An alternative to the ‘spray shit and hope it sticks’ communication method

This is a long post.

Lobbying is easy enough. It comes down to engaging:

1. At the right time

2. With the right people

3. With the right message (case, solution and evidence) presented in the right way – telling the right story.

To get 1,2, and 3 right, you’ll need to understand the process.

It seems obvious enough. In a city of tens of thousands of campaigners and lobbyists, it is surprisingly rare.

It is more common for people to wake up too late and step in after key decisions have been made.

They’ll ignore the key decision makers, often on the pretext that they “may not agree with me”. They prefer to meet only fellow travellers.

And, a lot of what passes for political/policy communication flops.

It is more basic than the 55-page position paper written in technical gobbledegook.  That’s just a symptom of an underlying condition.

I sense that most people don’t want to communicate with those who hold different views and positions from their own.

This is a city that prefers tribal groupthink—ideological clones who embrace the same world-view.

They find it impossible to believe that other people don’t have the same groupthink chip embedded in their brains. When they meet non-believers, they react with a mixture of pity or disdain.

When I use the term ‘groupthink’, maybe I should use the term ‘niche think’, because outside of this town, you’ll only find a handful of people sharing the same mildly obsessive point of view on the Dark Web or internal committee meetings.

Communication starts and ends with a recitation of their catechism of beliefs to the non-believer. Many lobbyists believe that the force of their words alone will cast out the demons in others and lead to instant conversion to the proper path/position.

I don’t deny that there are advocates with such powers. It is just that over 28 years, I have yet to meet them.

The most successful lobbyists try a different approach. It is called ‘storytelling’. Humans have been using it successfully for a few thousand of years (at least). More on that superpower later.

A lot of political and policy communication in Brussels appears to come down to some variation of one of the three scenarios:

My gut feeling is that storytelling is shunned in Brussels.

This is a shame.

Storytelling is one of the oldest human activities. We read stories to our children, explaining where we come from, who we are, and how we do things around here. Verbal communication is part of us. I still remember stories about

A lot of meetings I’ve sat in had a lobbyist and their client come in and say to my boss, “I’m the expert here. I have the training, the experience, and I know what needs to be done. And you must accept my point of view and do what I say needs to be done”.  To this day, I’ve never seen it work as a means of persuasion.

There are simple, time-tested, and effective techniques that can be used.

Having a conversation, telling a story, using metaphors, analogies and parables, works.  These techniques have been used by humans for thousands of years.

It is especially useful when presenting new perspectives.  It makes it easier for the person to follow you and listen to you. Stories bring it back down to where you both are at the same level, and you are simply having a conversation.

If you think that your expertise, long experience, certificates on your wall, and publication list, title,  is all that is needed to convince someone to agree to your point of view, you are in a for a rude awakening.

Your expertise is not enough to change opinions.

Instead, you can speak directly to people in such a way that they can hear it and take it in without having to challenge what you say. And, none of it involves magic.

First, listen to what people are saying. Understand what is driving them.

Second, try to use similar words to those they use.  This forces you to pay more attention to what they are saying.

If you think what others are saying is just plain wrong or stupid, or listening to them is a waste of your time, please stop. You are only interested in communicating with people who already share your views. This group of fellow believers is usually a minority of decision-makers. You are cognitively unable to communicate with people who don’t agree with you.  You are almost certain not to be able to persuade enough people to support you. This is a large group of people.

As a lobbyist, if you want a conversation with a decision-maker, the first thing you have to do is get the attention.  Then you have to hold their attention. Then, you need them to respond. There are many ways to get their attention, many of which are bad, and some are good.

This is important. You need to get their attention when the time is right. If you arrive after the decision has been made, you will not have any influence. If too early, your case will likely be forgotten.

If you have a study that supports your case/ask, no one is going to know about it if you just hint at its existence. They need a copy of it.

The report needs to be clear for the intended audience and address the points that they will want to know the answers to.

If it is not clear in the first 3 paragraphs of the Executive Summary, it is pointless.  The people you want to read the report, won’t.

It helps not to send in 55 pages of text, without any graphs or data visualisation. Your love of the written word is not shared outside of your inner circle.

If you don’t provide credible evidence to support your case, you are wasting decision-makers’ time. You are harming your case. I’ve read many reports that make stark claims, that are so blindingly obvious to a tight inner circle, that they deem it unnecessary to provide credible references to support their claims.

If you turn up and don’t provide a solution to the problem at hand, you are better placed to move to theoretical corridors of academia, a partisan think tank, or a cult.

I’m not sure how many officials spend their day following  Social Media ads. I am cautious about their influence here. I suspect some politicians may be swayed.

If producing a report, use the same guidelines the European Commission uses.  Even better, if you can afford it, use the same expert consultants that the Commission uses.

Make sure that all the claims are ironclad.

Provide the sources of any data, evidence, and the claims that you make.

Inform the Commission officials that you are conducting the study and request that they review it before it is published. Commit to correct any errors that they identify. It will increase their buy-in.

And, then do what you said you would do, and send them a pre-publication copy, and make the corrections.

I opt for using a similar briefing style to that which officials and politicians produce for themselves.  This helps them become comfortable with the language you are using.  They may not agree with you, but it opens up the conversation, and make the whole exercise more productive.

The print media, especially the highbrows, grabs attention. Discover what your audience of decision-makers reads and engage with those outlets.

Sketching your idea on the back of a napkin has a great success rate of influencing public policy decisions (see here).

You’ll need to be clear for your intended audience. If your words make sense to you, but not to your audience, you’ve wasted their and your time. You are unlikely to get a second chance.

This is a serious problem in Brussels. It infects both industry and NGOs. I’ve seen it too many times. An expert engages with an official or politician and spews out a barrage of words that create an impenetrable fog. The listener is often left none the wiser. The expert is often confident that they have conveyed their message effectively. The only thing that they have landed is confusion.

So, it is common even if you are able to get a decision-maker’s attention, you won’t be able to hold it, or get them to make a positive response.

You’ll need to engineer trust. If you or your client is not trusted, there is little that can be done. Trust is hard to gain and easily lost.  Do what you say you’ll do.  If you are completing a study by 1 July and say you’ll send it to them, do so. Don’t bury it because you don’t like the study.

In just one anecdote, you can place a large amount of material. Told well, the kernel will be remembered acted upon.

You’ll need to prepare the anecdotes and use the most appropriate one if it seems right.

The alternative is to spray shit and hope it sticks. And, even though it may, the receipient is going to be traumtaised by the mess.

You can find the working material for the anecdotes from your everyday work.  They’ll be short, interesting, and memorable.

Write the stories out. Use a pen and paper.

Alternatively, just dictate it to your laptop and review the transcript.

Draw on the rich examples that you have experienced. I always request a site visit when I begin a project. A few hours walking around with a site manager and speaking with the team on the work floor will tell me 90% + of what I need to know.

Stories don’t come from fingertips on a keyboard.

Summarise into key words one 1 piece of paper (don’t lose the piece of paper).

Sorry, no Committee meetings/Zoom calls. Collective groupthink does not produce convincing stories. Use it to fact-check. No more.