The major reason most lobbying fails and what you can do about it

by
Most lobbyists* are not understood by the people they are trying to persuade—the people making the decisions on a policy/law.
Most lobbyists** appear content to speak in a language that only they and fellow travellers can understand.  Anyone who can’t deconstruct the meaning does not deserve to be spoken to, let alone decide on a policy/proposal.
Over 28 years, I’ve been resigned to not having a clue about what many lobbyists are talking about.  It even happens in those few things that I thought I had a good understanding. I feel clueless about what is being said.
I could get worried. My brain synapses may be misfiring. Perhaps the side effects from chemo treatment 10 years ago are finally kicking in. Maybe I’m the only vegetarian who got Mad Cow disease?
Fortunately, I’m not alone.
I’ve come up with a simple device to check if I am alone. I ask someone who is smart if they understood what was being said. They tend to admit they are lost.  I even ask a recognised expert in the field if they understood what was being said, and often they’ll draw a blank at what was being said.
I thought the gibberish only appeared in certain areas, but it seems more widespread.  Is it the hard water in Brussels?
Communicating complex issues clearly and simply is not easy. It is not impossible.
It would not matter if the people making the decisions understood your gibberish.  It is likely that they don’t. If you are not understood, the chance of you getting what you want is between 0-1%. ***
The Elevator Pitch
I believe the ‘elevator pitch’ is a good device.
The following exercise can take between 15-30 minutes to prepare.
Here is my checklist for preparing an elevator pitch.
Step 1
  1. Sit in a quiet space with no distractions.
  2. Take what your position paper/policy asks
  3. Open a pad of paper and take a pen.
  4. Picture the person you are pitching your policy ask. Write out their name.
  5. List what drives them. What could you say that speaks to them/interests them? What interests them is not the same as what interests you.
  6. Write out what you would say to them. I find pen and paper best.
  7. Communicate like a human. Use plain and simple words. Use appropriate analogies, metaphors, and anecdotes that resonate with the audience.
  8. Check your script. Does it (1) communicate your position, (2) in a way that is understood by the intended audience?
  9. Do two versions. One for an official/politician who is knowledgeable about the issue, and the second for an official/politician who is new to the issue.
Step 2
  1. Open your mobile phone and launch the video recorder.
  2. Turn it on and record yourself standing up, making the pitch to the expert and non-expert.
  3. This will be no more than 30-60 seconds.
  4. Sit down and turn on a transcription device (e.g. Otter.ai).
  5. Listen to what you said. Do you sound like you have dropped 2 grams of medical-grade amphetamines by the speed you are talking at? Do you go “erm, ah” every 5th word? Do you have the emotional range of a Dalek?
  6. Watch your delivery. Are you nervously pulling your earlobe?
  7. Look at the transcript. Did you say what you intended to say? Often people go way off script.
Step 3
  1. Refine the script.
  2. Redo the pitch recording yourself.
  3. Send the video for feedback:
    1. To a collegue who has no idea about the issue.
    2. To a friend is who is brutally frank with you
    3. If you have access, test it with an official/politician/political advisor working on the file
  4. Ask them for their feedback. Do you make sense? Does it resonate with them?
Step 4
  1. Take on board the feedback
  2. Refine your script
  3. Go out into the real world and deliver pitch
  4. Refine to improve.
You may think this is a lot of work to deliver your ask.
It is.
I see it in simple terms.
Option 1 – the preferred option for most – is to deliver your pitch in words that only you and your supporters understand, let alone believe in. It more or less ensures defeat, but at least you have the comfort that you said what you wanted to say.
You’ll feel a sense of moral superiority, believing the fault lies with those who had no idea what you were saying. That bad is on them. You shoot from the hip and see where things land as an afterthought.
Option 2, the approach outlined in this post, requires more time to prepare. Spontaneity is banished. A surgical approach to micro-target the story for the people making the decisions on your file is the order of the day. The faith-like acclamation of your client’s belief in ancient Armaciac is not for you.
The only downside of option 2 is that you stand a good chance of winning. The shock of winning may be too hard to handle.
*Includes clients, both industry and NGOs, issue experts pretending to be lobbyists, and lobbyists.
** Around 80%.
** 1% is based on a wild burst of optimism.