Roots of
Success
Spring 2009 | Volume 11 | Issue 2
Amy Showalter
Grassroots and PAC Productivity Expert
Spring 2009 | Volume 11 | Issue 2
Amy Showalter
Grassroots and PAC Productivity Expert
Sound Bites from Innovate to Motivate® 2009
Research Review: What Makes a Hero? Why Should Political Involvement Professionals Even Care?
Innovate to Motivate® 2009 in Pictures
Lessons From Thieves
In the News:
Amy's insights featured on www.politico.com
Amy's insights in Roll Call: Bailout Vote Offers Lessons in Persuasion Tactics
Insights from Innovate to Motivate® 2009
Well, I admit to being an extremely biased observer, but here are some of my “keeper” observations from the 2009 confab, followed by comments from the conference attendees.
First, the people who attend I2M truly are “different.” They don’t engage in butt-covering conversations, they are secure enough to be candid and openly discuss what’s working and what’s not, they are willing to challenge each other, think differently, and take prudent risks to move forward (not that I feel strongly about that or anything).
Because Innovate draws proven (over 75% are managers and above) political involvement professionals, the group discussions and Q & A are at a higher level. In the words of several conference participants, the atmosphere is “different than at other conferences.”
We avoid cliques. We don’t believe that we have an obligation to include someone as a practitioner faculty member who doesn’t meet our criteria. We don’t pick our speakers based on who is in the community, who we feel an obligation to ask, etc. (Although many times they fit the criteria!) We base it on a track record and presentation skills. In fact, over 75% of our practitioner speakers are not members of our Advisory Committee.
What did the participants have to say?
“The number one sound-bite that I return to at least once a day came from you regarding PAC fundraising. It was, “Ask for more than what you want; take what you can get.” It’s so simple but so impactful, and I’m applying it everywhere I can. Little things make a big difference, I suppose!”
Micah Intermill
Director of Advocacy
Assisted Living Federation of America
“Steve and I reckoned our Beacon of Hope encounter to something Robert Greenleaf once said and that is "Good leaders must first become good servants". Every ounce of dirt and every aching muscle was worth it. We felt instant gratification. Faces filled with hope and words of appreciation from the home owners were so rewarding. It was a great bonding experience with the 40 some I2M family members. We both agreed that it is an experience that we will never forget! Thank you for leading the way.....”
Carrie Schneider
Consumers Energy
“I really liked Abby's session on information management and her tips on helping us to manage all the information that comes our way instead of feeling overwhelmed by e-mail, e-newsletters, and all the other information that comes out way. Her suggestion of "read the best, get rid of the rest" is helpful to me.
Wendy Schrag
Director of Advocacy and State Government Affairs
Fresenius Medical Care
“There is no doubt that Innovate to Motivate is just different than other conferences. And I mean that in the most positive way. There is no comparison.”
Darrcy Loveland
Senior Counsel
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
“Innovate to Motivate® is not just about how to run better PAC’s and grassroots organizations. For me, the conference is about helping us become better people.”
Patroski Lawson
Director, Government Affairs
Solvay Pharmaceuticals
“We would come out of every session and say, ‘That is the best session of the conference!’ The problem is, that kept happening after every session. It just kept getting better and better.”
Rizza Hermosisima
Director, Public Policy and Advocacy
Centocor-Ortho Biotech, LLC
Airfare to New Orleans......$300
Hotel Stay at Monteleone……$800
Box of beignet mix for the Petsitter……$5
Networking with political involvement peers & faculty at I2M……..PRICELESS
Kelly Knowles
Director, American Bakers Association
Co-Chair, Innovate to Motivate® 2009
(back to top)
Research Review
What Makes a Hero? Why Should Political Involvement Professionals Even Care?
I read with interest recent Harris Poll® results from a cross-section of adult Americans. The survey asked them who they admire and call their “heroes.” President Obama was number one, followed by Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King. Others in the top ten, in descending order: Ronald Regan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa. The heroes were named spontaneously, and participants were not given a list to choose from.
Today’s Hero is Tomorrow’s “Has Been”
I don’t take this information as the gospel truth because the research shows that when asked to recall this type of information, they usually go to what the researchers call “availability”––what is most available in their mind, also known as “primacy.” This is important because as political involvement persuaders, we should showcase our grassroots and PAC heroes. As many of you know, I have reminded people for about 11 years now to bring your organization’s iconic characters into your recruitment efforts. This is a reminder that today’s hero is not tomorrow’s or next week’s hero.
For example, the last time the Harris Poll® conducted the survey a few years ago, Michael Jordan was number nine and he is no longer in the top 20. Mother Teresa was number five and is now number 10. Colin Powell was number three and he is out of the top ten to number 16. Even John Wayne was number eight and he has now dropped out of the top 20. Are these people less heroic now? Did they commit a dastardly deed just made known to ruin their reputation? Probably not. However, they just are not top of mind anymore.
The bottom line: Make sure you align your heroes with those of your audience. If you are engaging iconic characters to move your grassroots program and/or PAC, make sure your heroes are relevant to your audience.
What Makes a Hero and Why Should You Care?
The Harris Poll® respondents gave many reasons to explain their choices, including: “doing what is right regardless of consequences,” “not giving up until goals are accomplished,” “doing more than what other people expect,” “overcoming adversity,” “and staying calm in a crisis.”
This coincides with an interesting finding I am uncovering as I write my book on underdog influencers. When I asked retired legislatures to tell me about someone who changed their mind on an issue, the underdog usually exhibits one of the above qualities. They demonstrate that they have indeed overcame adversity, suffered, and persevered.
The bottom line: First, it is probably good to have some organizational heroes who have gotten hurt. Second, have a batting order of icons and heroes. Today’s hero is tomorrow’s “has been.”
(back to top)
Lessons from Thieves
I had some property stolen. Intellectual property, that is. As a company that conducts and distributes original research, we get ripped off now and then. “Ripped off” meaning that people use our material without attribution or, in the most egregious example of intellectual miniaturization, they present it as their own material. I take this very, very seriously.
The Plagiarizer as Teacher
Recently, a consultant blatantly took content from my 105 Ways to Build Relationships Your Legislators booklet and published it in a state society magazine as his content. After a motivational letter from my attorney, he admitted to the offense and removed the material. Alas, this was another “learning moment” for me.
This experience made me think of two things: Number one, who we allow to advise us, and number two, the importance of having and protecting an original grassroots and PAC brand.
From Whom Do You Take Advice?
The plagiarism incident reinforced my belief that we must always “consider the source.” My plagiarizer friend interestingly conducts seminars on how to lobby. My attorney found that he included some “tips” for communicating with legislators on his website. The one that amused us was to “do your own research.”
I do not accept publishing and advice from someone who has never been commercially published. I do not work with PR people that I’ve never heard of. I do not accept speech coaching advice from someone who is charging $1,500.00 for a keynote they have never delivered, or from the “communications expert” who has never been hired as a keynote speaker. If someone has technical or web marketing advice, they better have a fabulous website. If they are giving suggestions on image and personal presence, their appearance should knock my socks off.
Think about it. Should you take advice from someone who has never had to motivate a grassroots volunteer, persuade a CEO to spend money on your program, or make personal phone calls for PAC money?
I am aware of an organization for government relations professionals that does not return member phone calls if they find out that the member is affiliated with a competing organization. One of the services they provide for members is advice on how to build grassroots networks. Maybe one of their pieces of advice for keeping people engaged is to ignore people who exercise free choice.
Who are you listening to? In the words of the world-class executive coach and author Marshall Goldsmith, PhD, “Just because you’re on third base doesn’t mean you hit a triple.”
Originality and Your Brand
Amyism #37
The Grassroots/PAC Brand: "Just like any company is known by the quality of its customers, so too is a government relations department known by the quality of its grassroots or PAC customers. Potential PAC and grassroots members are attracted to reliable, successful brands. If you aren't happy with the quality of your customers, you need to alter your brand."
The Grassroots/PAC Brand: "Just like any company is known by the quality of its customers, so too is a government relations department known by the quality of its grassroots or PAC customers. Potential PAC and grassroots members are attracted to reliable, successful brands. If you aren't happy with the quality of your customers, you need to alter your brand."
I came up with that Amyism years ago. About five years ago, in fact, and it still rings true today. All advocacy groups and PAC’s are in a competition. Your interest group, association, or corporation is in a competition for the involvement and emotional allegiance of your stakeholders and outside audiences. While true allegiance is a long-term process, you need to get the attention of your prospects to even have a fighting chance for their attention.
As Sam Horn, The Intrigue Expert and our keynote speaker at Innovate to Motivate said, “People are busy and bored. You have to capture their attention by being purposeful, original and pithy.”
One way to be original is to provide exclusive information to our grassroots and PAC volunteers. For example, because I have seen it come up with my own client research, and reiterated in Dr. Frank Luntz’s book, Words That Work, I urge clients to refrain from extensive use of the ubiquitous patriotic quotes and clichés in their PAC pitches. I simply have not seen patriotism rise to the top (or even be mentioned) as one of the reasons people give to a PAC, and that is consistent throughout a variety of industries and professions.
But what do many PAC professionals do? You got it – they use the stirring patriotic quotes over and over, because those quotes motivate them. The problem is, it’s not about them, and it’s about their audience! When you start thinking about what matters to your audience. And, if you don’t know, do some solid research, and rigorously implement the findings.
(back to top)
In The News
Amy's insights featured on www.politico.com: "Will Obama's Grassroots Stand Tall?" Read the full story at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18915.html
Amy's insights in Roll Call: Bailout Vote Offers Lessons in Persuasion Tactics
The $700 billion financial bailout is front and center again, with the U.S. auto industry campaigning for a piece of the pie this week. So now seems like an appropriate time to review the House's two votes on the Wall Street rescue plan, where we find a compelling case study for anyone who wants to better understand how to change a lawmaker's mind.
A closer look at some of the 58 Members of Congress who changed their votes from no to yes illustrates what I have described as "key predictors" of effective persuasion tactics.
The predictors of success are based on original research that my firm conducted with more than 20 government relations professionals at top lobbying organizations in 2006 and 2007. Most of the participants were from organizations on Fortune's Power 25, which includes well-known grass-roots organizations like the National Rifle Association, AARP and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Participants were asked to account for more than 70 variables that predict an organization's ability to influence the hardest political target of all: undecided legislators.
The most powerful example from the bailout vote involved the margin of victory. Our experience and research show there are several predictors that can cause legislators to change their minds. The most prominent is that they are more likely to change their minds if they won their last election by a wide margin.
Of the 58 who changed their minds, 50 were unopposed or won their seats by comfortable or wide margins in 2006. So it follows that of the 41 Members in competitive races, 34 refused to vote for the controversial bailout package both times.
Our survey showed that freshman legislators were more strident in their views and less likely to change their minds than seasoned legislators. So I wasn't surprised that all of the 15 freshman Republicans voted against the rescue package twice despite a full court press by President George W. Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
It gets even more interesting when you look at the lawmakers who did change their minds and their reasons why.
Our survey showed that undecided lawmakers are more likely to change their minds if they hear from people they trust. We call those people "key influentials" -- personal friends, local elected officials and opinion leaders in the legislator's district.
At least 10 of the lawmakers who changed their minds and voted "yes" on the second vote said they were influenced by phone calls or other communication from constituents or opinion leaders, all of whom could be defined as "key influentials." Several said they changed their minds after talking to the presidential candidates, McCain and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who were certainly considered to be "key influentials" of the highest order.
Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), a fiscal conservative, told the New York Times that he changed his vote after receiving a torrent of telephone calls and e-mails that had swung in favor of the bill. He also said he heard from Leo Lambert, the president of Elon University, who said the school had been squeezed by the credit crisis.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) told the Washington Post that his change of heart was influenced by a small-business owner who makes wire baskets in Baltimore and feared he couldn't make payroll because a bank had cut his line of credit.
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) changed her vote after she heard from some of the largest employers in her district who were struggling to make payroll, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), who faced one of the toughest re-election fights in the House, told the Associated Press that he changed his mind after he received telephone calls from General Motors Corp. chief executive officer G. Richard Wagoner Jr. and other auto and corporate executives. "I've never talked to as many bank president in my life, over my entire life," he said.
Knollenberg has received $131,500 from GM since he started serving in Congress in 1993, according to Federal Election Commission records, illustrating another "predictor of influence success." Our survey showed that giving a legislator the maximum allowable political action committee contribution is a predictor of persuasion success.
Lobbyists representing the housing, financial, auto and other business sectors pushed hard for the bailout bill. Several of the lawmakers who changed their minds received campaign contributions from those industry PACs.
Schmidt has received $70,100 from American Financial Group Inc., a Cincinnati-based insurance holding company, and $15,500 from the American Bankers Association since she was elected to Congress in 1989.
Rep. Judy Biggert (R) was the only Illinois lawmaker to change her mind about the bailout package. Since she began representing her suburban Chicago district in 1989, she has received $45,000 from the National Association of Realtors, $39,500 from the National Automobile Dealers Association and $37,548 from the ABA.
Most lawmakers say they aren't influenced by campaign contributions, but the recent bailout votes suggest otherwise. We found that the most successful influence attempts typically include campaign contributions. In other words, a PAC contribution represents "exchange" and cements relationships.
(back to top)
©
2009 The Showalter
Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction or
redistribution without permission strictly prohibited.
Amy Showalter
The Showalter Group, Inc.
Momentum and Motivation for Grassroots and PAC Success
312 Walnut Street
1600 Scripps Center
Cincinnati, OH 45202
P 513.762.7668
F 513.553.9777
www.showaltergroup.com
Do you want your grassroots volunteers and PAC members to build relationships with their legislators beyond fund raisers, Hill fly-ins and state capitol lobby days?
www.105ways.com