Category: Social Media

Speaking about PA and digital: 10 things that resonate with audiences

I spend a lot of time presenting these days, both to internal and external audiences. I’m usually asked to speak about some variation of this theme: how is digital impacting Public Affairs in Brussels. Here are a few of the points which resonate most with audiences:

  • An entirely vacuous point: slides with good pictures and no more than five words are infinitely better than text-heavy slides. No surprise I guess, but it’s certainly been confirmed.
  • PA is shifting from being government relations centric: it’s embracing a broader set of communications disciplines, especially around reputation (and digital is key to reputation.)
  • Digital PA does not involve an entirely different toolkit to digital marketing or online PR.
  • You don’t need to “pick” a channel but first decide who you want to reach and what you want to say. Channels come last (and sometimes a mix-mash of channels is best e.g. a blog feeds conversation on Twitter etc.)
  • Producing good content – compelling stories – is key to success, and digital allows for frequent and diverse content production.
  • Content needs to be simplified and be more value-based rather than just technical.
  • NGOs have driven the agenda on many issues because they’re better at content.
  • Basic video output, especially involving 3rd parties, is easy to produce and highly effective.
  • It is possible to micro-target using digital i.e. yes you can target regulators, not just spray and pray, if done right.
  • You can measure everything, from the number of views on a Wikipedia entry to amount of visits on your blog from the European Commission.

Heard in Brussels: “we need to do something different”

The conversation then usually proceeds like this:

  • Yes indeed, you’re stuck in a rut, you’re not shifting the pin on your issue at all and your organisation is losing out.
  • What can we do?
  • Technical argumentation in the bubble with the same stakeholders isn’t working: you probably need to look beyond the bubble.
  • Where’s that?
  • Outside Brussels.
  • ?!?
  • Presumably there are people affected by the issue beyond Brussels? Involve them in this and make your arguments value-based, not technical; emotional, not technocratic.
  • How do I do that?
  • Identify who might be affected, see what resonates with them, reach out, engage, befriend; talk to your PR people elsewhere, your marketers… and then feed into the communications loop in Brussels. Decision makers will usually side with the most “popular” position so if you can somehow show it’s yours, you’re more likely to succeed.
  • No thanks, I’ll stick what I know best (usually followed by something like: “our organisation is not ready for such a shift”.)

I’ve spoken about how PA is shifting before here. James has too over at Bubble to Beltway here. The question is: why are organisations who ultimately know the same-old isn’t working (as mentioned, the conversation always starts with “we need to do something different”) very often unwilling to then do anything different?

Probably a mixture of the following:

Comfort zone. Public Affairs in Brussels is not strictly a communications discipline in many respects: it’s more like political counsel. Developing a value-based narrative or building a coalition beyond traditional stakeholders might seem second nature to marketers, corporate communicators and PR people; to PA professionals it’s a little daunting.

Self-importance. Let’s be honest: we’re a bit smug. We somehow think PA is too cerebral for emotional argumentation or non-traditional outreach. How many agencies in town have a clear PA vs. PR hierarchy? Plenty. Frankly, it’s damaging: time to get off the high-horse.

A compelling case. Maybe this is where consultants (me included) fail. To get PA professionals out of their comfort zone, a really compelling case is required. It should be apocalyptic – do this or die – but more than that, it needs to be backed up by data: this will work because of a, b and c. That means more research before the proposal is made, mocking up campaigns and programmes, potential outcomes, step by step scenarios and very clear resource allocation.

Reaching decision-makers online: two key points

I am often asked something along the following lines: “I need to convince 50 key decision-makers in Brussels about our position. My colleagues deal with others (stakeholders at national level, media, customers etc.) I’m sure digital/online/the web/social media (take your pick) is important to them because their audiences are big, but is it relevant to me given that my remit is just the 50?”

Quick answer: yes, it’s always relevant, but how and why varies according to the nature of your issue and how the 50 operate online.

My two key points are as follows:

99% of MEPs use online search to conduct research on policy and 80% read interest group sites (FH’s EP Digital Trends Survey, 2011). Your audience of 50 will fit in there so you need good online content when they look you or your issue up i.e. you need a content strategy first and foremost. And here’s the first key consideration in your strategy: content type, should your arguments be more technical or value based? Is your dossier highly technical and not of interest to anyone beyond the bubble? In that case, keep your arguments technical (but do simplify, not all readers are experts.) Is your dossier linked to a mainstream issue that at least some part of the public knows or cares about? Then your audience of 50 won’t care about technical argumentation because they’ll likely align with public opinion no matter how good your meticulously researched data is. You have to – as far as possible – show that you reflect public interest and make your argument more value-based (health, safety, environment, personal freedom, personal gain, human-interest etc.) And it’s imperative to hook up with the aforementioned communicators targeting other audiences and look at how, together and over time, you can work at enhancing brand and reputation. Yes, that means looking outside the Brussels comfort zone.

The other part is: how do you then deliver the content to the 50? Online at least, the only words on people’s lips seem to be social media, but that’s only part of the equation. The key is being found through search: all decision makers search via Google, few tweet or use Facebook to interact with constituents, let alone interest groups. So a search strategy is usually step number one. Step two is to assess if social media engagement with the 50 is viable. How? See if the 50 blog or tweet, and then assess how they do so. If they use them infrequently and as one-way channels, don’t bother. If you spot one or more of the 50 sharing information and thoughts with others, then make an effort to connect and tentatively provide value back.

Originally, this post was meant to include the image below and a couple of bullets. Went overboard, but here’s the visual anyway:

Survey: MEPs love Facebook, like blogging less, are hugely reliant on the web for research

At FH Brussels, we’ve just published our 2nd European Parliament Digital Trends Survey, available in its full glory here, including figures for the findings cited in the title and more.

Why did we repeat the exercise and what’s the bottom line? Here’s how I summarised it in the foreword to the print version:

When we last conducted our survey on the digital habits of Members of the European Parliament in 2009, we were at a watershed moment: digital in politics seemed to have gone mainstream following the French presidential campaign in 2007 and, in particular, Barack Obama’s successful campaign in 2007-08.

Brussels too was picking up on the excitement, with a variety of MEPs engaging online, looking to harness the ability to communicate with the sort of immediacy and candour previously only reserved for traditional canvassing; and increasingly using the instantaneous information available at the click of a mouse to conduct research on policy matters.

Nearly two years on we felt that it was time to reassess: the enthusiasm from across the pond has abated and the European Parliament is no longer in election frenzy; yet the value of the tools remains undiminished and citizens and businesses are increasingly connected. Have MEPs followed the trend or was 2009 a mere blip?

It turns out 2009 was anything but a blip. Our survey shows that, more than ever, MEPs are using digital channels to reach out and to inform themselves on issues of importance. In parallel, the findings also indicate that personal contact and traditional media remain essential, highlighting to anyone engaging in communications that digital is not replacing established modes of communication, but living alongside them.

I’ll be writing a few posts analysing the report in more detail over the coming weeks on Public Affairs 2.0, looking at topics like: why are MEPs blogging less, how does the EU compare to the US, what do the findings mean for the PA profession? I’ll reference here, so watch this (or that) space.

Campaigning to achieve PA goals: pay heed to the constituent-consumer

PA professionals are increasingly having to look beyond their government relations comfort zone. Campaigning more widely around their issues, and the practice of informing, engaging and building a wider support base than previously required – whether via on or offline channels – is ever more important.

Why? In short, because the mechanics that dictate the political process have become far more complex. Until a few decades ago, the process was determined by a minority largely comprising politicians and big business. Joe Public was not especially bothered, because he was usually not opinionated about things taking place far beyond his backyard. His reality was structured according to a number of inevitabilities: the same which structured his parents’ and peers’ lives, say the Church everyone went to, or the party everyone in town voted for.

And now? A number of factors have ensured that this, rather static, reality has been radically transformed. Mobility has meant people move around and mix, exposing them to more outlooks and isolating them from the conformity which made everyone think and act the same, while ideology and religion are increasingly irrelevant in determining people’s beliefs and values.

Instead, a different set of values is taking hold, often based around issues like personal freedom, fairness, health, equality or the environment. In parallel, independence and the growing trend towards a strong sense of personal expression and rights, has emboldened people: they are now more demanding in asking “what’s in it for me?”

This is reflected in how they approach politics, and hence the term “constituent-consumer”. Citizens are less likely to select politicians based on age-old affiliations, but rather, they act like consumers: they shop around, and either look for matching values (Politician X thinks we should save the whales, just like me) or someone who is likely to lead to personal gain (Politician Y is more likely to cut stamp duty on my new house – or Politician Z is anti-business and thus more pro-Joe Public like me.)

As a result, politicians are having to pay heed to the constituent-consumer. And concurrently, PA professionals on a number of high-profile issues increasingly need to look at how they can win over the same constituent-consumer, knowing that no matter who they have on speed dial or how good their body of intelligence, they’ll be fighting a losing battle if they are on the wrong side of wider opinion. Which means engaging in reputation management and building sizeable coalitions far from the government relations comfort zone.

Mildly paranoid note/get out of jail card: I think my reference to the constituent-consumer in this context is my own, and a quick Google search has not revealed that scores of people have been using it for years. If it turns out I picked it up somewhere and am not referencing it, I promise, I’m not trying to pass something off as my own that’s clearly not. If indeed this term is someone else’s, please let me know and I will amend. Thanks.

Hiring a digital person for a PA position

A few acquaintances looking to recruit people with digital expertise for positions in Public Affairs have recently asked me what sort of profile I’d recommend. Not the easiest of questions: digital PA people are few and far between, given that it’s a new field, so candidates usually have to be selected based on a good balance of skills gained from other disciplines, rather than spot on relevant experience. Plus there are many areas within digital which are relevant to PA – strategy, intelligence gathering and analysis, community engagement, operational, measurement etc. – and one person won’t usually cover the lot.

Nonetheless, here are my thoughts on what I’d look out for if I were looking for a first digital PA hire with a balanced skill-set, but primarily focused on strategy and a good understanding of how to integrate traditional PA practices and digital.

Digital PA is not as “whacky” as online consumer PR, digital marketing and the like. Most issues are niche which means you tend not to have a critical mass of people to play around with, which tends to be where the whacky stuff comes in (community building, user generated content etc.) Don’t get me wrong, campaigns within PA can potentially include the full suite of online tactics, but usually not. The key is usually to not get too carried away: have a good listening set-up, sound content strategy aligned to your offline narrative, and a search strategy. Sometimes more, but often not.

For this reason, I’d argue the following:

Don’t go for the super eager early adopter: the person who is on 12 social networks and has 15,000 followers on Twitter. They’ll sound like they know their stuff, and they probably will. However, as good as they’d be at other online pursuits, they may well struggle with digital PA as they’ll likely look too much at how to harness the power of networks. For tiny niche issues on which you’re trying to communicate subtly (and slightly below the radar), you don’t need that just yet. In fact, in digital PA, it might even hinder the more measured, cerebral approach which is often required. If you happen to find a geek, rather one who is into politics then technology rather than the other way around.

Beware of the PA professional who has developed a sudden interest in digital. If they’ve grown to realise that government relations plus the odd press release is the Public Affairs of a bygone age and comms is becoming increasingly important (including digital) then fine. If it’s just digital, beware: they’ll tempt you through their mastery of PA and enthusiasm for digital, but they’re unlikely to have a holistic view of communications in which government relations and digital are just two elements amongst many others.

Likewise, beware of the PA professional who has dealt with ICT issues and thus thinks they can do digital. Some agencies have (bizarrely) put digital communications under the remit of their ICT experts assuming that given that you’re dealing with technology, surely it’s all the same. These people know what Facebook and Google are up to but won’t know how to reach an audience through them.

Instead, do look out for generalists who like communications and politics and appreciate where the two intertwine. They should be comfortable with technology, but not obsessed with it. Where are you most likely to find them? Probably not in politics or digital marketing. Possibly in existing PA roles with a strong generalist comms remit rather than government relations. Most likely, in media and PR.

Interview: me on blogging, digital in PA, MEPs on social media

I was interviewed by the Italian political think-tank Lo Spazio della Politica in the run-up to their Butterfly Europe event in January, at which I’ll be speaking. Click here if you fancy reading my thoughts on why agencies like FH take the time to blog, the value of social media for businesses engaging in Public Affairs, and why MEPs should bother with social media.

“Social media is all very well but should we not first make sure our website is up to scratch?”

I’ve heard this uttered a few times now, and to be blunt, I strongly disagree with the premise. Sure, your website should be decent, but ignoring social media because your website is ugly (or whatever else denotes a bad website) represents one of those cardinal communications sins that people are all to eager to forgive in the Internet age: being channel-centric rather than goal and audience-centric.

Off the top of my head, here are two hypotheses:

1. You’re a trade association: your site is ugly AND you’re feeling the pinch on one of your five core issues

  • The issue is making news in Brussels and beyond.
  • You have lots to say on it: your side of the story is excellent; you’ve got plenty of third party support.
  • As a key player on the issue, you know many people in Brussels are going to be interested in your position.

What would you do:

  1. Not have one because your site’s a mess and it’d be too time-consuming to fix?
  2. Add more content on your ugly site in the one section out of five that’s important now?
  3. Have a strategy that includes: a far from ugly blog in which you publish the output from your content strategy and traffic driving tactics to ensure that anyone looking up you or the issue finds it?

2. You’re a company: your site is ugly AND you’ve invented a brilliant energy efficient product that will revolutionise your industry

  • You want to let a variety of government bodies know how much more efficient your product is and get them on your side.
  • However, the government bodies aren’t paying attention because everyone seems fine with the status quo.
  • You figure you need to drum up support and apply pressure from below: you think you can do it with the help of lots of eager product champions within and outside your company.

What would you do:

  1. Not have one because your site’s ugly?
  2. Fix your ugly site and until then try to drum up support without a web presence?
  3. Develop great content featuring your product champions (video, ideally) and have a detailed, attractive page on a social networking platform where you know the vast majority of your audience will be (Facebook?) on which you feature the content and engage with potential or real supporters?

Moral of the story? Don’t get me wrong, in many cases, unless you have something specific to be talking about, it’d be odd to have a really good blog and a dire website if you know your audiences are looking up both. BUT, in terms of channels, there’s no right or wrong order to how you build up your web presence i.e. we must have a nice site, then we can blog, then we can tweet. Do what’s right for you, for your circumstances, and for your audiences, always.

Digital in PA: two client types

By and large, there are two client types when applying digital in Public Affairs in Brussels. Client type 1 is far more prevalent. They operate in a minute niche and have a very limited audience. It is imperative that they have a sound online presence and that their content is found by people looking for it; but they are unlikely to benefit from a highly proactive engagement approach because they lack the critical mass.

Client type 2 on the other hand is likely to have a far bigger audience. They too need excellent content and search strategies, but are also likely to be part of a wider conversation/debate. In the best case scenario, they reach their audiences because third parties are spreading their content, and they are making friends through dialogue and even mobilising supporters. Client type 2 is common, but in Brussels, much less so than client type 1.

I’ve really broken this down to basics so it’s fair to say that this is not set in stone e.g. reaching client type 1 can easily involve other more push-related tactics (newsletters, advertising in niche online publications, highly targeted social network advertising) and some engagement (especially content sharing.)

However, in many cases, it’s this simple, and I feel compelled to stress the point because: 1) conservative communicators in Brussels think client type 1 doesn’t need any digital at all – that’s rubbish, everyone needs a sound content and search strategy; 2) over-eager communicators think all clients fall into the type 2 category and insist that everyone needs to explore the depths of social media to engage in heated conversation – that too is rubbish, if there’s no one to converse with.

Moral of the story? As ever, think audiences, reach and influence; don’t be too conservative, and don’t get overexcited.

How to move the public opinion pin and drive political change: maintain issue momentum through dialogue

Here’s something we hear all the time: “Our issue is really important but public awareness of the threat (or opportunity) isn’t great enough. For this reason there isn’t enough pressure on politicians for them to place it high in their agendas. What do we do?”

PA types have traditionally had a media “plus” approach to this sort of conundrum. They’ll make sure they have some sound collateral to demonstrate why the issue is important (facts and figures, reports and the like) and feed this to media and policy types. This approach is fine, but it’s usually not enough to move the public opinion pin because of the nature of media cycles. The issue collateral might be very good and get media pick-up and be big news for a few days if not weeks, but it then flounders again. And when momentum drops, so does the likelihood that the pin will shift, and policy makers invariably lose interest too.

What’s needed to shift the pin? Sustained dialogue and momentum around the issue over a protracted period of time, and this is incredibly difficult to attain with a media plus approach only, given that momentum tends to run in tandem with media cycles.

Enter digital. Creating and fostering a really compelling ongoing narrative around an issue online, and engaging with people in the online space who are interested in the same issue, can be a more effective way of maintaining momentum. And in no way does this approach preclude traditional tactics like government relations or media engagement. In fact, it strengthens both because there is more input to feed into the storyline which is shared with policy-makers and media i.e. the narrative has gone from being about just the collateral i.e. the report, facts and figures (whatever) to being about the conversation and whatever can be gleaned from it, which makes a more compelling story and helps maintain issue momentum (and ultimately shift the pin.)