Why does lobbying fail – when your advocacy throws the case

When at law school, I spent my holidays working in a law firm. It was mainly working on criminal defence. I enjoyed it and learned a lot, some of which I apply to this day.

In one case, I witnessed the Crown’s Barrister do an amazing job of alienating the jury. So much so that the jury found the defendant not guilty. And, I’ve witnessed similar displays over the last 29 years.

The organisation’s advocate, whether their lobbyist, expert, or leader, comes in to meet officials and politicians. Their words and actions turn people who were on their side into firm opponents. This applies to both companies and NGOs.

I’ve seen it so many times that I started to take it for normal. Yet, I’ve seen a good advocate (and this is a small list) who has swayed opponents to abstention or support.

Lobbyists are not natural advocates. suspect it is because most lobbyists are not hired or trained to be advocates. They are hired/trained to be issue experts or project managers. The face-to-face advocacy is, at best, a sideline, and not their main skill set.

A good way to learn the necessary skill set is canvassing at election time. I know of no better way to hone your message clearly, quickly and on points of interest to the voter in front of you. And then there are just a lot of hours in front of officials and politicians pleading your case.

If you were on trial in front of a jury, on a criminal case, it is like hiring a conveyancing solicitor to represent you. They won’t have the experience or know the rules of procedure to deliver a not guilty verdict. Their skill set won’t be the right skill set you need to win.

I think it is the second major reason why organisations’ lobbying fails is that their advocate is not good. The first is that they don’t have a written plan.

Your case may just be weak. A good advocate will tell you this. They’ll tell you what evidence they need to make your case strong. If you don’t give them the evidence they need, a good advocate is still likely to fail.

When I speak to friends who are on the receiving end of lobbyists, they tend to ignore those who are:

It is a simple checklist of things not to do. Yet, they are commonly practised by lobbyists.

There are meetings that are as unpleasant as this one.

You can avoid the near-certain defeat by doing 1-5.

A simple trick I use is to speak to the officials and politicians the organisation/possible client works with. It gives you a sense of the lay of the land and how they are seen by the people with whom they interact. I’ve found it gives an accurate assessment.

It may not give you a pretty picture. It helps identify if things are winnable or saveable. When they are not, I’ve got to the stage of opting not to work for the possible client. Sometimes, you can’t win because the potential client practices many, and often all of the 1-11, and won’t change.

If you enjoy running into a brick wall, headfirst, at speed without a helmet, many times, this is the client for you.

A simple way to see if your advocate is effective and to persuade decision-makers is to do a dry run rehearsal.

Bring in people who have worked as officials, politicians, or advisers to act. Provide a realistic setting of what the meeting will be like. Get the advocate to do what he would do in the meeting with the official/politicians.

Record the whole exercise. It is often going to be painful to watch. It provides immediate feedback. From which, with luck, people can learn and adapt.

If your advocate practices a few of the 11, especially those at the top of the list, you can iron out the wrinkles. If your advocate can’t adapt or practice the lower half of the list, you have three options. Either, pull the person meeting, or cancel the meeting, or just know you are going to throw your case at the meeting.

You may want to bring an observer to the meetings just to see how they go. They can see if the case is landing, is your advocate is persuasive and trusted?

They can provide feedback to a broader group of people in your organisation.

Pass them off in the meeting as a note-taker.

If your case is not landing with decision-makers, it going to be because of three reasons:

1. Your case is not persuasive/strong.

2. Your advocate is not persuasive

3. A combination of 1 and 2.

If you want to win, you face two options. You adapt or continue.

If your voice in the field, your advocate, practices 1-11, you can pull them from the field.

If your case is weak and is not landing, re-look at it. If you realise you are speaking to yourself, your language and evidence can be enhanced to become more persuasive. If your case is structurally weak, that is, it does not land with the people who are making the decisions, and you refuse to adapt, you know the outcome early on.

It is useful to do a post-mortem at the end of the engagement. You can get a better understanding of why you did not get what you wanted and how you can improve next time around.

You may learn that your advocates and case were dreadful. You only persuaded your dark web fetish community and not enough decision-makers. This is useful. You can opt to denounce the vast majority of decision-makers who rejected your pleadings. Or, you can advance through the stages of grief quickly, take on board the lessons learned, and adapt.

Few organisations dare to do this. It is too painful. If you do it, you’ll learn the root causes on why you lost. If you act on the lessons, you may even win next time.