Tag Archives: government

Communications, Government Relations

The Fastest Way to a Politician’s Heart is Through a Camera Lens

Leave a comment

press and politiciansIf politics were for wallflowers, government buildings would look like bungalows and politicians wouldn’t need to give speeches.  So for the sake of simplicity let’s start from an understanding that politicians expect to be seen and heard.  They would like it to happen at their convenience and on their issues, but they will adopt an issue if you capture their attention, if they can make it serve their needs and if they think it will have resonance with the public.  This description may make them sound opportunistic, but keep in mind that as public figures, they need to be, well public.  If you never hear from or see your legislator again after you elect them, then you might begin to wonder what if anything they were doing for you.  Also keep mind that a representative in parliament who can’t seize an opportunity when one is presented isn’t going to do you a lot of good in the long run.

What this preference for press means for you and your issue is that you have to think of ways of making it sexy or at least ensuring that elements of it have broad appeal.  While working in the public interest is a great starting point, it doesn’t necessarily capture headlines much less passing media interest.  The media likes conflict, sex appeal, violence and sensation, or more to the point, the assumption is that consumers of media like those things.  If you’re lucky on a slow Friday in the summer, you might get them to pay attention to human interest stories. Again, this isn’t a commentary on the personal peccadilloes of reporters, but a reflection of the corporate demands that now plague journalism and what you and I as a members of the public have indicated we are willing to pay for. This is what bumps online ratings, sells papers and raises television audience numbers.

So how do you make your news and issuesissue interesting?

As a start test its appeal with family and friends.  Do people start to glaze over when you tell your story?  Do they get angry, do they laugh, sympathize?  Do they appear shocked? If you can get a reaction from them that isn’t bored indifference you’re on the right track.  If your audience is glazing over halfway through your story, then you might want to take a slightly different approach to telling it.  For instance, you can take your issue and consider the worst-case scenario.  What could possibly happen if nothing is done? What are the implications of leaving things at the status quo?  Don’t stretch the bounds of believability, but try to follow through on what might happen if things did not change.  Stir in a few experts. Consider the plight of those impacted and suddenly you have a news story.  It also helps if you can think of a catchy way to express your concerns. The catchier, the more likely it is to end up as a sound bite on the news.  This may seem crass, but it works.

Then of course there is social media. There are volumes written on the many ways you can generate attention on your issue by blending traditional and social media campaigns or simply taking the social media route.  I would say though that unless you already have a strong online following or are about to start an active campaign to get that following, then you will want to look at blending. Although it can sometimes seem that anything can be made popular online from screaming goats to funny dances, it’s harder to do than it looks.  It’s also true that not all coverage is necessarily good coverage.

Timing is also critical to the successful launch of a story.

Any number of things can obliterate a good story, from bad weather conditions to a single but memorable violent act. A sporting event that has captured the attention of the public can make your story go from leading to pleading for coverage. You can manage some things, like avoid launching a story around an important holiday unless you can tie your story to it. Elections are tempting times to launch stories too, but do it with care.  If you cost a party a drop in the polls or even a temporary setback during an election campaign, they will remember you and it won’t be fondly. Take a look at the local events calendar, not just to avoid conflicting activities but to look for opportunities.

Whatever approach you adopt remember, media is a blunt tool.

There is little purpose in using the media strictly as a way of getting a legislator’s attention.  If you use it, it must be with the understanding that you are trying to get a message out to a broad audience, including those who may disagree with your perspective.

Do you have any media success or failure stories? Any news you saw that you knew wasn’t true or received a revelation by watching the news? I’d love to hear your stories.

Share
Government Relations

Remember Your Manners – A True Story

Leave a comment

Remember your mannersBad manners in business are about as useful as feathers on a fish and as memorable. The following story is based on something that happened while I worked on Parliament Hill.

An executive working in the regional office of a manufacturing company was contacted by his superiors and told that it would be in the best interest of the organization if he were to meet with the local member of parliament (MP) to discuss some of the future goals of the organization.  The Member of Parliament really didn’t have the power to facilitate or interrupt those goals, but since he sat on the Industry Committee, and the changes would require some  regulatory adjustments it made good sense to make sure he was onside.  The executive dutifully contacted the office and set up a meeting with the MP.

On the day of the meeting, the executive arrived and proceeded to extol the virtues of the proposed objectives of his company to the MP.  To his surprise the MP had some concerns.  The concerns did not appear to be well founded or based on any evidence.  The executive explained that the concerns were unsubstantiated, but the MP persisted, expressing his reluctance to endorse the objectives of the company.  It was at this point that the executive became somewhat impatient with the MP, after all, what did the MP know about his business and who was he to raise objections? As the meeting continued it became clear that the two men were not going to see eye to eye, what’s more it was also obvious that the MP might actually represent a problem for the organization. The executive in frustration finally said to the MP that he would, “regret it” if he were to stand in the way of the organization’s goals.

Now for those of you familiar with testosterone, it is clear that the tone of the exchange had more to do with hormone levels than any rational disagreement. It is also possible that had the exchange been limited to these two men it would have ended then and there. Unfortunately, executives from across the country went out to meet with MPs.  It was equally clear that none of the executives had been given government relations training… or relations training of any kind.  All that was paramount to them was the importance of the proposed activity to their organization. The result was that by the time the Members of Parliament had returned to the House of Commons they were good and steamed.  When they got together with their caucus members, their anger escalated to the point that even those who were inclined to support the manufacturer were reluctant to do so in the face of the other MPs’ anger.  The net result was that the pressure on the Minister of Industry to oppose the manufacturer was unshakeable.

To the manufacturer’s horror and dismay, what started out as a no brainer business move became the centre of an outraged grassroots movement against the manufacturer’s interest. The movement was so stormy and politically loaded that the Minister was obliged to support it.

Lessons Learned

  • Assume nothing, determine the mindset of the official you are meeting with and respond appropriately.
  • Do not dismiss concerns always address them thoughtfully.
  • Do not get into arguments with officials. If you can’t agree, end the meeting and leave.
  • Do not threaten, even inadvertently.
  • Do not underestimate the power of a riled or impassioned legislator. Legislators did not get elected because they lacked determination or the ability to rally others to their cause.

Manners are not a nicety, they are a necessity in business.

Share
Communications, Government Relations

Lobbyists are Liars and Cheaters

Leave a comment

lobbying myths

Lobbyists are liars, cheaters focused on bending government to their personal interests. They are the dark side of any political engagement. When they are very good at their jobs they can influence not only government policies, but also force cultural change and remove our essential rights.

Rights like, the right to drive drunk, the right to litter or the important right to abuse our children.  In Ontario, they have already stripped us of the right smoke in our own cars when children are present and to smoke where people have to work. What about those lobbyists who insist that recycling is better than building bigger landfills or those slimy buggers who lobbied to make us wear seat belts?

OK, misconceptions about lobbyists is clearly a pet peeve of mine and no, not all lobbyists are as pure in their pursuits as those just mentioned, but neither are they evil doers bent on shoring up corporate interests. Despite this, the myth of “bad lobbyist” is a persistent and frustrating one. Like every profession there are those individuals we could all do without, but generally, lobbyist are a smart and strategic group of communicators doing good work. I’m quite proud of that aspect of my career and it completely lines up with my current work for a national charitable organization focused on serving Canadians.

Lobbyist are often officially defined as those paid to represent a particular group or interest. Given the complexities of the government, it is not unreasonable to assume that an organization might seek the assistance of those who specialize in understanding government to represent them.  Paying someone to lobby or accepting money in order to lobby is not suspicious behavior. Despite this, lobbyists carry with them the expectation of bad behaviour.  I have actually had people laugh in my face when I’ve raised the issue of lobbying ethics, but keep this mind the next time you think about lobbyists.  What other communications professional is obliged to complete a public explanation of their activities and intent before and every time they initiate their business practice?

Another pervasive myth that surrounds government relations is the discussion of access.  The myth runs something like this, a good lobbyist is someone who can get you access to government officials.  What this implies is that access is limited, content irrelevant and objectives extraneous. It says that your issue, its effect on the public and any informed solutions you may have to offer are irrelevant if you don’t have a personal friendship with the right government official or enough cash to hire the right lobbyist.

If that’s true, I want to know who died and left professional lobbyists in charge of my rights as a citizen? Having a lobbyist with good contacts in government can facilitate the timing and effectiveness of your meetings, speeding things along, but it shouldn’t be and rarely is, a requirement for meeting with elected officials or civil servants. If effective government relations are reliant upon hiring a lobbyist who has some prior affiliation with the ruling party, do you really want that government?  Fortunately, if access to politicians ever becomes reliant on prior relationships it’s easy enough to fix. Remember who your friends are during the next election…

Lessons Learned

  • Great things can come from lobbying.
  • Real lobbying is not about selling access.
  • Good governments (and good politicians) are never afraid of hearing your opinion.
Share
Communications, Government Relations, Management

What Exactly Is Your Issue? Four Tips For Better Lobbying

Leave a comment

what's your issueI was on Parliament Hill recently and as my colleagues and I fanned out to share our messages I kept thinking about all the possible outcomes ahead of us.  We had the same message to deliver, but personal style and approach can make subtle changes occur that effect comprehension, reception and even perceived objective. This means that when presenting an idea, the question of knowing EXACTLY what you want is critical.

Whether presenting to government, an interviewer or potential client, it can mean the difference between success and failure.   If you are unclear about your issue, or do not ensure that your audience is clear on what you want, you may find yourself achieving an outcome you didn’t anticipate.  As time management expert Alan Lakein so succinctly put it, “Failing to plan is planning to fail.”

Take for instance the consumer advocate groups that lobbied the Canadian federal government for years on the issue of labelling of cigarette packaging.   They asked government to ban or restrict the word “light” from cigarette packages.  They were concerned that the use of the word would lead the public to think that these cigarettes were somehow not as bad for them as “regular” cigarettes.  In December 2004, then Minister of Health, Ujjal Dosanjh, was pleased to announce that the use of the words “light” and “mild” would be prohibited from use on future cigarette packages. Imagine his surprise, when on hearing his announcement, the various associations in question responded with criticism.  It seems that they were actually using the “light” discussion as an example of the kind of wording they did not want used. As it happens their “ask” was a good deal more complex than the use of one or two words, they were quite legitimately concerned about the use of any language or imagery that might be perceived as misleading, this included the use of numbers or coloring.  Subsequently, they did not see the change as sufficient.

By February of 2005, a grassroots campaign had been launched to tell government that their announced changes hadn’t gone far enough.  The subsequent nature of the relationship between the Minister and the associations following these events can only be speculated on, but needless to say a good deal of engagement would have been necessary to maintain good relations.

Knowing exactly what you want before you initiate anything, from a meeting to a full communications campaign,  provides you with a path. Waiting until you are at a critical meeting or juncture is not the time to to determine what you want. Brainstorming in tight circumstances is unlikely to be productive or successful. Its also likely to lead to frustration for you and those around you.  If you know precisely what outcome you are trying to achieve, you are also in a better position to spot options or opportunities, it gives you the flexibility to take short cuts that will satisfy your objectives. Knowing what you want means you are also in a better position to anticipate how long the process will take and what you will need to do in order to be successful.

When have you planned and succeeded?  Have you been taken by surprise by an outcome? Have you ever failed to plan and subsequently missed an opportunity?

Share