Filed under: Political | Tags: budget, communications planning, Obama, politics, public relations, reputation management, target audiences
Our country is at an interesting time in its history. Not only are we struggling through a recession that’s causing widespread economic hardship; we are also in the early stages of a new Presidency. These two factors have filled news pages and websites with political communications, as special interests and those with strong political convictions jockey to be heard, and to position themselves favorably with their target audiences.
For most of us, political communications are inherently interesting, because we all have a vested interest in outcomes: lower or higher taxes, better or worse healthcare, accessible higher education… the list is endless. But as hard-working people who are interested in the success of our own businesses or organizations, political communications are interesting in terms of what they can teach us about successful (or unsuccessful) messaging.
There’s nothing like huge amounts of money to make a political fight interesting, and the Obama administration — displaying its typical communications savvy — presented its initial budget proposal as a fight in the making. That’s why his unveiling of the budget — and the Republican response to it — is an interesting case-study in communications, with plenty of lessons.
On the White House’s official website, the very first words they wrote in the days after the budget was presented to Congress positioned them for battle: “President Obama explains how the budget he sent to Congress will fulfill the promises he made as a candidate, and assures special interests that he is ready for the fight.”
Lesson: If you know your messaging will face critics or competitors, acknowledging that — or even embracing it — can be a good way to highlight your strengths. For example, if you sell goods similar to what’s available at a national chain store, but at higher prices, your messaging can incorporate your community ties, local commitment, and unsurpassed expertise, while pointing out that the lack of these benefits make competitors more costly in the long run.
The Obama administration also highlighted parts of the budget that delineate specific benefits that it says will accrue to the American people: expanding health insurance, reducing carbon emissions, improving education, creating jobs, and increasing taxes for those higher up the income scale.
Lesson: Always have proof-points for your main messages. Simply saying you have a great product or service is useless unless you prove it. Make sure every proof-point is something you can demonstrate as true, and impresses your target audiences. The key difference here, however, is that politicians (no matter their party) can promise benefits that may never materialize and blame other factors; we in the private sector, in businesses and non-profits, will actually be held more accountable.
The manner of the President’s presentation of the budget proposal is a time-honored, smart approach for two important reasons. First, presidents always must portray themselves as being on the side of the people, and vilifying special interests is one of the best ways to do that. Second, almost anyone in the U.S. can benefit from an image as the tenacious advocate who’s ready to prevail against the odds. Americans are hard-wired to admire anyone who fights against “entrenched powers,” and they support it.
Lesson: Know what your audience wants. If your audience values price above all other considerations, then talking about quality, craftsmanship, or a tradition of excellence is a waste of your effort.
President Obama’s budget messaging has the added benefit of adhering closely to the campaign themes that swept him into office: hope and change. “Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington,” he said of his plan.
Lesson: Be consistent in your messaging. If you have always positioned your auto repair shop as ASE-certified and master-mechanics only, then suddenly switching to a low-price message could severely undermine your image and damage your business. Accordingly, you’ll find hope and change is a theme that will continue throughout the President’s term.
But what about those who opposed the President’s proposed budget? They too are a group of polished communicators, and they did essentially the same as the President: positioned themselves as protectors of the people. But their positioning is based on protecting people from what they characterize as profligate spending by irresponsible bureaucrats.
House Republican Leader John Boehner had this to say in response to the President’s proposed budget: “This budget taxes, spends, and borrows its way toward a bigger, more costly federal government at the expense of small businesses, family farms, middle-class families, retirees, every American who owns a 401(k), and anyone who flips on a light switch.” There wasn’t much else released from him on the matter.
If we look at the lessons we have observed so far, the above message doesn’t necessarily adhere to any of them, except the admonition to be consistent. There’s little acknowledgement of the competing message, there are no proof points, and it doesn’t really offer anything of real value or specificity to the target audience.
On the other hand, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who gave the Republicans’ official response to the proposed budget, made a much longer presentation. He repeated essentially the same message as Rep. Boehner, but took it an important step further by incorporating an alternative vision to the Obama budget: We believe Americans can do anything, and that they can pull us out of the recession if government stays out of their way.
Simply pointing out that the Obama budget would raise taxes is inherently negative and offers nothing for people to believe in. Gov. Jindal’s message, however, pointed out specific Republican proposals that counter the president’s, and addresses the very same issues: healthcare, taxes, education, job-creation and more.
Lesson: Present specific benefits to your target audience. When it comes to your business or non-profit organization, you need to adopt the same approach as President Obama and Gov. Jindal. Whether it’s a smooth-running vehicle, a leak-free roof, or their house selling quickly, your target audience should be able to see themselves benefitting from what you have to offer.
Whether it’s political ideas or the benefits of products or services, properly communicating them to target audiences can be complicated. If you happen to work in an environment in which you can expect directly competing ideas to assault your own, then it’s even more critical that you carefully plan your communications.
The core of your communications rests on knowing your target audiences and what moves them as intimately as you can, and presenting something of substance and value to them. The rest of your planning — the “how” of reaching your audiences — is a series of questions with many possible answers. That’s why the folks who are able to navigate the communications landscape successfully are much sought-after, in the public and private sectors alike.
Filed under: Political, reputation management | Tags: Brad Ellsworth, Congressional raises, Dan Burton, Dianne Feinstein, Evan Bayh, Ginny Brown-Waite, Gus Bilirakis, media relations, Mel Martinez, Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, National Taxpayers Union, Pete Sepp, political communications, politics, reputation management, Steve Ellis, Taxpayers for Common Sense
Members of the U.S. Congress long ago figured out a way to give themselves raises every year without having to vote on it each time, but this year the mechanism has served to further tarnish their already horrendous image. From a PR standpoint, this story offers another illustration of the dangers of clamming up in the face of uncomfortable media inquiries.
From your perspective as a business owner, PR person, head of a non-profit, or someone else whose image and reputation impact your effectiveness, the short version of the lesson is this: if you are faced with media scrutiny that threatens to make you look bad, the last thing you should do is refuse to respond, either by telling the reporter you have nothing to say, or simply by being inaccessible. Why? Because it allows others – primarily your detractors – to tell your story for you.
In the case of Congress and its 2.8 percent “cost of living” raise, the issue is a no-brainer: almost everyone around the country – that is to say, the people represented by Congress – are losing jobs, reducing work hours, going without raises, wondering if their businesses will survive; in this climate, for Congress to give itself a raise to $174,000 is extremely unseemly. I understand fully the argument that we need high-salaried positions in Congress to ensure that we can attract qualified people and provide at least a modicum of disincentive to bribery and kickbacks.
However, this is an issue of perception during one of the hardest economic downturns in a generation. Surely these people can come up with something to say about it, right? Apparently not:
Finding anyone brave enough to defend the pay hike in Washington these days is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. When they’re asked to comment, usually accessible members quickly go missing, are on vacation, are extremely busy with family members or can’t be reached on their cell phones because they’re in remote locations.
And…
Pelosi’s office declined to comment on the raise.
So what’s the result? The story is heavily skewed against the Congressional pay raise, with taxpayer watch-dog groups excoriating Congress members for their perceived perfidy:
“When you look at the rest of the country, people are hoping to hang on to their jobs, much less get a salary increase or a bonus,” said Steve Ellis , the vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Other critics say that Congress has done nothing to deserve a raise. “The general public can’t help but think that lawmakers are patting themselves on the back, and padding their wallets, for presiding over the worst fiscal-policy blunders in recent history,” said Pete Sepp , the vice president for policy and communications for the National Taxpayers Union.
And this:
While members of Congress will receive a raise, 12 percent of seniors are living at or below the poverty line, said Daniel O’Connell , the chairman of The Senior Citizens League. A senior who receives average Social Security benefits will get a $63 monthly increase in 2009, he said. The congressional pay raise is expected to cost taxpayers $2.5 million next year. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter,” O’Connell said.
So now the story has been framed by Congressional critics. A few folks who have adopted a voter-friendly position come off as heroes in this discussion:
Four members of Congress from Indiana have announced that they won’t accept the pay increase: Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, Republican Reps. Mike Pence and Dan Burton and Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth. In Florida, Republican Sen. Mel Martinez and Republican Reps. Gus Bilirakis and Ginny Brown-Waite said they’d vote to block the raise if congressional leaders allowed a vote. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she wanted nothing to do with the raise. Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee , intends to donate her raise to charity, spokesman Phil LaVelle said Tuesday.
These folks look good not because they talked to the media, but because they are talking about turning down taxpayer-financed raises. But this illustrates another important point: the more you clam up in the face of scrutiny, the more you’re going to have your story written for you, and your options restricted when you finally decide to talk.
What can the holdouts say, once they become accessible again? Naturally, they’re going to have to toe the line and turn down the raise. They’ll have a hell of a time coming up with messaging that resonates with their constituencies if they take any other position.
Filed under: Political | Tags: CBS, David Letterman, Late Show with David Letterman, McCain, politics
On September 27 I blogged that John McCain’s decision to cancel his appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman was a painful decision, because he knew he’d take merciless comedic flack, and that it would last for weeks, if not months. But the alternative was for him to be seen joking around with Dave while the financial crisis unfolded before our appalled eyes. The comparisons to Nero fiddling while Rome burns would have been in the headlines before the first commercial break.
So I advised in my blog – surely one of the most well-read of any others among McCain campaign staffers – that McCain’s best course of action would be to let the issue fade a bit and then jump back into the guest appearance with both feet and take his hits.
And it appears that’s exactly what he’s going to do. I’m glad to see I can make a difference in the world.
Filed under: Political | Tags: David Letterman, image, McCain, Obama, politics, public relations, reputation
As you try to manage your image and reputation, there are always going to be times you know you’re going to lose either way. The trick then is to choose the path that exposes you to the least liability. Case in point: John McCain’s choice to become the butt of merciless David Letterman swipes after backing out of an appearance on the deservedly popular late-night talk show.
I’ve been a fan of Letterman since the late ’80s, but even recent aficionados of his ascerbic wit know that he will pound away, night after night, at people who get under his skin. He slammed away at Madonna as a recurring theme for over a decade. So John McCain – or at least his advisors – had to know that Letterman would mock the GOP Presidential hopeful. The alternative, from a public realtions point of view, would be that McCain would appear on Letterman’s show during the worst financial melt-down since the Great Depression and either (a) appear somber, as the fiscal circumstances require, thereby spoiling the mood of the show, defeating its jocular purpose, and giving Letterman the opportunity to tear him apart on the show, or (b) back out of the show and take a merciless comedic beating for several nights thereafter, but NOT give ammunition to the Obama campaign to depict McCain as laughing and joking his way through an evening during which fellow legislators would be wrangling with some of the most intractable financial woes this generation has ever known.
Obviously, choice (b) is less awful in general terms. But it’s also important to consider the target audience involved in any such decision. I’m guessing that Letterman’s target demographic is generally a bit younger and anti-establishment than the core McCain supporters are, and therefore they would generally be more Obama-leaning. So another factor in the McCain camp’s calculations could have been that the demographic is already disinclined to support him, so it wouldn’t be a great loss.
And, if they’re really smart and if McCain has a strong sense of humor and thick skin, they could reschedule the Letterman appearance, take the beating that Dave would administer, and laugh their way through what would be a semi-pugilistic reconciliation. That would show that McCain isn’t a stodgy old man, but somebody who gives as good as he gets. You know, part of that whole “straight talk” thing. After all, if you’re going to brand yourself, being consistent is essential.
It’ll be interesting to see if McCain is willing to take advantage of the opportunity.
Jamal Kheiry's Weblog 