A Case Study in Good Policy Blogging: AT&T
Mashable ran a post last week titled “15 Excellent Corporate Blogs To Learn From” that was really quite good. The post looked mostly at marketing components like choosing a design, showcasing your products, highlighting your company’s expertise, and more.
There was no discussion, however, of how these companies use their blogs to engage in public policy debates. I decided to write a post that looks at a good example of a corporate blog focused on policy debates.
Around the time of the Mashable post, news of the Verizon-Google net neutrality proposal surfaced and many of the free culture bloggers were apoplectic over the wireless exemption. In response, Joan Marsh wrote a piece for AT&T’s policy blog explaining why VZ and Google were right – wireless is different.
Reaction to Marsh’s post ranged from the reasoned to the spastic.
AT&T just doesn’t want consumer protections for wireless. Why? They might prevent AT&T from crippling vendor handsets so users are forced to use AT&T bloatware, or forcing users to pay more for certain services. Consumer protections also might prevent AT&T from blocking applications that either compete with their own services, or say the services of a giant preferred advertising partner with a colorful and whimsical logo. Such protections might restrict AT&T’s shiny new pricing model as well, which involves fairly unreasonably-low caps of 200 MB and 2GB.
For most public policy blogs, that might have been the last word in the story, however. In this case, that was just the beginning. Yesterday, Marsh took to the blog again. Not only did she acknowledge the critical reply, she challenged it directly.
I got a lot of reaction to my original blog entitled Wireless is Different. Some good, some critical, but all of it important to the debate. I welcomed it all, especially the responses from those that disagreed, because it creates an opportunity for a better explanation, a more detailed understanding of what’s actually happening out there on our wireless networks.
Some just are not convinced that wireless is in fact different in any way that matters to the net neutrality debate. While they didn’t rebut the fundamental points I made regarding the finite nature of wireless network capacity, they viewed the argument as a strawman for some underlying intent by wireless network providers to block apps and services at their whim.
The exchange illustrates four points I think are critical to corporations looking to engage in policy blogging.
There Are Few Experts More Knowledgeable Than Your Company
The fact is, for all the armchair quarterbacks running blogs that are critical of any industry, the people that know the most about that industry are the ones making it run. If your company takes those people out of the debate because they are afraid of what they might say, your side has just lost the best defenders it will ever have.
In the case of AT&T’s blog, they have created a platform for their senior people to directly address, and challenge, the misinformation so often present in reporting of any kind.
Let’s face it. Your average blogger/reporter may cover a beat, but chances are pretty good that they’re a liberal arts major looking at incredibly challenging engineering discussions. It is rare that engineers start a blog, but when they do, they often have a depth of experience or understanding that will only be matched by your people. Let them speak.
That advice, by design, raises the question of how to balance the communicator’s desire to speak with the lawyer’s desire to mitigate risk. The balance between allowing someone to talk, and making sure they stay on message is a delicate one. Accepting some level of risk is necessary to engage in the debate.
Avoid “Fire and Forget” Policies
As I said, on many policy blogs, corporations would have been content to provide the initial post and then would have walked away. If their piece generated an article in a mainstream publication, that would have been seen as a success – even if it generated heaps of criticism online.
This is a misguided approach for a simple reason. Getting that hit in the Wall Street Journal is great for today. But what is left behind on the Internet tomorrow will be all the blog posts challenging your position. Those are the articles web users will find when they look to get educated about the debate.
Build Credibility By Being Engaged
There is a saying in the social media world: Media is easy, being social is the hard part.
Anyone can create a blog, or Twitter account, or Facebook page. Getting people to pay attention requires vigilance and sincere engagement in the online discussion. Talking with, reacting to, and noticing other participants in the debate is how you give credibility to your own views. You must be prepared to discuss and defend your ideas.
Marsh shows great form by not only acknowledging her detractors, but linking to their opposing view, and addressing it directly. She held her ground, while engaging in respectful disagreement. While that isn’t always the way things work in a land of trolls, she keeps her focus on the debate.
This Discussion Doesn’t End At The Water Cooler
I have heard the comparison of the Internet to a digital water cooler, where people gather to discuss hot topics. I take issue with that, to some degree.
While we do, indeed, use the Internet to gather and discuss, the Internet is different in one critical way. When you finish your conversation at the water cooler, the faint echo of your words off the closest cubicle wall is the end of it.
Online, every such discussion is a part of the permanent record of our people. When historians look back at the discussion and debate over public policy, they will find the academics, the opposition, the elected officials, and the public discussion fairly represented. They may not, however, have an accurate record of the arguments made by companies in defense of their policy positions.
They may find talking points and carefully parsed legal language, but they will not hear the voice of your company. For that reason alone, using your policy blog to make your case, to both your audience and to future perspective, is critical.
The AT&T case is a good example of the type of discussion companies can foster using their policy blog. On all four of these measures, the defense of the wireless exemption provides a window into the company’s thinking.
In coming weeks I also plan to provide a list of the best policy blogs operated by companies – highlighting those that effectively communicate the company’s agenda and contribute to the larger discussion in a productive way.
(Disclosure Statement: One of CRAFT’s partners is a paid consultant to an organization of which AT&T is a member. AT&T is not a CRAFT | Media/Digital client. CRAFT was not compensated in any way for this post, nor was AT&T aware of it before publication.)
In Search Of Humor: The Top 5 Funniest Republicans/Conservatives
A friend pointed me to recent comments by Keith Olbermann that there are no funny conservatives. As a big fan of both conservatism (at least the fiscal kind) and comedy/stand up, I have to take issue with that. There are a lot of funny conservatives/libertarians. (Please note, I consider myself more of a libertarian Republican, so I am not aware of social conservative comedians. But I am sure they’re out there. Drop a comment if you’d like to point one out.)
#5 Drew Carey – One of America’s jolly fat men, Drew Carey had a huge smash with The Drew Carey Show, but like most got his start doing stand up. While he sold out to take Bob Barker’s place hosting The Price is Right, he’s still funny. If you don’t believe me, visit Showtime on Demand and watch the episode of The Green Room with Carey.
#4 Adam Sandler – America’s favorite egg-shaped head also leans right. Like many Republicans in Hollywood, he’s not overt about the lean, but he’s still funny (Little Nicki aside).
#3 Owen Wilson – Wilson, like our number two funny man Vince Vaughn, is unquestionably funny. If you don’t buy that, rent Wedding Crashers or Zoolander again. Wilson and Vaughn reportedly crashed a Texas Young Republicans event while in DC filming Wedding Crashers.
#2 Vince Vaughn – Arguably, Vaughn should be number one on this list. Most people would probably put him there. While I have been a big Vaughn fan since Swingers came out, if we’re talking political humor, I have to give the top spot to someone who covers it a lot.
#1 Doug Stanhope - Stanhope probably isn’t everybody’s first choice, but he’s definitely mine. This riff on the pledge of allegiance is a classic example. As he says, good products sell themselves… So here’s my argument for Doug. (Fair warning, Stanhope is no stranger to profanity. If you’re turned off by that, you really shouldn’t watch the video – especially with the volume up loud at the office.)
Honorable Mentions:
- Robert Downey Jr. has said his personal challenges forced a change of political views and he’s now a Republican.
- Bill Engvall, Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy – I’m not a fan of redneck humor, but they make a lot of people laugh.
- The Rock – Tooth Fairy was unintentionally one of the funniest movies ever. (It still counts)
I could go on… John Ratzenberger, Larry Miller, Penn & Teller etc.
Olbermann hasn’t been funny since he left Sports Center, so I’m guessing he didn’t take his writers with him. For him to make ridiculous blanket assertions is really kind of weak, as this list demonstrates.
Are You “Kicking Your Own Ass”?
Mark Cuban has a great post up at Blog Maverick titled, “Why You Should Never Listen To Your Customers.” In it he relates the tale of a company with which he was involved. The company asked its customers what features they would like to see in the product while the competition just went ahead and innovated. When the two products were released the competitor’s product rocked.
Cuban’s company again went to the customers and asked what features they’d like to see, and most of the features they listed were the features their competitor now had.
His takeaway is simple. Someone is going to “kick your ass.” Will it be you? Or your competitors?
While his is a tale of business, the fact is this story could apply to countless campaigns and political organizations. If you’re too busy navel gazing, or too caught up in what the other guy has that you don’t, you’ll lose site of your mission.
We saw this during the run up to 2008. Online, the GOP was caught in an endless circle of “what we’re doing wrong” and “how we can change to be more like the Democrats.” I was one of those pointing out our deficiencies. Had you asked most GOP consultants what “features” they wanted in 2008, they would have pointed to the things the Dems were doing – ACTBlue, TPM, CAP, etc, etc.
When the Washington Post ran a page one, above-the-fold story quoting me saying the GOP was losing online, I had the same epiphany Cuban had. I was guilty of letting the other guy kick my ass. I decided we needed to kick our own ass, instead.
Many GOP organizations are still in the same boat as Cuban’s company. Instead of innovating, they’re mimicking the competition. They say, “We want a website like Barack Obama’s” instead of asking what’s next.
Engineering legend Alan Kay said, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.” That’s true in politics as well as technology. The GOP needs to invent the future, not build to the past.
Your Newsletter Is Killing Your List
Earlier this morning I received an email from the PAC of a major political figure and probable GOP candidate for President in 2012. The subject of the email demonstrates the problem fairly clearly:
Month in Review — February 2010
My goal in discussing this email is not to embarrass the sender, so I’m not going to mention who they are. The fact is, I see campaigns, candidates, and companies make the same mistake all the time. So this could apply equally to just about any organization who is simply going through the motions with their email program.
Are You Present For Your Email?
In this particular case, the email wasn’t as bad as some I have seen. Most of the content did, at least, have to do with the organization. In many cases, emailers use these “week/month in review” messages to cobble together an assortment of newspaper headlines under the “In Case You Missed It” theory of communications. The message assumes you either a) don’t read, or b) don’t have time to read the news. Frankly, someone who doesn’t have time to read the news probably doesn’t have a lot of time to read your newsletter. The theory that they missed interesting current events, but have plenty of time for your group, is probably wrong.
As I said, the PAC did, at least, share PAC related information. The trouble, however, is they shared it in a way that was neither compelling or timely. There were three feature stories and a collection of headlines from the month. Divided up separately, they would have amounted to less than one e-mail a week – hardly a burdensome load to keep your supporters engaged.
Two of the stories, however, related to the personal activities of the PACs head – either of which would have been much more interesting if that person had provided a first person narrative. Instead, a third person shared news of the events in a disconnected and distant way. Would your supporters rather hear you tell them of your experience? Or would they rather hear your web guy’s version of it? The post one article linked through to was, if oddly written, at least personal. None of that personality made it to the email, and the fact is the majority of your subscribers won’t click through to your site.
The other article related to a speech given, but again provided no personal insight about the crowd, the reaction, the sense of excitement – just a link to the speech and a link to the event website.
Tell Me About You
Your email list should tell me about you. Rather than sending a generic newsletter, if you are a candidate or the head of a PAC, tell me what you think and feel about the race, the event, your progress. Share with me your thoughts on the state of the state, nation, or world. I guarantee I will find it more interesting. I guarantee I will be more likely to read it. I will certainly be willing to click through to a link if you talk passionately about it; as opposed to just linking to something like a transcript.
Too often campaigns have the opinion that any word issued from on high is sacrosanct. But your supporters are not waiting with baited breath to read stale links about news that is days or weeks old. These are people connected to the Internet – a world that moves fast, and forgets even faster. If you’re not compelling, and your words are not engaging, you have lost my attention. With email, that also means you have lost subsequent opens and clicks.
Craft of Communications
Despite remarkable changes in technology, increasing fragmentation of traditional audiences, and rapid media convergence, most political consultancies are still stuck in a model that was perfected when Reagan ran against Carter. For the few traditional firms that wish to evolve, the typical “fix” usually consists of hiring a mid-level staffer to “do our Internet stuff”.
Most online operatives with any kind of track record have launched boutique firms that specialize in Internet communications. They are often singularly focused on online campaigns; and have little experience with, and often little interest in, traditional campaign organizing tactics.
For campaigns, this situation results in a disjointed world of competing media consultants all claiming that their specialty – direct mail, TV, or the web – is where all the money should be spent. Campaigns are often forced to employ multiple consultants with competing ideas for the best way to deliver a message.
These internal conflicts often harm the campaign, leading to infighting and finger-pointing rather than working together to benefit the candidate, committee or cause. Unfortunately, when vendors are competing for campaign resources – each trying to get the largest slice of the pie – it is usually the campaign that suffers.
But what if there was a different way?
Despite the dysfunctional silos that have been created by political consultants, the fact is all of these disciplines have one goal in mind – to communicate the campaign’s message.
Communications isn’t about forcing a choice between competing media. The craft of communications is about delivering your message across all platforms, to carefully targeted and segmented audiences, to achieve a singular goal – winning.
Your team should assess the campaign goals, your target audience, the media most often used by that audience, and develop the media blend that will be most effective. You shouldn’t have to worry that your media mix represents your vendors, not your stakeholders.
A team approach to campaign communications gives you access to multiple experts all focused on your goals. By taking the competition out of the vendor equation, recommendations are based on the interests of the campaign, not the interests of the consultants. A converged consultancy eliminates media choices that are based on personalities rather than sound strategies.
The converged agency is also able to apply different strategies and a different media mix based on the goal of the campaign – whether that’s rapid response, persuasion, fundraising, or GOTV.
Why Aren’t Others Doing It This Way?
To be fair, some are. The massive corporate firms (like Ketchum, Edelman and Burson-Marsteller) recognize the value of this approach.
Unfortunately, their sheer size and broad range of services – everything from lobbying and legal counsel to event promotion and clinical trial recruitment – have priced them outside the budgets of all but the most affluent political causes.
However, the benefits of convergence shouldn’t accrue only to giant corporations and organizations.
What Makes Us Different
There is a better way.
Craft | Media/Digital brings together top-tier operatives in direct mail, television, and the Internet. Our partners have worked in the trenches of local, Congressional, statewide, and national campaigns – merging traditional grassroots organizing and the latest in targeted audience segmentation.
By bringing together top talent in an array of media disciplines, under one roof, the converged agency can determine the proper media mix to achieve the goals of the campaign.
Yogi Berra once quipped, “The future ain’t what it used to be.”
The future of political communications isn’t what it used to be either. Providing converged media services without the hassle of vendor competition is here today. In the future, we’ll look back and wonder why we ever did it differently.
