Given there is no distinction between private and professional in my world – my hobbies being mainly reading political biographies, political history and despairing at the state of Europe – you’ll find me back on the FH Brussels communal blog writing in the same vein. Given my struggle to maintain this blog in the last year or so, it seems only easier to just go back to the other one I founded years ago.

Here’s some recent posts from me to get you going:

http://publicaffairs2point0.eu/2011/04/14/a-tale-of-two-cities/

http://publicaffairs2point0.eu/2011/06/08/its-not-normal-that-europeans-go-looking-for-serious-debate-and-see-meps-cucumber/

http://publicaffairs2point0.eu/2011/06/09/time-to-throw-away-the-trusty-old-position-paper/

http://publicaffairs2point0.eu/2011/06/07/why-successful-public-affairs-should-be-a-bit-like-a-tom-cruise-film/

http://publicaffairs2point0.eu/2011/04/08/the-same-broom-for-the-last-twenty-years/

Come on over, the Bubble aint half bad.

James

The findings of Dr. Kluever’s paper are not in themselves surprising. In examining a town (Brussels) that is based on consensus, her paper concludes through a quantitative assessment of Commission consultations, interest group responses and Commission proposals that:

(a) interest groups with relatively broader coalitions are more likely to be more successful in achieving their objectives.

(b) coalitions of interest groups that are relatively smaller than their opponents will find it harder to win the more “public” the debate becomes. (saliency in Dr. Kluever’s language).

I can think of campaigns I have been involved with that support, even through anecdote, the findings of the paper. Issue context and within that relative size are, as I’ve argued elsewhere in this blog, important in public affairs.

The paper does have its limitations – many of which are recognised by the author. For example, it only focuses on policy formulation rather than the later stages of policymaking (Council and Parliament). It also does not prove that complexity of an issue or the level of conflict affect the influence of interest groups – two factors the author suggests merit attention. I think we can forgive the initial focus on the policy formulation stage given it is pretty standard counsel to suggest that the longer you go on in a policy process the harder it becomes to shape. I would also argue that the very reason that Brussels is such a hub of public affairs activity is due to the generally complex nature of the policy and legislation being discussed and the relatively small manpower/expertise of the institutions, which makes them reliant on outside viewpoints on most issues.

Whatever you think of the paper, it underlines the following more general points about Brussels public affairs. As a profession we need to start being more data driven. Experience and gut, however well informed, only gets us so far.  Informing our public affairs strategies and the tactics we chose to implement them should require more from us. We need more data on audience and more data to measure success (on the former FH Brussels will be releasing its latest EP survey in the coming weeks – you can register here for further information).

Articles like this one can also only help but dispel some of the myths that surround public affairs in Brussels.  It’s not rocket science, nor is it cloak and dagger. Rather its practice is common sense, its process is open, its results can be measured. It’s part of a healthy democratic process, of which in comparison with other jurisdictions we should be proud.

Contributions like Dr. Kluever’s are helpful to the development of what we do. It would be great to see Dr. Kluever and others take some of their work and bring it to those who practice public affairs. We need this kind of debate.

James

Over on Eye on FDA, FH colleague Mark Senak has a couple of videos with the Chairman of the relevant sub-committee for the FDA, Congressman Kingston, on what he is thinking with regard to the Food Safety Modernization Act. You can check them out here.

James

An interesting blog post by Mathew Lowry on the European Commission’s fascination with all things social media over on the blogactiv platform, along with commentary from members of the Brussels bubble blogorati (Ron, Simon and Joe). The discussion centers around the need to ensure that the ‘shiny new toy’ of social media should not lead to the neglect of all other communications tools.

The commentary led me to think about feedback I’d received following a recent successful pitch to a new client. Apparently in comparison with our main competitor our new client liked the fact that we didn’t major on social media but that it was a full and integrated part of the campaign approached proposed, along with other stuff like  one on one meetings, events like policy luncheons, creation of newsletters, earned and paid media (both online and off) and third party mobilization. It made sense to include it in this case, but it didn’t suddenly make more traditional outreach redundant. Perhaps this surprised them, as compared with our competitors I’d humbly suggest we’ve made greater play in that market (Brussels) of our digital credentials.

Our approach I think reflects a learning that I and others have developed since we launched the Public Affairs 2.0. blog for Fleishman-Hillard in Brussels way back when. We’ve moved from talking about ‘digital public affairs’ to the use of ‘digital tools’ in public affairs. It’s a recognition that a natural attraction to shiny new toys leads to strategy being led by a predeliction to a certain tactic and not the other way around.

The way to surmount this tendency is of course to focus on the audience, the story you’re going to tell to move them and the making choices about the most effective channels to do so. (apologies, my audience centric rant again). Hopefully, the people we work with want someone who can help them understand the audience and of course the full range of tactical choices that they can use to reach them. At least I am hoping that’s why people turn to the kind of consultancy that I feel privileged to be a part of.

James

btw – Merry Christmas! I shall be seeking sun and warmth in Southern California so expect this blog to be even quieter than it normally is (or not, as I will have the dreaded-by-my-missus iPad).

A video from the American League of Lobbyists on the benefits to society of lobbying (via K Street Cafe).

While it clearly plays for a U.S. audience (I can see an E.U. being quite different in focus) it does at least reflect my thoughts on the need for  the government relations and public affairs industry to have a communications campaign as expressed in this blog post.

James

During my visit I was reminded of two very important points for reaching your public affairs objectives in the E.U. whether you are a corporate, trade association or indeed NGO. These points may seem obvious (especially to any visiting U.S. readers of this blog), but it would appear they still need repeating.

1. Be as strong outside the Bubble as you are within it

Having a crack team in Brussels is all well and good (FH can help here), but if you’re really going to shape what’s happening in the E.U. processes you will need strong teams in key Member States (happily we can help here too) working in a coordinated fashion on E.U. policy. After all, one half of our legislature is based in Member State capitals (the perm reps are important, but decisions are still taken back home in many cases) and as our MEP survey last year showed, many of our Members of the European Parliament look homeward (media, influencers) for inspiration.

This is of course easy to say, hard to do. Lack of resources and rigidity of your organisation’s structure may make it difficult. Your national level teams may well report to business units focused on the market rather than the ever ephemeral Europe, if of course they exist at all. You are not alone if your organization relies on business managers at a market level to do public affairs as an evening job. Even if there is a dotted line between Brussels and the national capitals, when push comes to shove national priorities still are likely to take priority over European legislation. It’s only natural. There is also a tendency in Brussels to, well, think only about Brussels.

My advice; seek ‘owned’ teams in markets where you are strong (home market, key markets – normally the big five) and plug and play with trade bodies and consultants elsewhere as needed.

2. It’s the media stupid

U.S. readers will be shocked to hear this advice, but Brussels based actors need to keep reminding themselves that while media may not drive the agenda within the Bubble, it sure does at a national level.  As such, not only do those on the ground at Member State level need to be strong enough and motivated enough to liaise directly with government on E.U. issues, they also need the ability to drive and manage public policy issues in the other channels that influence the people we’re trying to persuade. Meeting the right folks at Member State level with solid facts and argumentation counts for close to zero if the media wind is blowing around your policy issue and against you. The policymaker may agree with you, but politically they just won’t be able to support you. Going to see them again will have little effect.

Again, this is a hard ask. Other channels of communications (earned and paid media, online, third parties) do not tend to be the remit of public affairs in organizations in Europe, nevermind the E.U. public affairs function out of Brussels! Nevertheless in terms of shaping the policy environment they’re an essential part of our toolkit. As such, public affairs functions need to start making a case that all communications functions (including public affairs) need to be audience centric, rather than tactic dependent. Either public affairs needs to have the specialists within it that can work all the aspects of communication towards policymakers or they need the access to others within the organization that can help and are directed to do so as part of their day jobs.

In summary, if you wish to be effective in Brussels (1) ensure that you have a strong national network to support your Brussels based activities and (2) ensure that your public affairs function is audience centric rather than tactic dependent.

All this will hopefully be common sense. But it surprises me how often it is not. Here’s the hoping that this little reminder has proved useful to some.

James

*Thanks to Rosalyn, Rosie, Irina, Freddie and Kamila for making me feel welcome in their space. Proud to see so many great undergrad interns now part of the program I put in place.

If you want to become an undergrad intern in at FH Brussels you need to get your course leader to contact our office in Brussels directly about the program. They should do so now. We only accept applications via partner universities.

Much of my comments focused on the learning from my relatively short time here in D.C. about the differences between the two political systems and public affairs and based on this what this means for the future of public affairs around the world. A true consultant, my deck was as expansive as it was insightful. However, I thought I’d share two slides with the readers of this blog.

The first answers the question what is public affairs from my perspective. As I’ve mentioned before that term has a very different connotation here in D.C. compared to Brussels, Berlin or London. It is also true that government relations is very different in Brussels than it is in D.C. Both points still shock people I speak to on both sides of the Atlantic, despite the fact that due to the differences in political system it’s pretty obvious they will be difference in what we do. In any case, here’s my take on communications, public affairs and government relations.

My own view of public affairs and government relations

The second point thought I’d thought I’d share is based on where I think we should go (particularly in the Brussels market). In essence, I argued for a move from a tactic dependent government relations centric approach to a proactive public affairs centric model. The latter, as my diagram above shows, does not preclude the former. In fact, I would argue in order for public affairs to be successful, government relations is actually needed.

My suggestion for moving us forward

If you want to have the diagram explained in words, here’s something I wrote in a comment recently that does a decent job of it.

James

Steffen Moller is a digital strategist in our Brussels office. His insights on the challenges of bringing digital tools to a market so focused on policy and meeting policymakers is instructive. You can sometimes sense his frustration, but more often than not his untamed passion leaps from the screen. I know he’s making waves in our office there and doing some great things. More to come I can assure you. It’s also interesting to note that the challenge of bringing digital to Brussels is part of a larger play of helping clients understand the larger palette with which they have to paint to successfully achieve their PA objectives. Worth a read.

Metricsman, Don Bartholomew from FH Research in St. Louis, is a godsend for anyone seeking to think about the impact of what they do in the communications (including public affairs). I listened to Don in an internal FH webinar in the summer where he spoke eloquently about ROI in the context of social media. I was inspired. Much of what he has to say has relevance across the communications disciplines and outside of the digital realm. It strikes me however that much of the cutting edge thinking in our industry is being generated by folks with non-traditional PR backgrounds. The Don, as I think we should christen him, is the man the rest of us call when we want someone who lives measurement, rather than is simply able to talk about it.

James

For some of the most maligned ‘political’ chemicals (such as those mentioned) it would seem that a new and improved system of regulation, based on science and clear objective criteria and providing a level playing field for all chemicals – irrespective of how many media clips have been generated that day on that particular substance – is the only positive way forward.

Should it be enacted the NGO movement will of course have to accept that such a system of regulation may establish that the chemicals they love to hate aren’t actually a risk to human health after all, but that’s perhaps a different part of the story.

James