the requirements.

The problem is that as a communicator, you don’t have the luxury of the lawyer or the chemist, who perform tasks which are second-nature to them but which no one would ever dream of replicating without the apposite credentials. Everyone thinks they’re a communicator, and unless you’re challenging clients by offering them added-value thinking, they’ll think they can do it themselves (or get someone else to do it more cheaply.)

So what do you do about it? There’s no trick: it’s all about frame of mind and thinking to yourself that you sell brainpower, not items in a toolbox. So once you’ve developed a strategy and it’s in execution mode, don’t let it go: track your client’s issues on an ongoing basis and constantly revisit your business goals -> communications objectives -> strategy -> tactics chart to ensure that you’re proactively offering them smart ideas that will help them meet their goals. It’ll keep them happy and no doubt help get you more business (and what’s more, it’s a lot more fun and challenging for you, the communicator.)

Copenhagen: campaigners bear some responsibility

A little late in the day perhaps, but a quick after-thought I’d have to last month’s Copenhagen debacle is that campaigners hold more responsibility than they’d likely admit. Despite the urgency and apocalyptic tones that have been in use for years over the issue of climate change, by the time we got to 2009, the momentum in favour of doing something about it had decelerated in part because they weren’t going about their jobs in the right way.

I’m not for one instant claiming that political realities – in particular, the constraints placed on politicians dealing with somewhat vague and far-away issues at a time of global crisis, and the developing vs. developed country schism – aren’t by far and away the prevailing reasons for the gridlock.

However, I’d still go as far as saying that political pressure had waned so much that politicians could go to Copenhagen without there really being anything substantial on the table – i.e. a legally binding document that demanded sacrifices of its signatories – and get away with it, in part because campaigns on climate change were often poorly executed and always disjointed. As their constituents lost interest or even became bothered by the prevalence of the issue, spurred on by an irresponsible populist press, politicians could dither: such is the nature of the game.

If we split the climate-change debate into two phases over the last decade, the first phase had a figurehead – Al Gore – who came to symbolise the issue. He carried real clout as a senior politician who had abandoned politics to focus on the one issue alone. What’s more, he approached it with a real wealth of knowledge and understanding of the science. As a result, campaigners who became involved in the issue usually did so in his shadow while adopting a serious and cerebral approach. In public consciousness terms, the issue was escalating fast and the doubters weren’t too comfortable about raising their voices.

Phase 2 began once Gore stepped out of centre-stage, transforming the issue into an exercise in jumping on the bandwagon. All of a sudden, reducing one’s carbon footprint was the de-rigueur do-gooder issue for all organisations. Scientific argumentation got lost in the muddle as second-rate celebs pleaded with us to ride our bikes. Similarly, the lack of a focal point for the campaign meant it became disjointed: every oil and gas giant had its own separate campaign; it seemed every pressure group was doing its own thing too. Single-issue campaigns propped up everywhere but seemed to have different messages and I personally was never quite sure who was behind them. Lots of these campaigns were very good in terms of output – Kofi Annan’s tck tck campaign looked especially crisp and garnered a lot of signatures, although it came too late in the day – but there were simply too many overlapping initiatives rather than a single, strong, global voice spurred on by a number of interconnected campaigns. Result? The real message got lost and the populist press turned the issue into yet another fashionable and elitist pursuit for politicians detached from the man on the street.

Is all lost? No, mainly because the issue is real. What’s more, with the crisis diminishing, more people may start thinking beyond their day-to-day to issues outside their backyards. And with regards to campaigns on climate change, I think we’ll see a shift. Organisations who have hopped on the climate change bandwagon (or any other issue for that matter) are being scrutinised evermore by cynical consumers wary of greenwashing and will have to prove that they are serious about playing a positive role, while pressure groups should increasingly seek to join forces. This should result in better, more low-key, integrated campaigns by a number of public and private players, involving stronger grassroots engagement and mobilisation. Hopefully, this will put renewed pressure on the political class and ultimately result in responsible action, not hesitation.

Image source

From hierarchies to networks

Four words I’ve ruthlessly hijacked from a pamphlet I read this week. Four words which neatly explain a significant part of why the way in which organisations operate and communicate is so drastically different now compared to just a few years ago.

How? Power, influence and impact are not necessarily derived from how far up the proverbial food chain you are, but increasingly by how good your network is. The two are often aligned, but often not; someone can build and influence a network without having climbed too far up the traditional ladder. Meaning that the blogger who builds up a huge readership can be as relevant as a mainstream publication; or that the smart lowly employee who engages with the right people online can have as much of an impact on perceptions of his employer as the CEO.

What does this mean for organisations? It’s both a threat and an opportunity. A threat in that it’s harder to keep control if everyone has a megaphone. At the same time, it’s a stunning opportunity. An organisation’s combined talents are far more likely to be shared and harnessed in a world of networks; while an individual’s talent is far more likely to be exposed. Result? Potentially, a more creative, innovative and ultimately successful organisation.

And for the people tasked with communicating on behalf of organisations? Gone are the days of rigid messaging and press conferences. Added to the mix is harnessing the best of what the internal networks have to offer by handing them the mic. Don’t just use your CEO or Comms Director to represent you: use the intern, the engineer, or (even better) the guy who doesn’t actually work for you but loves what you do. Whoever has the best story to tell, frankly. But for communicators, networks go much farther than that. Whatever your sector or issue is, there’ll be a network of people engaging about it online in some way, and you’ll need to make sure you’re listening to what they’re saying and responding to it. That’s how you keep on the ball and avoid communicating in a void; and it’s how you try to make sure you’re engaging with the people who matter even if they’re not in the higher echelons of some hierarchy.

Loving the blog

Yes I love it, but not because it can give a face to a stand-offish organisation, humanise it, make it more approachable and the rest of them ol’ chestnuts. These are the very positive byproducts, but the real root of why blogging is brilliant lies in the flexibility it offers.

Length: Five lines or a hundred? Doesn’t matter: in a blog you can do either and not cause a stir.

Frequency: Every day or once a month? Doesn’t matter. You’re not pushing your content – your readers choose whether they want to receive it, so you can publish as often as you like. In fact, the more the better (within reason.)

Type: Short post leading to content somewhere else or a fairly long analytical piece? Both are fine.

Am I stating the bleeding obvious? Yes, but the bleeding obvious often isn’t apparent to most organisations’ communications teams, who are in the business of winning over hearts and minds. And it’s a real loss. As they fritter away valuable resources on conferences and white papers, little do they know that a steady stream of all sorts of content in a blog is both easier to produce than the rigid and linear articles or press releases they’re allowed to publish once in a while – and often more effective.

A simple post mentioning the eminent professor who backs their position and leading to his white paper which they didn’t spend a penny on? Five morose paragraphs written on a rainy day which really cut to the core of the author’s passion for his/her sector? A full-on analytical piece? All are allowed in a blog – nowhere else is that the case.

Image source

Hypocrite? Almost but not quite

Before this post, I hadn’t blogged for two weeks; and looking at my output over the last few months, it’s been pretty infrequent and not especially inspiring stuff by and large (not that I’m by any means claiming to have written super inspirational stuff on a regular basis before then, but you get the gist.) Why is that? 60 hour weeks and plenty of travel, in short. Problem is, I HATE that excuse. So f’ing what if I’m working hard? A post can be ten lines long. I could blog while I travel, I could get up 2o minutes earlier in the morning and write a post or likewise go to bed 20 minutes later. That’s where I’m a hypocrite. I frequently tell clients who claim that they just don’t have the time and resources to engage online that they DO have the time: if they value its importance and what it can do for them, surely they can add a half hour here or there into their oh so busy schedules. And if they really can’t, sleep a little less, cancel the game of golf, or – heaven forbid – cut a meeting short.

That’s where I’m not quite a hypocrite: I don’t have as much control of my agenda as most clients do as it’s they who populate it (and I don’t play golf!) so I can’t as easily give myself a slot to write a post. Although I could sleep a little less and not read while travelling… Guess it’s not just about time: the long hours make you value the spare time you do manage to muster and the last thing you want to do when you have a moment to yourself is to draft a blog post.

Image source

Your ultimate web objective? Being ubiquitous

If there’s an issue that’s impacting your organisation around which you want to orchestrate a shift in opinion or behavioural change amongst a set of people large or small, it’s not enough to do the right thing and explain it effectively. Two factors play a part here:

  1. People don’t trust you. Trust in pretty much every sort of organisation is at rock bottom and falling, so people will need to hear it from others to buy into what you do and say.
  2. With regards to the web in particular, search. You can’t push your content, people will find what they want; such is the nature of the web – meaning that it’s quite likely that they’ll pick another site out of the thousands that show up in Google.

So what do you do about it? Beyond doing and saying “the right thing” (not so easy in itself) and a solid media relations set-up, you’ll need to become ubiquitous online. What does that mean? That your web tentacles reach far beyond your own web presence. Others communicating around your issue should be talking about you so that when people are on the aforementioned ‘other’ site on your issue that they’ve found on Google, you’re present too.

How do you make it happen? You’ll need to know who all the other players are on your issue and communicate with them in mind rather than hollering in a void. Reference their content or even feature them in person, comment on their content in your own output, and make sure you’re giving your input wherever you can on other platforms. Assuming – again – that your message is solid, people will take notice and will soon start talking about you, giving you the third-party credibility you crave (assuming they’re being nice!) and giving you airtime in other places where people might land.

Will it come easy? No, Rome wasn’t built in a day – it’ll be a slog, but you won’t regret it.

Letting people other than senior-president-director-chairman So&So represent your company

In my last post I wrote about having experts represent your company. Another thing worth mentioning along those same lines is having lesser mortals represent your company to the outside world. Many a client has recoiled in horror when I’ve suggested that someone other than really senior spokespeople could possibly be the face of the organisation.

I think that’s wrong on a lot of levels.

Sure, if you’re talking about hardcore regulatory stuff you’re embroiled in or apologising for something awful you’ve done, the more senior the better. It shows you care at the highest level of your organisation. But if it’s more fluffy stuff you’re talking about, why on earth not let the people who are responsible, know lots about it, or are really into it write or talk, whatever their position in the organisation? What’ll happen?!

Plus there are tangible benefits:

  • The old social media cliche: it gives a face to the organisation that goes beyond the CEO, and that makes the organisation appear more “real” and likeable – and even trustworthy. Would you trust someone closer to your age who is still making the grade and is telling you something interesting more than a slick spokesperson who has been around the block a thousand times? Quite possibly.
  • It shows the outside world that the company trusts its people. That in itself is a benefit: the organisation trusts its more junior people so much that it’s willing to let them front the company?! Impressive, they must be good.
  • The internal trust issue: show your more junior people that you think they’re important enough to be a face of the organisation and you’ll more likely keep them happy, motivated and loyal.

Use your experts

You’ve got a budget and you’re an ace, silver-tongued communicator. What’s the temptation? To tell the story yourself every time, with clever messaging and soundbites containing all your keywords oozing out of every pore.

It’s all very well, and there’s a place for this sort of output. However, I’d urge communicators to not lose sight of their best asset: internal experts. Unless it’s a purveyor of a basic good which is also utterly uncontroversial, your organisation will no doubt work on some pretty complex stuff. Within this realm of complexity, you’ll usually want to position yourself as a thought-leader; as an expert within your field.

It’s a shame then that the experts – the engineers, the scientists, the analysts, the designers et al. – are usually kept out of sight, while the comms people get to call the shots to the outside world. Instead, I’d really urge all communicators to harness this expertise by producing output that showcases experts (and not make it look too staged…) Not only will they know their stuff, they’ll often be more enthusiastic about the subject matter than you ever could be. Do so, and you’ll no doubt help your organisation come across as a more credible player.

Good communicators should spend most of their time feeling dissatisfied

Communication campaigns tend to have very ambitious objectives, usually involving a major shift in opinion or behaviour amongst a set of people – often a very large and diverse one at that. Success takes a long time and a lot of perseverance, you need to be smart, analytical and on the ball, you might need to partner with the right people and pray they don’t screw things up for you, your timing should be spot on, and you must have your share of good fortune.

That’s where the dissatisfaction comes in. You spend ages understanding the issues and the players involved, how they intertwine and how you might craft stories that people respond to, and ultimately executing your strategy. Bit by bit. Yet most of the bits along the way can seem like a waste of time because you know how many it’ll take to cause the seismic shifts you’re looking for.

Is that what you’re feeling? Good sign. Why? Because you’re not losing site of the bigger picture. Ticking a box doesn’t really satisfy you, only winning your campaign will. Weak communicators often think each piece of output, or a nod and a wink from the boss, are results in themselves. Not so, and these sort of communicators will often lose sight of the big picture, produce disjointed output, and will most likely have a failed campaign on their conscience come the end. Good communicators know that reaching their objectives (if not all, at least most…) constitutes real success, nothing else.