Here’s a new study on social media use by top lobbying groups.
The study found that the vast majority of leading U.S. political advocacy groups are using at least one social media platform to connect and organize stakeholders.
The Three Approaches to Preparing for Objections
Effectively handling objections is largely based on what we do before, rather than in, the moment the objection surfaces. Government relations professionals tend to fall into one of three groups along a dimension of increasing sophistication.
One way some prepare is to self-reference, rather than contemplate the perspective of our PAC prospects. Unsophisticated influencers do not reflect on the influence situation at all. They would rather do rather than investigate. They like to have a short list of PAC tactics handy for any PAC influence situation. “I already know how to drive a car, so why should I look at a map? I know what buttons to push and what knobs to turn to make this car work.”
When they do not get the PAC results that they want, they wonder why they have been unsuccessful. Many times we blame our audience for being unreasonable, obstinate, stupid, unaware, etc. (Sound familiar?)
More insightful agents ask themselves questions before proceeding. They ask, “What can I do so my request is accepted? How would I respond to this type of approach if I were the prospect receiving this approach?” Here, they use their own preferences, reactions, experiences and intuitions as a touchstone in their PAC appeals. This is better than the approach above, as it causes us to think of ingratiation strategies, which strengthen the bond of liking between us and our PAC prospects, and liking is integral to successful influence. This is a good place to start for successful and ethical PAC persuasion.
The problem here, however, is that we may be a very different person psychologically from our PAC audience members. And the more different we are, the less successful is our strategy of self-referencing. This is why we make horrid decisions and wildly inaccurate predictions about how our influence prospects, whether members, legislators, the public, etc. will react. We reference from ourselves instead of the audience and we do not think about problems the same way that laypeople do, so we are at the risk of misunderstanding their psychology by a large margin. (Which is why you and I must learn to suspect our own intuitions as we become more experienced influence agents.)
The third group of PAC recruiters are the truly sophisticated PAC influencers. They ask questions of their prospects as well as of themselves, and they ask the prospect questions first. They wonder, “How does my prospect think, feel, perceive? What constrains or encourages my prospect to act?” They forget about themselves and their own perspectives and attempt to understand the psychological processes that worked for the prospect. And they ask a fundamentally different type of question. Rather than starting with “What can I. . .” types of questions, they start with “What does the prospect…” types of questions in an attempt to determine the internal state of their audience member. Plus, they do this with each audience segment. Think of the various types of members you have in your association. Each are mini “voting blocks” who think differently from other association members.
That is a smart and very effective methodology. We can tell who the sophisticated and experienced PAC influence agents are. They aren’t the ones who arrogantly base their campaign on intuitive insights into the audience, tired patriotic quotes, or past experiences with other PAC audiences. They show a little humility because they know they cannot know everything about the particular audience. They start by collecting data, asking questions, handing out questionnaires, and talking to audience members. And, by the way, they continue to collect data throughout the PAC campaign, constantly modifying the approach to match the needs of the audience as the campaign unfolds.
So, instead of denigrating our audience for their lack of enlightenment, we should focus more on their perspective when developing our PAC pitch and responding to their sincere objections.
Who Is Most Responsive to Get Out the Vote Programs?
Frequent voters are most responsive to GOTV (Get Out the Vote) requests. This is a critical finding for organizations with ballot issues and elections in non-presidential election years.
Target frequent voters for your off-year ballot or special elections. The content of the nonpartisan message does not matter so long as it is not outlandish. Alan Gerber and Donald Green found that telling people “one vote can make a difference” when the election is anticipated to be a blowout is completely ineffective. What does help spur turnout is information on the location of polling centers and poll hours.
Communicating with Congress: Myth vs. Reality
Brad Fitch joined CMF in 2001 as Deputy Director. In addition to assisting in the management of CMF, Brad conducts consulting sessions with congressional offices, leads training programs, and coordinates press inquiries. In addition, he was the managing editor of the 108th edition of Setting Course. Prior to joining CMF, Brad worked on Capitol Hill for 12 years in various capacities including: House Press Secretary, House Committee Communications Director, Senate Communications Director, and House Chief of Staff.
Brad also is the author of Media Relations Handbook for Agencies, Associations, Nonprofits, and Congress. Prior to working for Congress, Brad worked as a radio and television reporter. He is a member of the adjunct faculty at The American University, where he received a Masters degree in journalism and public affairs. He holds a Bachelors degree in political science from the Johns Hopkins University.
I’m always concerned when we admonish our advocates to engage in a certain method of legislator communication when there’s no evidence to support it. The wrong information ultimately discourages future involvement in the legislative and political process. So, in my continual pursuit of the truth, I interviewed Brad Fitch, Deputy Director of the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF).
The Congressional Management Foundation has been conducting research with congressional staff and Members of Congress relative to how they view, process, and respond to constituent communications. The CMF has received grants from the National Science Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trust to continue their quest to find out communications “best practices” between congressional offices and their constituents.
Q: What’s the mission of the Congressional Management Foundation?
A: The CMF was founded by Members of Congress. There was a sense that many staff members were good communicators, but maybe not great office managers. We serve as consultants to congressional staff on office management techniques, professional development, etc.
We also receive grants to conduct research to improve Congressional communications. One of our first reports from the Congress Online Project, “Email Over load in Congress” (2001) was very favorably received, and has led to additional research funding.
Q: What’s your background?
A: I’m a recovering disc jockey and typical “hill rat” who worked for four congressional offices and held almost every staff job – legislative director, press secretary and chief of staff. I enjoy the people and the institution. I wanted to help change the institution from within by strengthening congressional offices. I also teach communications at American University.
Q: Let’s talk about misconceptions between constituents and legislative offices. I delivered a workshop recently where one of the respondents was aghast that he “gave $1,000.00 to a U.S. Senator and got a form letter in return.” Obviously a big misunderstanding on his part. What does your research show to be some of the biggest misunderstandings constituents have about communicating with their Members of Congress?
A: One of them is the misconception about the resources available to a congressional office. I remember explaining to a constituent that there were 35 staff members in a particular U.S. Senate office and 20 were responsible for responding to constituents. This well-meaning individual couldn’t comprehend that 20 people would be needed to respond to constituent inquiries.
In the 1990’s about one to four percent of the population had communicated with their Member of Congress. Now with the Internet, that number is growing to five to seven percent of the population is communicating with Congress. This puts an extraordinary strain on the resources available to handle those communications.
Constituents also probably underestimate the value of their input. Following the 9/11 attacks and October 2001 anthrax attack, there was a palpable feeling of loss on the Hill with no constituents visiting the congressional offices and no mail. Members of Congress and staff were lonely. Constituent contact and mail is so important to them. The existence of the Congress is based on information; they really depend on hearing from constituents to get direction and know the pulse of their district.
Q: Based on your personal experience and the research, what are some of the “rules” for effective constituent communications?
A: First, citizens have to communicate with their elected representative. Many people think that “every member of Congress should be responsive to everyone.” Maybe that is appropriate with the Speaker of the House and those in certain leadership positions. However, offices who receive communications from those not in their district simply forward to the office that represents them. Or, in the case of e-mail, it’s simply filter out and never reaches anyone in Congress.
Also, letters have to have a clear request or “ask.” Simply writing to apprise a representative or senator about a particular issue isn’t very effective. And, it’s important for a constituent has to answer “why?” in the letter. What’s the impact on them personally, as well as on their community and state? For example, during the 2003 prescription drug benefit campaign, a message from one of the interest groups urged members of Congress to support a “real” prescription drug bill.” No specificity or reason behind it, just support a “real” bill.
Q: How do offices prioritize incoming mail? For example, many government relations professionals use a pyramid model that shows how congressional offices prioritize constituent input. It asserts that legislators pay more attention to letters from constituents who have volunteered for their campaign or contributed to their campaign. True or false?
A: I worked on Capitol Hill for four Members of Congress in the House and Senate, and came to know another dozen or so offices quite well. During my four years at the CMF I have worked closely with at least 100 offices. In all that time I have never seen an office capture that data. The only data that some offices capture is whether constituents are registered to vote (but not which party, which is against House rules for them to track.) The other information is illegal for members to collect and possess.
Overall, all members think mail is important. Whether they provide enough resources for their staff to manage their mail is debatable. There isn’t a universal application to how it is handled. Some offices create targeted constituent list and keep them informed by being proactive on issues important to those constituents. Others are reactive. They’ll ask their staff, “What’s the mail running on this?” and then action. It just varies in degrees and practices of someone in the Senate versus the House.
Q: How do legislators view meetings vs. letters vs. email, etc?
A: Personal meetings and “town hall” type events are frankly more impactful than written correspondence. Staff and lawmakers make a mental calculation of the investment a constituent made to come to Washington D.C., attend a town hall meeting, etc. This doesn’t go unnoticed by staff or the legislator.
Q: Since meetings are important, how can constituents have an effective meeting with congressional staff and/or their Member of Congress?
A:
- They need to be prepared for short meetings. 15-minute meetings are the norm, especially when Congress is in session. It doesn’t mean they don’t value the issue or the meeting, it just means they have 10 other meetings to attend that day.
- They need to have a specific ask. Do they want the Member to vote a certain way, to cosponsor legislation, to join a coalition? Be specific.
- Briefing materials need to be brief – under five pages. You’d be depressed if you looked at the basement of one of the House office buildings and saw the amount of paper wasted every day.
- Follow-up with staff electronically via e-mail with any requested information and of course to say thanks. A Chief of Staff friend of mine told me once, “if you want me to pass on something to the boss, you better give it to me in a format I can cut and paste.”
- Don’t bring too many people to the meeting. Offices are very small, especially in the House.
Five people is a good number – 10 might be too many.
