In issues management, as in chess, control comes from shifting the momentum of the game when others seem to be dictating the terms.

In managing corporate image and public policy issues, sometimes in the heat of battle we can lose sight of our most valuable weapon: Play your game.

When a corporation's only strategy is to stand toe-to-toe with its opponents, even on cordial terms, the opposition usually gets the upper hand. To succeed, some other communication strategy must be operating simultaneously. Why? Because engaging in toe-to-toe, "he-said, she-said" tactics only succeeds in creating a lot of noise and, worse for the corporation's ultimate business goal, delay.

Noise, and the resulting news coverage, forces constituencies to take sides. And polarized constituencies make elected and appointed officials react in one of two ways:

Government legislators and regulators intervene opportunistically "on behalf of the public good" when the private sector mishandles controversial matters.

Yes, from time to time we have to play "he-said, she-said" to defend against outrageous accusations. But if that is all a company does, it will probably lose something or everything.

So, how do you play your game? How do you play by your rules, instead of the opposition's? There are many strategic options available, and sometimes finding the most effective one can be as challenging as it is essential. Know, however, that it is there. It is always there.

Example No. 1:

A utility asked the state to approve storing spent nuclear fuel outside its nuclear plant and safely above ground until it could be stored in a federal repository in future years. Activists and the media labeled the proposal as a "nuclear dump" on the shores of a major waterway.

Our client and we deployed the traditional communications, such as appearing on TV/radio talk-shows, submitting op-eds and lobbying regulators and lawmakers. And, of course, our opposition did the same. The stalemate was broken when we released to the media an independent research report that proved, based on a telephone survey actually designed to skew in the opposition's favor, eight of 10 households in the state favored nuclear energy as a continuing part of the power generation mix.

Activists who had claimed to represent citizens went silent. The media searched for flaws and biases in the report but found none. The noise dropped to a whisper, and the regulators-comfortable the issue was not nearly as controversial as activists and media had made it appear-approved the project well before the critical deadline.

Example No. 2:

Public opposition was mounting to a major municipal sewerage district's practice of applying treated sewage sludge to outlying farms as fertilizer. Local governments passed ordinances banning the practice. The district asked us to publicize its changeover to an injection-method of application, which would reduce offensive odors wafting over nearby subdivisions. But citizen opposition had become so entrenched that, by itself, a public relations strategy would appease no one.

Instead, we borrowed a page from Europe's experience, where treated sewage sludge is nicknamed "black gold" and is held up as a near-perfect example of recycling. We utilized a multi-pronged strategy that combined a community and government relations program with a risk management program and a new internal operations program to change the prevailing negative perception of sludge.

No new ordinances were passed. Lawsuits were dropped. And in two years the sewerage district was selling out the entire inventory of a product it once could barely give away. That year the program won the highest public relations award in the United States- the Silver Anvil-for the community relations campaign created by the agency and implemented by the sewerage district.

Example No. 3:

One of the world's largest meat processors made the highest bid for a bankrupt rival's production and processing unit. The bid was accepted, subject to regulatory and bankruptcy court approvals. Lawmakers and activist groups mounted a media-focused campaign opposing the acquisition, claiming it would lead to the ruination of family farms because the buyer was a large corporation.

We were asked to intervene on a playing field where the opposition already had secured the emotional high ground. We created a comprehensive grassroots campaign that positioned the client on its own grounds, in its best game: The company was the finest, most trustworthy and best-capitalized choice to generate the greatest value for creditors, who included "regular folks" such as the bankrupt company's employees, independent producers, customers and local communities. The client's management team met with local editors, community leaders, key legislators and employees to put a face on the "big, bad company."

The stakeholder effort neutralized the opposition and succeeded in securing all of the required regulatory and court approvals within 90 days of the initial bid.

"Relocating" the debate

Playing your game means moving from the field where the opposition wants to play to the field where we want to play. It means detonating positives over here, while the opposition strains to focus attention on negative claims over there. And it sometimes means overwhelming an issues message with a marketing message that reminds constituencies, lawmakers and regulators alike of the real value of our business to family and community. It almost never means facing off with competing public affairs messages in paid media. But always, it requires the client's senior management, lobbying arm and communications arm and agency to arrive, together, at the same strategic spot.

back to the top

Be constructive in asserting your position. To do otherwise is to be perceived as obstinate or interested solely in profit.

The ultimate goal of issues management is to manage public perceptions of an organization to effect a positive reputation and, ultimately, business success. The basis for this is simply human nature: We want to do business with a company that has operations, products or services worthy of our patronage. We want to do business with somebody we trust. Someone who shares our values, someone positive.

Sounds simple enough, but in reality it takes planning and strategy to make it happen. Elevating a corporate reputation often begins with the basic tenet found in one of our Rules of the Road essays: "Play your game." And a corollary of playing your game is to "stand for, not against." If we are against something, it cannot be because "here's what's wrong with it." No, we are against this because we are for that. The difference is resounding, thunderous.

Imagine, for example, that a state EPA or Department of Natural Resources has informed industry statewide that: (a) it plans to regulate about 400 substances currently in use, from paints to industrial chemicals, that staff thinks might be hazardous to health, (b) permits will be required henceforth, and application-to-permit time will range from nine months to one year, and (c) the agency will not discuss the proposed regulations with industry but will proceed immediately to regional public hearings and then enactment. The agency has essentially told industry, "If you don't like it, sue us."

That was exactly the case some years ago, when we were hired by a consortium of trade associations and major corporations two weeks before the first hearing. Preparations to litigate were already under way, but a last-ditch prayer and phone call brought in issues-management communication counsel.

Take the high ground

The group had readied an impressive counterproposal with data to refute the regulatory agency's premise. With the door barred to direct negotiation, our first advice was to spring the counterproposal-and experts to support it-on the agency, in front of TV cameras, at the regulatory agency's own hearings. But with what positioning?

It would have been fatal to claim the agency did not know what it was doing, had an anti-business agenda, or that fears for public health were over-blown. Instead, we adopted the position that "there is a better way to protect public health." In that context, our clients took the high ground in proposing methodologies that are more trustworthy for public and industry alike, and in the process the agency's agenda, incomplete "cry-wolf" research and the needless rush to regulate all became apparent. Under a positive position that allowed media and public to choose who was the more trustworthy, the regulators lost. Badly.

The regulators withdrew their proposal after packed houses, negative media coverage and an onslaught from credible experts at all three hearing sites. With one exception, print and electronic media actually editorialized in favor of industry and against the state on an environmental and health issue. If the difference between "for" and "against" is subtle, it is nonetheless the most crucial aspect of a campaign, the determiner of success or failure.

To stand for, instead of against, works on three levels of issues and public affairs management. It will create contextual perception where there may be none, help change the existing perception, or reinforce it.

The most effective approach is to communicate a position positively to the key external or internal audiences that are most critical to your success. Taking this approach lets you set the agenda. It is playing offense instead of defense. Emphasizing the positive and subordinating the negative can lead your audiences to give more weight to the pluses of the public policy issue involved, making them more inclined to take actions in support of an organization's goals.

Stand loud and proud

As one plank in a comprehensive strategy, standing loudly and proudly for something, and staying on that message, can alter perceptions and lead to the changed behaviors we need in order to move forward.

Another of our clients wanted to secure support from its North American business partners-distributors-to accomplish a positive corporate community affairs goal, but many of the partners initially thought the goal would undermine their own businesses.

Working with senior management, the communications agency changed contract language between the organization and its distributors to "encourage" distributors to participate in the community affairs program. Then we set up the corporate program to be run by, and through, the Sales Department. (Distributors, after all, are beholden to Sales and-have we not all seen it?-can tend to ignore Corporate Affairs initiatives.)

Next, the agency worked closely with the sales organization to create credible communications and training through traditional sales channels that the local partners already used and respected. Through this approach, local partners were educated in why the community outreach program not only was the right thing to do, but ultimately also made good business sense for them. They were trained in how to implement the program in their communities with the involvement of critical stakeholder groups.

As a result, participation by local business partners exceeded the client's expectations in the program's very first year. That participation was 100 percent.

Over time, standing for, not against, will result in stronger relationships with key stakeholders such as educational, labor, financial and healthcare communities; improved relations with government agencies and legislative bodies; less negative targeting by these same entities; and, less credence given to outside "activist" groups that may target us.

Of course, standing for something does not mean ignoring the opposition's barbs. It is still vitally important to identify and correct untruths, false assumptions, unfounded rumors, inaccuracies and misconceptions. But standing for is the bedrock of corporate reputation. Several studies have shown the sequential relationship among brand reputation, sales and shareholder value. The first sets the trend for the ensuing two over the long term, for better or worse.

Ultimately, standing for is not only good counsel; it is good business.

back to the top

When under assault from any source, gauging the size of our reaction is the first and most important issues-management decision. Careful: It may be a trap.

Let us acknowledge at the outset there are times when we take direct hits from activists, media, labor or government that require resounding, immediate and substantial action in return. At the same time, the modern mode of issues management-learned from too many loud mistakes in the last 20 years-is to react more with conciliation and moderation than with "warfare."

Still, there is a time to do one or the other-it would be a mistake to consider warfare entirely outmoded-but we sidestep that discussion and look instead to the total, always-applicable strategic question that should precede any action, period:

"How much damage or danger does this assault really represent?"

Pick your fights In lobbying adage, it amounts to: "Pick your fights (and don't try to fight them all)." In strategic adage, it amounts to: "When we own the battleship and the hull is being hit with BBs, should we care?"

This is not only a crucial question, but the crucial question. And it must be addressed not only at the onset of a campaign but constantly, throughout.

To mismatch the response and the assault can be the very strategy our opponents hope we adopt, and it is often their only hope. To fall into it can find us playing their game and not ours.

Keeping strategy from being simply reflexive is really what we are talking about here. In this case, reflexive strategy usually comes not from jaded inattention but from over-attention, anger and ego. (Defusing that reaction is one of the greatest contributions of a public-affairs agency, as third party.)

An example: During an arduous- eventually successful-quest by a utility for government approval of a major capital project, a quasi-government "citizen watchdog group" canvassed metropolitan areas door-to-door, seeking contributions and petition signatures. The rehearsed presentation by the usual student activists was so onerous and blatantly untrue that it incensed not only the client's executive management and its lobbyists, but also the majority leader and speaker of the state legislative chambers. Both legislative leaders volunteered to be quoted in any counteraction our client chose to take. Did we have the resources for a radio-and-print campaign and perhaps also TV? Yes. Were the stakes of the project high enough? Yes. Were management, lobbying arm and even government allies calling for immediate, effective counteraction? Yes.

Take another look

But let us assess the situation carefully: Canvassers were making absurd claims door-to-door, but in media interviews they were-and had to be-more reasonable and factual. Canvassers could only reach a small number of households daily and, clearly, would canvass only over the summer with cheap student labor.

Misinformation was being spread daily, but slowly. More important, the issue was hardly so incendiary for the common household as to cause any political action other than to contribute a couple of dollars, sign the petition (by which the signatory unknowingly was claimed as a group "member"), and shoo the canvasser from the doorstep.

Instead, through a (still proprietary) means of intelligence by which we knew where canvassers were operating and where they would operate next, we executed direct-mail drops confined by even tighter specifications than ZIP code, preceding canvassers wherever they went.

The direct-mail piece prominently featured the photos and quotations of the speaker and majority leader, as well as summary information refuting all underpinnings of the canvassers' canned presentation. Anecdotal evidence from utility employees and their neighbors was immediate, and it continued: Pre-informed homeowners were turning away canvassers, often brusquely, upon opening the door.

Further inside intelligence weeks later reported on a canvassing force, discouraged and rudely treated, prepared to present but not to rebut, quitting the work force and mistrustful of their own activist "management."

The media, stimulated as expected by the citizen group's cry of "foul," reported on our client's reaction, but it was a measured story of a measured reaction-an almost non-news event with a positive hint of admiration for not having undertaken carpet bombing of an annoyance.

Stories, and decisions, such as these are legion within even one campaign, let alone all of them. They are junctures that dictate eventual success or the nasty feeling of having walked into a trap being sprung. To create responses commensurate with the risk, and to have a head cool enough to do it, prevents needlessly creating controversy, which is seldom our friend.

Furthermore, since we almost always have the greater resources, it prevents us from falling into the trap of playing on the wrong field. All the world loves an underdog. And activists are counting on it.

back to the top

In issues management, a few days' or even hours' delay can make allies scarce or invisible.

One of our staffers will never forget the following, and the story has been repeated enough that others will not forget, either.

The public-affairs agency had just been hired to counsel a major global consumer-products company on issues communications. The staffer was called to Washington for a strategy session with his client, the four other leaders in the industry, and the industry association's staff.

Around the table sat the government relations directors of all five household-name corporations-all fierce competitors-flanked by their product-liability attorneys, communication agencies and their D.C. lobbyists. Association staff presented the situation: Legislation in the hopper that would require the industry to label its own product packaging with denigrating, government-written language.

Corporate and association lobbyists alike classified the threat as light to moderate. After at least an hour's presentation of the situation, the executive director, seated at the head of the table, paid a courtesy to the new "kid" in the room. "Well, Mr. Newagency," he said, "what is your view?"

The staffer rose, examined the faces in the room, then looked at his client. The client smiled lightly and nodded-a clear sign of support and a go-ahead for candor. The staffer nonetheless weighed a noncommittal answer, or one that would wave off responsibility as loaded onto one too new to assess the game. He rejected both options and began-certain his agency would be fired within the same week it had been hired.

The hard truth

"What do I think? The first domino has already fallen. Despite my newness, and with respect to the great expertise in this room, and acknowledging your admirable record of winning for many, many years, I do think this one is lost. I believe we had better take stock not of this issue, but of what losing it will lead to-attempts to restrict our right to market and to promote our products, among others. I believe we had best set about creating an industry plan to keep the dam in place, despite the leak it has already sprung."

And the staffer, thanking the executive director for the opportunity to have spoken, again took his seat-very cognizant of the total, stunned silence in the room; of the red face on his client and the red face on himself.

Before the day ended, later flights had been arranged, millions of dollars had been allocated from the companies for the task ahead, and the linchpin strategies for a comprehensive plan had been put into place. The industry had realized-incredibly, despite resounding evidence that had been staring it in the face-that indeed it had already lost. What did the agency staffer see so clearly?

First, the legislation had been cosponsored by two major Senate names on both sides of the aisle. Second, consumer research showed that our own best customers thought well of the legislation. Third, and most crucial, in the association's own presentation the "other side" had five easel sheets of listed allies, including the AMA, the PTOs, the National Association of School Boards, and virtually all other forms of mom and apple pie. We had a related trade association representing, essentially, our distribution.

Deck was stacked

What the staffer saw was that the issue might still have been won even if those first two elements had been in place, but it certainly was not going to be won with that many allies already having put their positions and credibility down on the other side. That fact alone precluded our client and its industry from garnering any allies of the mom-and-pop or mom-and-apple-pie variety, because-inevitably-any groups not already listed would have grave misgivings about crossing agendas with any of these. Furthermore, so unbalanced was the ally situation that even business groups not directly aligned with our client's business would have required a temporary loss of sanity to take a side in this fight.

The staffer's prediction came true on the Hill in very short order. And while this industry has done admirably with "the rest of the opponents' agenda," to this day-like a disease that will not go into remission-third parties are very reluctant to partner with the industry, even for good causes, and even for sizable corporate contributions to those legitimate causes.

You and we who labor in this area of issues have learned much since then, when most "battles" on whatever Hills were "fought" by aligning our guys against their guys, issue by issue. We have learned, or should have learned, that ally building is really partnership building. It is the construction of partnerships around legitimate interests between groups that are not congruent. These partnerships require give and take, require both partners to find agreement somewhere in a common cause, even though they may otherwise appear very uncommon bedfellows. And we have learned that the more uncommon, the better. The normal business alliances have their impact in government halls, talking as they do of their economic impacts and roles as engines for jobs, taxation, etc. But that is so normal as to be expected, and it plays poorly when the entire consumer constituency is drawn into the issue.

Only when business partners with schools, the medical community, parent groups and other entities closer to the consumer heart does business truly show itself involved, caring and trustworthy. When this has been accomplished, the consumer constituency is much more willing to let business have its due as something that must make money, and something that must grow in order to thrive.

Do it today

Partnership building is something that needs to be done today, and every day. As stated in another essay, "Share control before you lose it," the issues-management world takes on a different complexion entirely once we acknowledge the thought in the back of our heads that always causes such uneasiness. That thought is this: We do not control as much as we think we do ... nor as much as we want to control. Indeed, we "govern with the consent of the governed"; we do business with the consent of the electorate around us.

Once that thought is acknowledged as the truth it is, we set about our work in a different manner altogether. We seek ways to work with those we know will otherwise oppose us; to do otherwise is simply to postpone and nurture an obstacle into needless controversy and, potentially, loud failure.

Corporate philanthropic endeavors, instead of being spread across the waters, should be concentrated under a company position, and proof of that position should be not only spending but the partnerships-and the measurable outcomes of those partnerships-that we make with odd bedfellows.

That is just one of a thousand corollaries that come from the "revelation" that we really do not control our fate; others do. The idea of getting a seat at the table of those who shape policy is another corollary, and of course those who shape policy are not entirely of government. The idea of taking responsibility for our own operations and products is another corollary-one that serves risk management as well as crisis management. This corollary forces us to think of better, more publicly palatable means of slaughtering animals, applying herbicides, curtailing needlessly excessive promotional practices, and so on-before others think of them for us.

There is comfort in all that. There is protection. And there is real sincerity and earnestness that reverberate through communities and legislative halls alike.

back to the top

In issues management, corporate messages can't be "just P.R." Ads aren't the answer. The company must live, breathe and act its position.

Whenever Muhammad Ali stepped into the boxing ring, his opponents often were defeated before the opening bell. The formality would come in a few rounds. What Ali said he would do, he did.

Defeat had come about over the days and weeks leading up to the event, when contenders were subjected to an assortment of messages touting Ali as the greatest of all time-the whimsical rhymes, picking the round when victory would be confirmed. Media, friends, neighbors, peers, even those in the opponent's corner, ultimately had to speak of Ali's greatness. All that was left was the ceremony and advancement of his crown.

While our job in public affairs is neither to beat down nor beat up nor brag, the great lesson of Ali is that respect is born of real behavior and follow-through. Ali's mouth and his actions were in the same "place".

Don't overstep what's real

A public affairs campaign cannot tout what does not exist. We must work within the reputation we have and our track record of behavior as it is. To stretch one inch beyond that boundary is dangerous. It's a formula for being proved wrong, being caught in exaggeration, or being accused of trying to stand taller than we deserve. That temptation-that seemingly oh-so-little slip-is an Achilles heel we never need. Better to under-promise and over-deliver.

Companies can win in the court of public opinion when their unblemished company reputation precedes them, when documented instances of exemplary behavior can be cited and used to build credibility to counter the opposition's negative messages to the contrary.

But that assumes an established track record of good conduct. When one has it, it is a dream:

One of our clients felt the constant nipping of competitors at its heels and decided to do something about it on both the marketing and image fronts. But to take on the competition head-on would only lend credibility to the opposing message and open the door for ever-escalating insults about our client's product and corporate credibility.

We counseled to ignore the bothersome and instead do something competitors couldn't come close to doing. We helped our client take credit for what makes the company great; for what sets it apart from everyone else; for what has allowed the company to set industry standards for the last half-century: We directed the spotlight squarely on our client's time-tested corporate culture.

From a marketing standpoint, this positioning-this Declaration of Principles-helped our client define the value it brings to its products and services above and beyond what the competition can provide. And from an issues standpoint, this Declaration enhanced the corporate profile by communicating the behavior that is the essence of the corporate culture and its standard-setting business successes.

Nice when you have it

Fortunately, our client had a solid track record to communicate. Regular deposits had been made to its bank of goodwill for many years. Corporate leaders showed their commitment to advancing the industry through financial investments and personal leadership. They conducted themselves with the highest standards of ethics and integrity, and they created a culture that expected the same from everyone who worked for them.

In the midst of nationwide corporate scandals and competitive pressure at home, our client decided it was time to make a withdrawal from the bank of goodwill. Without overtly communicating the message, competitors and detractors were told in so many words to back off-and they did. Corporate reputation and credibility went through the roof. Competitors never knew what hit them.

What if you don't?

Many companies love to talk. But only a few are adept-and qualified-at doing. Communicating behavior to help neutralize inevitable negatives will work only when there is a reservoir of accepted behavior to draw on.

But what if there isn't such a stellar record?

The options are less appealing, to be sure, but they work. At the low end, it begins with admitting mistakes, pledging to fix them, then doing exactly that-while ensuring progress toward that goal is being reported to stakeholders, gatekeepers and also, perhaps, the media. (Progress is news and should be reported; it is a march toward credibility that need not wait for the achievement of perfection.)

Most corporations are somewhere on that march. No matter the exact location, one must never, never claim to be more than what one is. It's behavior first, communication second. Transposition of those two can be deadly.

back to the top

Changing attitudes and behavior in the marketplace of ideas is how issues are won. Benchmark-poll or survey data simply show the size of the task, not yet the result.

Our mutual craft in public affairs communications-yours and ours-is an applied art, not fine art, of course. But we can neglect to take that to its complete, logical end: the purpose of communications is not just to communicate; it is to effect change in market attitudes or behavior.

We say "market" instead of "constituency" to emphasize that constituencies compose a marketplace. While our craft is different from product or service marketing, it is a great mistake not to see the similarities.

In public affairs, we instinctively try to create preference for our "product" (an idea) over the other guy's product (idea). It's what we do every day, be it with securities analysts, lawmakers, regulators, shareholders, municipal and community leaders, or far broader audiences.

But the discipline of marketing (and its advantage of looking at political objectives through a marketer's lens) brings us to an easier understanding of what, exactly, we need to do and how to do it. It forces us to map out our instincts, and there can be some valuable surprises along the way. Often, we find that we are just "doing stuff" that does not impact the objective. In taking a marketer's view, we can sometimes find one easy, quick path to success that our formula thinking and instincts have missed.

Another "Rules of the Road" essay, "Play your game," provides an example of a utility seeking state Public Service Commission approval for a highly controversial project. Never mind the exact nature of the project here; the lesson is in the methodology of planning. It was foreseen that both client corporation and its opposition would do exactly the same things: Publish op-eds, appear on talk radio, prepare lobbyist packets for discussion and delivery to staff, line up witnesses, and present their best cases in oral and written testimony and before the media. The real task, however, was to prevent delay and get badly needed approval, even amid huge controversy, in short order.

Understand the market

The public affairs specialist with a marketer's savvy sees this: that the only "market" that counts comprises three appointed PSC members. What are those members thinking now, and how do we get them to think and act as we desire? What are the forces at work in this "buying decision"? Understanding that people in public places are least likely to make fast decisions at the height of controversy, the marketer sets out to remove controversy in a way that gives the market comfort.

He understands that, even if a commissioner agrees with our stance, he or she is a human being fearful of criticism and embarrassment for self or family and fearful of ruined aspirations. And who or what could cause a commissioner such damage? It would be the mere act of voting against public opinion heavily weighted toward the opposite view.

We in public affairs all think this way naturally, but unless we map out our own market, market share in support of us, and the forces at work in the marketplace as above, we are unlikely to see or enact the obvious.

The obvious in this case was to prove that statewide public opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of the project and its purpose, despite all the media ink and activist talk to the contrary. One simple quantitative survey, fielded early and released at the right time, created total comfort and won the approval-early.

Break political deadlock

It is a simple microcosm of the macro we see every four years in presidential elections. Huge sums are spent by both parties, and generally the result has been dictated by a percentage point or two. A marketing public affairs mind would say this "deadlock" will continue as long as there is lack of organized, marketing-like constituency building by either party over each of the preceding three years-lack of the marketing of ideas and vision by either party, other than what media report helter-skelter, day by day, about the behavior or views of those parties.

The fact is that, in our applied art, the total constituency is seldom the body that will actually make the decision, as in elections, but knowing (to the percentage point) what it feels about our issue can make or break "the sale" with the actual body that will decide.

Whether it is the total constituency or a slice of it, such as a service area, congressional district or a confined geography affected by the imminent decision, markets for ideas must be built. Where positive sentiment preexists, it should be measured, proven, then leveraged with the decision-making body, either directly or, if that is inappropriate, through the media. Where it does not exist, then those who somewhat disagree must be moved into the "somewhat agree" column, and those who somewhat agree must be moved into the "strongly agree" column.

Hence, our rule: Those who "somewhat disagree" are our targets, not our opponents.

Acknowledging this reality is what we too often do not do instinctively, either on an ongoing basis or under fire, yet it can be the quickest, easiest, least expensive path to resounding success and enhanced company reputation. The purpose of public affairs communications is not just to communicate; it is to create numbers that are measurable, provable and usable.

back to the top

Do we think often and hard enough about what our opponent will do next? Do we change our offense accordingly?

In sports, coaches spend considerable time studying the other team's defensive alignments before settling on their own offensive strategy. They want to pinpoint their opponent's defensive strengths and weaknesses to help them select an attack that maximizes their scoring opportunities.

In some circles this is known as "taking what the defense gives you," and it is a key piece of strategy that can well determine the contest's outcome.

The same principle applies equally well in the public policy arena. A proactive issues-management strategy that carefully analyzes how the opposition is lining up is critical.

Preparation removes excuses

But reading the defense is not a one-time exercise, because alignments change. The great sins corporate (and agency) issues management commits are these: We do not read the defense well; we do not spend enough effort watching for new alignments; we do not take the time to "think the unthinkable"; we do not enthusiastically exercise our legal right to gain on-the-ground intelligence.

Then we are surprised when an embedded journalist or activist videotapes our operations; a new activist alliance with a mainstream organization is announced; a cause-activated shareholder resolution is introduced; a prominent national figure unexpectedly criticizes us or our industry with incendiary sound bites; a consumer boycott is launched; negative e-mails arrive by the thousands, generated by a Web site that mocks our corporate name; and so on.

Activist training seminars are held frequently; do we send someone? Activist Web sites are, well, always active. Do we know what they are, and is the agency or another close resource monitoring them once or twice per day? Are we reading blogs? Are we technologically astute, or are we still fighting the battle as if it were a media relations game only?

A client in the food industry had been taken to task by an activist organization for its corporate policies and practices. We began monitoring the organization's Web site on a daily basis and confirmed our belief that the group planned to stage a protest at our client's major media event. With the lead time, we arranged for security and developed key messages for participants that challenged-and blunted-activist charges. Media coverage of the protest was nonexistent.

See the whole picture

Most assaults today have been well-orchestrated by the time they hit the media, which is why they are effective and often make headlines worldwide. We could have seen the orchestration, if only we had been paying closer attention.

When we don't pay attention, we are surprised. When we are surprised, we inevitably are put on the defensive again-and get to watch the other guys run with the ball.

You and we see this sad tale played out daily in our newspapers. Corporations are in all manner of readiness stages-from our view, readiness and corporate size are not related-but as Corporate America, we are in a poor position, indeed. We are vulnerable, and needlessly so.

Corporations and the agencies that partner with them have a right, as has anyone, to gather intelligence within the scope of the law and ethics in order to protect against unfair accusations and, often, illegal trespass, violence and slander.

We simply do not do enough brainstorming of what we don't know, how to get it and what to do before, during and after the unthinkable occurs.

back to the top

One manages issues in the media less by managing media than by managing those the media will quote.

Whether relocating a business or mounting a major public policy initiative, the media should be the last to learn the nitty-gritty. At first that seems counterintuitive, given that we often aggressively pursue media coverage, and we all know not to miss a deadline or allow “… could not be reached for comment” to appear in any news report, especially a negative one.

No one is arguing that.

But the pursuit of media coverage, or the need to respond to an impending deadline, must not preclude securing crucial third-party support, or neutrality, for our initiative or our problem. There are two points that, in our rush to manage the media, we must remember but often do not:

1. The most effective way to manage the tone and content of media coverage is to manage the third parties the media will quote, and none of those independent sources is employed by our client company.
2. There are supporters of our company and our position who should never learn of our actions through anyone but us; we forgo their help as allies or ambassadors by keeping them on the outside. They should be moved to the “inside,” tipped off as to what is about to occur and not first hear of developments through the evening newscast or the morning paper as if they mean nothing to us or are powerless to shape opinions among key constituencies.

The media are a filter, as we know. The story and headline will seldom, if ever, be all we want them to be. Why would we not want to improve our chances of shaping the story, on the one hand, and immediately be able to counter a story that spins negative, on the other?

Keep a checklist

Preparedness is the only way to knock down the ambassador objective and still meet the media deadline. We may not always have the luxury of time to inform key stakeholders should the media become privy to our plans. We may have only a couple of hours to make all our media and non-media contacts.

Every company should keep a checklist right next to the fire extinguishers in the Media Relations Department, the Public Affairs Department and in Corporate Affairs (by whatever names these functions are known). It should include, but not be limited to:

• Congressional delegation
• Governor’s office
• State legislative representative and senator
• Key state legislative committee chairs, other legislative leadership
• Key trade editors
• Labor leaders
• Our own workforce in entirety or by function or title
• Municipal officials
• Securities analysts
• Industry experts, especially those likely to be quoted by media, by issue
• Our sales force, distributors, wholesalers, dealerships, independent reps, retailers
• Key accounts
• Key suppliers and other business partners
• State and federal regulators
• Reasonable activist groups with which we have dialogue

It should be possible to write and disseminate a news release, or to respond to a media inquiry, within an hour and still inform “family” (a) simultaneously and (b) in the time between distribution and the news broadcast itself. Obviously, priority among “family” goes first to those most likely to be sought for quotation and to those who can impact business directly. But seldom should we stop there.

Depending on the size and nature of the news—and whether we are distributing it or it is coming to us—some on the ambassadors checklist will deserve a personal phone call from management, and others can receive e-mails or faxes of the release itself or a personalized summary of it.

This means that much coordinated, behind-the-scenes work must be accomplished first before stepping into the glare of media attention. And that work must proceed with the precision of a crisis communications plan, each actor having his or her rehearsed role. Media relations impact the entire company and its brands; senior management, marketing and sales should have a direct, personal role in securing market understanding of this news and should be educated in the importance of those roles as a routine part of their responsibilities. Putting the Media Relations Department in a silo forgoes huge opportunities both within the media and outside the media.

Others manage for us

If we get it right, our key constituencies will manage the media with us and, to an extent, for us. If we treat our friends like family, they will be much more inclined to repeat our key messages. Certainly, the outcome will be vastly better than if they were blindsided.

The list of people who need to know first can vary from issue to issue, and it will certainly vary by the size of the news. But the bigger the news, the more important it is to include people who help shape public opinion, even if they are without titles.

For example, prior to a series of media events to announce a food industry client’s plans to expand production operations in three states, we shared the confidential plans with local elected officials and civic leaders. We also invited them to attend the media events and provided them with key messages in support of our client’s plans. Our client’s constituents did all the heavy lifting, helping to shape subsequent media coverage in support of the company’s objectives.

Aside from the importance of “taking care of the family” to manage the ramifications of media coverage, the media always should be the last to know because early media exposure of a public policy debate can polarize constituencies. People tend to remember, and believe, the first report they hear. Once they have heard one side of an argument, it can take at least twice as much effort to get them to consider the other side, and persuasion to our point of view could be problematic.

That makes it all the more difficult to negotiate a successful outcome. A stakeholder whose public stance on an issue has been duly reported by the media will find it difficult later to backtrack or redefine his or her position publicly. It’s the fear of losing face or appearing to cave in.

By establishing early support, we minimize the media’s polarizing effect and adversarial role. They are left with having to balance opposing views with our carefully crafted third-party support for our position.

Finally, if we do not regularly and proactively take our issues stances to these kinds of key stakeholders—be it through environmental reports or annual visits by appropriate management—then shame on us. We have built no relationship upon which to stand.

The astute company today is out front in stating what it stands for and why on all potentially controversial issues, and woe to the company that is asked by its major customer to come in and explain itself. These are not activities any longer to be left only for the annual report, the annual shareholder’s meeting, the Media Relations Department or to the assumed protective hand of an industry association.

back to the top

Avoid ivory-tower thinking. Appeal to targets with sincerity, using emotion as well as reason.

When creating a communications strategy we often begin-and too often end-by marshalling a litany of facts, logic, sound science and reason.

When the opposition is armed with little more than outlandish claims and emotional appeals, it just seems right that undeniable fact and indisputable logic should carry the day. But each of us in our own way has found through experience that it is just not so. Or, as a sage lobbyist and friend of ours likes to remind us, "In politics, logic is your weakest argument."

In our enthusiasm to support our argument with an avalanche of economic, scientific and demographic data-speaking to the head-let us never underestimate the value of also showing the human side of a corporation-speaking to the heart. After all, as author John Junor once noted, "An ounce of emotion is equal to a ton of facts."

As we have often observed, the noise from a relatively small band of activists garners a disproportionate share of media attention because activists have learned that speaking to the heart resonates with a sizable segment.

Emotion, trust get attention

Even in the no-nonsense world of business-to-business marketing of such products as machine tools, building controls and engineered systems, it is generally acknowledged that decision makers buy on emotion and then justify with fact. Why should it be any different in our world-the "softer" world of the marketplace of ideas?

In the glare of controversy and media coverage, science finishes a poor second in the war of dueling sound bites. Experience shows that countering opponents' vivid, emotionally charged attacks with clinical facts and cold logic plays into the opposition's hands.

Why? What is the key emotion that sways the constituent and the machine-tool buyer alike? It is simply this: trust. Trust in a brand. Trust in a corporation.

When we add an emotional appeal of our own-personality, if you will-to our arsenal of reasoned facts and logic, we can turn the tide in our favor.

But-and this is key-doubling back to another of our "Rules of the Road," when we speak to the heart we must stand for something, not against something. Let the other side cast negative aspersions; we want to take to the high road. The high road establishes trust.

It may seem heresy, but most who compose the marketplace of ideas will neither care enough, nor take time enough, nor be qualified enough, to weigh the technical components of any issue. This is why we stress to clients that, while competence and truth are essential to our argument, a genuine, equally truthful ability to relate to, and empathize with, constituents is more important.

As just one example, TV debates are won or lost entirely by who seems the more trustworthy. They are won or lost more on tone than content. If the corporation is perceived as trustworthy, people are more than happy to let the world turn without their intervention. "If it's not broken; it doesn't need fixing." But if the corporation is not seen as trustworthy, then our economic-benefit facts seem so much like proof that we are solely profit driven, and cold technical argument proof that we are a monolithic Goliath ready to run our machine over whomever and whatever gets in our way.

One of our clients-a global food company-successfully bid for a bankrupt rival's production and processing unit in "enemy territory"-that is, a U.S. region already poisoned by prominent lawmakers, media and production farmers who had long claimed our client was anti-family farmer and profit-driven at all costs.

Emotion augments facts

All that remained was to secure regulatory and bankruptcy court approvals, but these lawmakers and activist groups made a last-ditch emotional appeal to thwart the sale. Although the opposition scored early points with its emotional attacks on an "impersonal, multinational, uncaring" organization, we augmented our fact-laden, comprehensive communications strategy with a positive appeal to the heart. We characterized the buyer as sharing the same principles, values and ethics with the farmer-owned, co-op company it was buying: Dedication to quality, strong work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit.

Speaking to the heart, we linked the two companies by their shared approach to conducting business with single-minded integrity.

Our positive, "stand-for-something" approach neutralized the opposition's negative pronouncements, and we succeeded in securing all the final approvals within 90 days of the initial bid.

Another client company was faced with the dual task of conducting a product recall while limiting adverse publicity that could threaten its well-respected brand. On one front, we developed a crisis communications plan that laid the foundation for a successful recall. Proactive communications targeting the media, distributors, retailers and employees spelled out the company's action plan to recall the product swiftly.

On a second front, we spoke to our audiences' hearts by focusing on the client's commitment to doing the right thing. Key messages included:

- Our company's paramount concern is for the safety of our customers.

- We have a long history of focusing on product safety and standards of excellence.

- Given our history, we will err on the side of being cautious.

The company recalled 92.5 percent of its product during the first 36 hours of the voluntary recall, and media coverage was limited to the client's initial recall announcement.

A global livestock company that slaughters animals to produce its food products is a regular target for animal rights activists, who define the company in the court of public opinion as a "torturer and sadistic killer of defenseless animals." In the past, the company's primary defense was to repudiate the activists' labels, citing facts and policies that demonstrated its humane treatment of animals. But to no avail.

Instead of continuing to fall into the opposition's trap by defending itself against a negative, the company now is defining itself by speaking to the heart. It is embarking on a campaign that defines what it stands for: putting food on the world's tables.

The most successful at issues management are those companies that sound, act and behave with the honest emotions of a single individual. That "individual" can still be authoritative but must have an uncanny knack for reaching the soul of an issue and establishing a connection of trust, as well as mere authority. And it cannot just be "P.R." It needs to come from the soul of the organization.

back to the top