Public affairs and political engagement is about recognising that you are not always in control. An effective campaign should strive for stability and impact but should not fall into the trap of believing that it has full control over the agenda. That is the path to complacency and failure.
Campaigns should change over time. New circumstances and arguments will come forward at irregular intervals and campaigns need to have the in-built flexibility to respond.
There is, however, sometimes a view expressed, often from senior management, that the campaign should exert control. Every adverse comment or media mention is taken as a slight on the integrity of the campaign.
Managing expectations inside your organisation then comes into the equation. There are a number of reasons why absolute control is not only unachievable but in most cases undesirable.
SOCIAL MEDIA
Without wishing to lapse into cliché, people power is increasing as they have the tools at their disposal to become active. An organisation’s social media presence is seen as representative of its approach to delivering on its core aims. What happens on social media is amplified through the media, becomes viral and one wrong move online can have a powerful impact on reputation. Campaigns often look at hashtag activism as a way of delivering benefits. For those in the charitable sector this type of activism can show weight of numbers but politicians are becoming increasingly sceptical about ‘standard’ submissions and responses.
PEOPLE ARE SCEPTICAL
There is a lack of trust in politicians, the media and businesses, especially in financial services. If they believe that any of these are leading a campaign then motivation becomes an even bigger challenge. The materials produced, statistics, options for development etc are all examined thoroughly. Armchair experts have always existed but the current generation have the research capabilities, tools, precedents and campaign abilities right in front on them on electronic devices. The scepticism is also fuelled by the ability to make contact with others and see what has been elsewhere – what were the tactics, key messages etc. The armchair experts can then formulate responses in advance.
THINK LOCAL
All this scepticism means that two things. One there has to be a great deal more creativity behind campaigns, it is not advisable to simply roll out what has worked before. It also means that campaigns behind projects need to be built from the bottom up, not imposed from above. Communities need engagement and motivation, they need the evidence and access to documents. The experts are treated with the same scepticism as others.
Looking at campaigns from their perspective brings potential benefits. Unexpected questions and opposition will be less likely to arise and the community more likely to be motivated to support. This degree of engagement will take time to secure and is a different approach from simply working with other groups to support your case. If that is a preferred option then make sure they too have the ability to motivate as well.
The control is potentially less but the benefits more substantial.
Overt control is essentially counterproductive. Harsh criticism of opponents will only alienate and the tone of voice adopted is critical to constructive engagement. It is right to counter misunderstandings or inaccuracies but detail is critical, a simple rebuttal may not be believed.
Take, for example, the use of websites. A control fixated organisation will not allow comments. An organisation that wants to engage, and build support and trust will roll with any punches because of the long term benefits. Failure to engage will not build goodwill and does not mean that control has been maintained in any case.
Public affairs campaigns operate in a very different environment now. Absolute control is a myth that needs to be debunked. Instead the onus needs to be on effective engagement. In that way you can motivate people and they will be more likely to support you.