Amy’s New Blog on Forbes.com: “Politicking the Bottom Line”

Just when you thought it was safe, Forbes.com has engaged me to blog on my insights on business engagement in politics and the legislative process, influence tactics and public policy, money and politics, and anything else in that space that strikes me as interesting. My first post focused on why being “small” works in Washington: (http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyshowalter/2012/08/09/big-business-does-best-in-washington-when-it-plays-the-underdog/)

My second post discusses Scotts Miracle-Gro's Super PAC Donation: (http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyshowalter/2012/08/22/wielding-influence-how-scotts-miracle-gro-got-it-right-with-super-pac-donation/)

 

Research Review

Communicating with Congressional Staff – What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why

Part Two

I was happy to see some solid research conducted via a partnership between Lobbyists.info/The Original U.S. Congress Handbook, David Rehr of The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management, and ORI. http://www.congressionalcommunicationsreport.com/ The research sought to find out how Congressional staff prefer to receive information.

In our last Roots of Success, I promised to comment further on how we can apply the report’s findings to our influence opportunities.

Staff Trusts the Experts and Each Other

What are the top four places Hill staff look to learn about public policy? Top responses included the Congressional Research Service, academic experts, the Congressional Budget Office, and other Capitol Hill staffers. Least used are social media, Wikipedia, blogs, and polls and surveys. I’ve taught my clients that academics are highly trustworthy, and that they need to get them on board to support their message, so it was gratifying to see this result.

The big take away here is that they are going to trusted sources, trust that is engendered through expertise (CBO and the CRS) or through similarity and relationship factors (other Capitol Hill staffers). They know that your social media sites and blogs are biased. Ditto for your internally-generated surveys and polls.

Think about that. . . .they are more comfortable with someone similar to them, someone they ostensibly trust, than the sacred social media sites. Again, where are you putting your time and energy emphasis?

I read recently in USA Today that of the Inc. 500’s fastest growing companies, only 37% blog on a regular basis. Remember when blogs were all the rage?

Abundant Tactics Are Diluted Tactics

When asked “What is least effective when trying to educate/influence Congress?” The responses were, in order:

1. Ads in Capitol Hill publications
2. Sending daily issue e-mails/newsletters
3. Organizing e-mail/postcard/call campaigns
4. Conducting opinion surveys or polls
5. Bringing in a former Member of Congress

I found the “Bringing in a former Member of Congress” response intriguing. I suspect that many organizations believe that having a former Member of Congress on their team obviates the need to win over and motivate the grassroots to carry their message.

Further, former Members of Congress are not as compelling as the “regular” constituent, the “ordinary” person telling their story. They are not a compelling underdog. (www.underdogedge.com) Further, I am certain that many former members “talk down” to a staffer. That isn’t a way to create peer-to-peer communications, is it?

I’ve repeatedly said that when it comes to grassroots tactics, “abundance dilutes impact.” The ubiquitous Capitol Hill ads are an example of Sisyphean tactics that should be jettisoned in favor of what works, but I guess organizations still enjoy seeing their message in print (and it never hurts to let your opponents know you care enough to spend the money).

Are You a Strategist or a Planner?

The bottom line: Are you trying to strategically improve your communications or are you planning your communications? Strategy is looking at where you want to be and making sure all tactics lead you to that strategic goal. Planning is simply taking what you’ve got and using those tactics, hoping you’ll see an improvement in your results. Planning embodies the “If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail” methodology. Which approach would you rather be known for?