Hi Everyone, this is Amy with the Engagement Edge. Today I’m going to share with you how to tell if your PAC is depressed, as well as an observation regarding your advocacy priorities based on a webinar I attended a few weeks ago. Oh, and there’s a “trigger warning” for the advocacy portion of this episode.

Is Your PAC Depressed?

So, let’s get right to the PAC playground.  I think it’s common to believe that when we encounter a particular contribution obstacle more than twice, that the PAC is doomed —- there’s no hope to change things. And you know how I feel about this. You’ve got to do the proper kind of research to determine that, to determine where it’s coming from, but what I don’t want you to do is to assume that your PAC is depressed and that there is no hope.

I believe if the objections are pervasive, personal and permanent, your PAC is depressed. Then you need an overhaul, okay? First, some quick background. You can see the picture of me with Dr. Martin Seligman. 

I’m a big fan of his work. He has been named the “Father of Positive Psychology,” and founded the Positive Psychology Center at Penn, where his methodology emphasizes the development of wellbeing.

So, let’s have some fun with this. According to Dr. Seligman, clinical depression occurs when you believe that your problem is:

Pervasive – it’s everywhere, in every situation
Personal – it’s your fault
Permanent – it will never change

If you ruminate with this thought pattern, your brain chemistry does indeed change and clinical depression ensues.

I believe this can be applied to your PAC as well. Here’s how I see it, and if you answer “yes” to two of three of these questions, then I would say yes, your PAC is clinically depressed.

Pervasive —- the problem is everywhere —- all departments, all PAC eligibles have these negative feelings toward the PAC, etc. Do all, and I mean all, PAC prospects who don’t contribute, do they all mention a particular rationale for not giving? Do they all say, “I disagree with the politics of our CEO,” or “I disagree with us speaking out on social issues,” or “I think we need to speak out on social issues more, and we don’t and that’s why I don’t give.”  So, there’s all kinds of rationales out there but is it pervasive. Are you hearing the same thing?

Personal – It’s your fault. And it could be, if you aren’t leading! This can be really depressing if true. Is it because of you or someone on your staff? Are people saying, “Well I don’t like the team. I don’t like the government relations team. You don’t return our emails or our phone calls.”  Our Velocity Data Analytics projects have found that trust in the government relations team and increased exposure to them predicts PAC engagement. So, if your team is out there with your association members or employees a great deal, but your conversion rate is low, then yes, there may be a personal aspect of this that you should investigate.

Permanent – The attitude that it will never change. Is it permanent?  (Relatively permanent, meaning that it hasn’t changed in a couple years.)  In the political world “permanence” is really about two or three months, but for our purposes we’ll say a year. Are you hearing it over time, despite changing political, legislative and organizational contexts?

So, if your PAC is depressed, it’s time for an intervention. You know who to call.

Trigger Warning: The Obsession with Medium Continues

And lastly, on a depressing note, I participated as a listener in a webinar regarding state advocacy trends.  The panelists were all CEOs of major trade associations.  They talked about how they work with different groups at the state level. 

Now here’s your trigger warning. . . .the audience had access to these association leaders, but yet they spent the valuable Q&A time asking —- wait for it —– whether online meetings were better as a follow-up with a lawmaker after an initial meeting, or should you meet with them in person. I’m telling you, it’s conversations like this that lead me to assume that the listeners are not “advocacy professionals” but rather “advocacy enthusiasts.” Then I realized that this was a major concern and they were going to spend fifteen minutes to debate this.

My friends that is not the issue.  The issue is not the medium. The issue is the message and the messenger.  As my colleague, Dr. Kelton Rhoads reminds audiences, this discussion is like debating whether Ukranian President Zelenskyy should call, email or see President Biden in person. . . . it doesn’t matter, because if Zelenskyy faxed Biden something, he would read it. That’s not the salient matter here. If it’s a carrier pigeon, he’ll take the message. It doesn’t matter.

So, it seems the advocacy “profession” is still putting way too much emphasis on downstream issues. And I can guarantee that if those groups who are so concerned about in person or online follow up would invest that amount of time (and more!) into examining the credibility of their messengers and message, as in who’s my messenger, how are they perceived? What’s their CQ? (credibility quotient), their likeability, their message frame, etc., they would have an improved influence result.

I feel very strongly about that my friends. We have got to be focused on the big picture and not the downstream topics.

All right, it’s good to be with you. Of course, if you have any comments, questions, or topics you want me to opine on, you know where to find me – amy@showaltergroup.com. Thanks, this is Amy with the Engagement Edge.

The post The Engagement Edge – Symptoms of PAC Depression & Amy’s Advocacy Trigger Warning appeared first on Showalter Group Website.

As my mentor and best-selling leadership author John Maxwell reminds us, “It doesn’t take a lot more to be interesting. But it does take more.”

Using the same language shows that you are on autopilot and not concerned with earning your audience’s attention. In our never-ending quest to be more interesting writers, speakers and leaders, it’s time to release the grip of jejune words and phrases.

Perhaps by reducing our reliance on the following words and phrases, we can all be more interesting.

Listen in…

The post Amy and Kelton’s Exiled Words and Phrases of 2017 appeared first on Showalter Group Website.

There are a lot of grassroots advocacy social media trends, and many of them won’t help you reach your grassroots persuasion goals. As you plan your 2014 outreach, you should be aware of the social media trends – the good and the bad. I had the opportunity to engage Alan Rosenblatt (@DrDigiPol / www.TurnerStrategies.com) to teach at my annual Innovate to Motivate Conference. I don’t get to attend every I2M workshop, so I wanted to interview him about the best and the worst in the grassroots advocacy social media arena.

Q: What would you say is the biggest rule for organizations engaging in social media to advance their cause politically?

A: Carpe colloquium! You have to seize the conversation before it seizes you.

Q: How do you seize it?

A: There are three things you have to pay attention to. First, you have to have an existing presence on social media and in various conversations before you actually need to mobilize the public or your stakeholders. Second, you need to be proactive in talking about news events that impact your stakeholders and/or the public who could be affected by your issue. Three, you have to establish the ability to be part of the conversation and manage chaos. This establishes your credibility in your social media space.

For example, you have to jump on trends when they’re relevant. When Nelson Mandela died, the NAACP posted several items about Mandela with pictures and links. Their weekly interactions on their Facebook page jumped from 11,000 to 91,000. Other civil rights groups posted nothing about him and their interactions actually dropped in the week Mandela died. That’s a perfect example of failing to be proactive during a major event.

Q: I know that you mentioned that many groups are quite “vain” when they are want to gain a foothold in social media. Define “vanity” for us.

A: It’s vanity followers. . . . it’s focusing on the number of Twitter followers, the number of Facebook page likes, etc., that are easiest to measure and the least indicative of your success. Page fans are notorious for liking a page and then never returning. You have to keep them engaged in order to keep them fed. What you really need to focus on are engagement levels.

Q: I totally agree, and I find that organizational executives are misled into thinking those kind of stats are really important; when they find they’re not and all of their likes and followers do not produce a result, then the government affairs shop gets the blame. So what should they be measuring?

A: You need to focus on different aspects of social media depending on what you want. If visibility is your goal, retweets and shares are good because they are more likely to be seen by your friends. To deepen relationships with your existing stakeholders, examine your shares and Facebook page comments and questions coming to you from Twitter. Comments to your Facebook page and @mentions on Twitter require more thought and time than a simple follow or like.

Q: That is an important nuance! One of the constant refrains I hear from government relations professionals are how to “mine” social media engagement; how can we convert those online activists to offline evangelists. What advice do you have on that goal?

A: If you want to convert people to offline activity, it’s much more important to pay attention to comments. Comments indicate that someone has taken the time to put together a cogent (hopefully) thought and write something of interest. It means it’s definitely an indicator that they feel more strongly about the topic than someone who just retweets or likes something. You have to remember that only 10% of your page fans or friends see your wall posts in their newsfeeds. If they haven’t clicked on one of your posts in a while, they stop getting them in their feed. You have to get them to reconnect by promoting a wall post to all of your fans or get existing fans to recruit their friends.

Q: Back to your admonition that we not emphasize the number of fans and followers in the “vanity” category, how can someone know if their opponents’ followers are legitimate? I can envision an executive berating the government relations/advocacy team because their opponents have more vanity followers than they do.

A: You can go to followerwonk.com and that will give you information on how frequently their followers tweet, where they live, and in general their activity level. So that’s one way to verify what’s really going on. What people have to remember is the easier something is to measure, the less it can tell you. Klout engagement stats are adequate, they’re not perfect, but that can be of help as well. You can get a sense of who influences who online and it can help you see the relationship between certain groups and individuals online that may not be apparent offline.

Q: What’s your prediction relative to social media practices for 2014?

A: I think we’ll definitely see more elected officials and candidates using it. My hope is that they use it to truly talk to voters, rather than just post links to press releases. They have many great opportunities to use it to follow-up and answer questions they didn’t get to at town hall meetings or something they wish someone would have asked them at a press conference, etc. It’s a great way to show that you’re accessible.

Q: I can’t resist asking you which groups are the best on the “left,” on the “right” and why?

A: On the left I’d say thinkprogress.org is really good because they have a different perspective. They are usually first with new information, and sometimes their content can be edgy but that’s what gets attention.

Q: On the right?

A: I’d say Michelle Malkin and her twitchy.com site really sustain a conversation. She’s also edgy, a little snarky and controversial, but her people really keep the conversation going.

I’d also add that the Upworthy.com team is doing a wonderful job because they are trying to give people a good reason to share online content. Their goal is to make worthy, positive content viral.

The post Carpe Colloquium! The Best and Worst Trends in Social Media appeared first on Showalter Group Website.

Some interesting research from David K. Rehr, PhD, CEO of TransparaGov, Inc. and Professor at the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University, has revealed what congressional staff really think about the various institutions that lobby them. There’s good news for state and local governments, non-profits and small business (and even the federal government) but mixed news for corporations and unions. Although the research was conducted with congressional staff and not the ultimate decision – maker, the legislator, it offers useful insights on which institutions are trusted, and how they can improve their relationships with congressional staff, who are the gatekeepers. Dr. Rehr’s research, Capitol Hill Attitudes Toward American Economic Institutions, was sponsored by the Original U.S. Congress Handbook and the George Washington Graduate School of Political Management.

Rehr surveyed 320 congressional staff members and asked them how trustworthy they find the information they receive from various economic interests. State and local government ranked at the top — 90% of the respondents trust the information provided by the policy makers back home.

Dr. Rehr stated that he was intrigued that that there was so much trust in state and local government officials. From my perspective, the reason the state and local government folks are trusted is because they are very similar to the elected official and their staff. Similarity is a very primitive, yet huge driver of trust. Many members of Congress were once county commissioners, city council members, mayors, etc., so they have had experiences akin to the state and / or local government official. They’re in sync, and fair or unfair, similarity is a driver of at the very least, rapport, and in many cases, persuasion.

Further, when asked “How often do you hear from each organization when policy affecting them is being considered by Congress?” State / Local Government ranked near the bottom of the list in terms of frequent contact. Corporations were first, yet they are trusted less. State and local governments have the luxury of being trusted while making less contact on Capitol Hill.

The federal government’s second place ranking would probably have been lower if the survey was conducted prior to the NSA wiretapping and IRS shenanigans. Not surprisingly, non-profits and small business ranked very highly. As I wrote in one of my first posts, we ascribe trust to the underdog, and most non-profits and small businesses have underdog “street cred”. They have few resources, they don’t waste the resources they do have, they ideally do not brag about their underdog status, and they keep others’ expectations low.

We can assume that each time a corporation allocates resources to lobbying a particular cause it is because there truly is a bottom line impact to the corporation, which affects shareholders, and employees. There are occasions, however, where the stated consequences of the legislation being enacted or defeated is exaggerated. When the onerous legislation passes and the company does not relocate to Guam, does not lay off half their work force, etc., trust is eroded for the next debate. If dire consequences will occur, by all means convey that, but corporations and unions shouldn’t exaggerate the effect of certain proposals. Not adding to the corporate trust equation, while 93% of the respondents believe that corporations are needed for U.S. economic growth and jobs, 58% believe that corporations “put profits ahead of people”.

The Bottom Line #1: According to Dr. Rehr, business advocacy groups might want to seek additional partnerships with state and local governments to strengthen their case on Capitol Hill, making for a more explicit private/public partnership.

The Bottom Line #2: Big organizations have underdog qualities; they all were small at one point, and they need to imbue their culture and external communications with their struggling roots. Further, they usually serve the “little guy” whether a patient, insurance policy holder, or small auto parts supplier. We trust small more than big. As I wrote in Underdog Edge, small is an advantage; it implies sacrifice, and hard(er) work than what is performed (fair or unfair) in big organizations. We ascribe positive qualities to the “little guy” and rooting for them means that we are good people because we support them.

Bad News for Labor Unions

The survey slightly oversampled Democrats, so this result is especially surprising: 48.9% of respondents rank labor unions as “very/somewhat trustworthy”, but 46.9% rank them “not very/not at all trustworthy.” The research did not allow for verbatim comments, so we don’t know exactly why the union trust level is so much lower than small businesses at 82% and corporations at 64.7%. It may be the age difference among national labor leaders and congressional staff, which can impact the similarity of principle influence, or it may be their predictable allegiance to issues that don’t benefit their members —- bias in overdrive.

For example, labor leaders are having a change of heart on the Affordable Care Act, which makes one wonder if they ever objectively assessed what the legislation would do to their health care plans. They may have forgotten about the “little guy” they represent — their members. This admission will further hurt their credibility, because it shows that they either were woefully obtuse when examining the provisions of Obamacare, or they did and didn’t care because of their loyalty to Democrat leaders.

Eight-two percent (82%) of the respondents “would be open to receiving more communications from local small businesses” in the member’s state or district, which is almost twice as many who said they would be open to receiving more communications from national labor organizations. Local labor organizations in the district fared a little better at 55.3%.

The Bottom Line: Corporations can learn from the mistakes of national labor leaders. Be as objective as possible when evaluating legislative proposals from your political friends. Publicly point out where legislative initiatives can be improved, even when it is proposed by reliable allies.

Your Organization is Always Being Compared to Others

This research is a good reminder that, as I tell my audiences, you’re always being compared to another organization—there are no orphans in decision making. The contrast principle is always at work. In today’s hyper-partisan environment, an organization’s trust quotient is very important, because trust is the gateway to persuasion. I view trust as simply a lack of bias with some expertise thrown in, but the expertise has to be unbiased—we all have heard from the “experts” who come to very different conclusions on an issue based on their political affiliation.

According to Dr. Rehr, “I conducted the research because congressional staffers generally are not experienced in business or trained in economics. Their education is usually political science or government. Many Hill staff come to D.C. as a result of working on a successful campaign. Now they are in positions of authority which could inhibit or allow for economic growth. I wanted to check to ensure they had a positive perception of free enterprise, corporations, etc.” Whether their perceptions are accurate or not, they definitely have opinions that can translate into public policy decisions, and smart organizations should pay attention to their perceptions.

The post Which Organizations Are Trusted Most On Capitol Hill? appeared first on Showalter Group Website.

No matter one’s position on gun control, there are lessons we can learn from the recent battle on background checks. According to Gallup, Over 90% of the public supports background checks for all gun purchases, yet the measure failed to pass the U.S. Senate.

According to most published sources, the reason is simple: the NRA has tons of money and threatened to “primary” those who voted against their will in the next election. If only it were that simple. As my colleague Dr. Kelton Rhoads, reminds us: “People are generally unable to distinguish a successful tactic in a failed campaign, or a failed tactic in a winning campaign. People over generalize, and assume any tactic used in a failed campaign is a bad one. Whereas a successful campaign blesses every tactic used.”

I’m going to share with you 5 reasons why the NRA won, and they have nothing to do with the often reported reasons like their PAC funds, their ability to turn out pro-gun voters in every legislative district, and the abundance of their skilled in-house and external lobbyists, although those are all true.

They simply execute the basics extremely well. As NRA volunteer Robert in Arizona told his fellow members about the basics, “Thanks for emailing your U.S. Senator, but you have to also write a letter or send a hand written postcard. No one ever tripped on a bag of email.” The good news is the tactics the NRA employed that no one is talking about are things that you can implement in your next persuasion battle. In addition, there were some mistakes made by gun control advocates that unwittingly aided the NRA.

1. Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership

As an NRA leader who’s worked there for over two decades told me, “I think our volunteers’ passion and intensity cannot be matched. You can’t pull a switch; your grassroots has to have sustainability and you have to train people. We might be happy with a recent legislative victory, but we examine why we won, we evaluate what we need to do better, and get our volunteers geared up for the next battle.” But how do they foster that culture, that fervor?

When we look at the grassroots effectiveness of the NRA, a big part of it has do with their volunteer leadership. According to one of my annual grassroots conference faculty members, Dr. Brad Sagarin of Northern Illinois University, there are two kinds of leadership styles: transactional and transformational. “Transactional leadership rewards people for accomplishing goals, and interventions typically occur when problems arise. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, motivates followers through appeals to ideals and values, and instills volunteers with their leader’s vision and direction.” From what I have seen over two decades of researching grassroots best practices, the NRA (and many unions) practice transformational leadership.

One of their long-time volunteer organizers told me, “At NRA, we believe in true grassroots. We don’t think that volunteers are ‘customers.’ These people are our friends. I’ve been in their homes, I’ve met their children, I’ve sat at their kitchen table, I’ve met their grandchildren. In addition, we on staff do all the things that we ask volunteers to do. We walk neighborhoods and pass out literature, we get on the phones, we raise money, we volunteer for campaigns. We consider ourselves peers with our volunteers.” Remember, this is an “inside the beltway” professional speaking–trust me, it’s very atypical.

At an annual conference I sponsor for political involvement professionals, I was reading some of the materials that attendees brought to share with their colleagues. One was a regional NRA newsletter. There was the typical legislative update and election news, but there also was a full page dedicated to volunteers in this particular region. In fact, the staff member took the time to mention each volunteer by name, mentioned the activities and events they attended together during his recent trip to the region (many of which had nothing to do with the NRA), described much fun he had with these people, what good friends they were, etc. I had never before or since seen that kind of personal recognition of volunteers. There is a core of collegiality that is unmatched in many grassroots organizations.

The Bottom Line: What is your ratio of transactional vs. transformational leadership behaviors? Share your vision and give your volunteers meaningful responsibilities.

2. Superior Grassroots Volunteer Quality

Several years ago, National Journal conducted one of their “insider” informal polls, where they asked D.C. insiders and congressional staff to name the most effective lobbying groups. The NRA of course made the list (along with the Heritage Foundation, The Credit Union National Association, AARP, The Teamsters, The American Israel Political Action Committee, and others). What was revealing were the reasons why these groups were effective. The answers included: “foot power and financial power,” “their allies respect them, their opponents fear them,” and what I think is the most telling: “Their constituents back home are head and shoulders above other interest groups.” Having taught citizens at all income and education levels how to get powerful legislators on their side, I have seen the good and the mediocre among sincere citizen advocates. I’ve never worked for the NRA, but from what I know of their volunteers and volunteer leadership, they would be in the “head and shoulders above” category.

I know from the interviews I conducted with these volunteers as well as the volunteer leadership practices of the NRA, they take great care to train, equip, and motivate their volunteers. And their volunteers are willing to show up and do the work.

I interviewed three NRA volunteers for The Underdog Edge. These were rank and file NRA members who changed the mind of a (or several) legislators. However, I could not use their stories in the book. Why? They were so much more advanced and adept at persuasion compared to the other “underdogs” I interviewed. Because I was looking for a pattern of influence behaviors practiced a majority of the ordinary people I interviewed, I could not include them in my book —- they were that unique. What did they do?

3. Volunteers Who are Intrepid in “Showing They Know”

As I reviewed their interview notes for this blog post, I came across something startling. In each and every one of the interviews, with Shaun, Mike, and David —– they exhibited the same behaviors when influencing up that none of my other interview subjects did. It’s as if they had their own “code,” their own methodology for advocating with lawmakers. They knew more about current gun laws, and the constitutionality of them, than the legislators and in one case the law enforcement officials they were trying to persuade (and they did persuade them, by the way).

One of them took on a committee of state senators, a majority of them who were against a proposal. He received a call from his state lobbyist about a half-hour before a major piece of legislation was to be debated in Austin. He immediately headed to the State House to testify. As he told me, “I was able to refute, point by point, 9 aspects of a proposed state law which showed it was unconstitutional and only aimed at law abiding gun owners. I could tell I was successful when I saw how angry my own representative was with me. The key is, Amy, we know the law better than the legislators.” Whether you like it or not, the NRA volunteers know their stuff. They are well trained and intrepid when it comes to explaining their point of view.

As former Congressman Jim Ross Lightfoot told me when I interviewed him for The Underdog Edge, “Amy, we talk and listen to people all day. We get pretty good at telling who is truly committed and sincere and who is not.”

In the recent debate on background checks, one of the NRA’s top volunteers, Sean from Ohio, took the initiative to approach like-minded organizations and volunteered to speak at their upcoming meetings about the pending legislation. For two months he was giving at least three speeches per week to local groups. Two things stand out about this: 1) he is willing to give three speeches a week; 2) he knows his stuff enough to do this. I wonder how many organizations have volunteers capable and willing to do the same for their cause.

The Bottom Line: Do you equip your team to not just regurgitate talking points, but to practice intrepid advocacy for your cause? How would they do when they are challenged by someone up the food chain? Do you even trust them to carry important messages?

4. Investment in the Power of FTF

“FTF” in my world is “Face To Face,” as in FTF influence. I was excoriated by some for an opinion piece I wrote for Roll Call several years ago where I stated that many interest groups are relying too much on email advocacy. Amazingly, grassroots leaders were aghast that I dare state that while a vital part of the persuasion toolbox, online advocacy is but one of many tactics, and that you have to integrate all tactics to win. Some grassroots leaders called me and said their regional staff saw the article and ranted to them about my view and how they were concerned that I indeed was correct, because all of their resources were invested in online advocacy.

Two people called me after the article was published: an AFL-CIO staffer and an NRA staffer. The AFL-CIO person told me, “Amy you are right, so many people in this town push a button and think it is real grassroots. It takes real people.” This from a leader whose membership occupies less and less of the private sector workforce, yet still wields great influence. The other call was from the NRA. “Amy, I liked your article, but hey, if these groups keep doing online advocacy, that’s fine with me. Let them keep doing that, because we’ll keep doing what we do, and we will win.”

Remember what Congressman Jim Lightfoot said—legislators are pretty good at judging the credibility and sincerity of each and every constituent lobbying for a cause. Being face to face communicates that you are willing to make an effort; it increases your sincerity quotient.

I’ve seen this exemplified as well with one of my pharmaceutical clients. They have a very active structure of patient networks that advocate for legislation at the state level. These groups regularly convene offline for social and education events; there is a true offline community. They expressed concern to me that other pharmaceutical companies are now trying to copy their model. However, these copycat companies are creating online-only networks. I predict that the groups that have strong online and offline interaction will prosper while those that are only online will have persuasion challenges. There’s just no substitution for face-to-face interaction and the scientific literature hasn’t changed to date about its power. The NRA understands this and invests in it.

The Bottom Line: Online advocacy certainly is here to stay and plays a role in moving your message. However, online advocacy is the lowest form of commitment. What are you doing to equip your team to show up offline?

5. Narrative Goes Both Ways

Many have asked why the compelling stories of families affected by gun violence, particularly the Newtown victims, didn’t have more of an impact on this debate. Their stories of course had an impact; the Congress would not have considered gun legislation without them. But, as Brad Fitch of the Congressional Management Foundation wrote recently in his Roll Call article entitled “Power of the Personal Story Is Not New to Congress,” “In a survey of House chiefs of staff conducted last fall, when asked how frequently personal stories are used in meetings with their member of Congress, 88 percent said somewhat or very frequently.”

Stories are not new. It’s the combination of the story, the context of the debate, and the political accountability of the group telling the story that can move a lawmaker. I would never counsel someone to refrain from using narrative to make a point; we are hard-wired to respond to story. But the other side has stories, too.

While it seems like the NRA is portrayed as caring only about their guns, their rights, etc., there is a great deal of concern for the rights of others — for the underdog. As I reviewed my interview notes, each one, again, had a story of an underdog, an ordinary person, who would have benefited from their position —– people they often do not know or have relationships with, so they also effectively argue for the interests of others.

Mike told me the story of a local proposal to limit the number of guns one could buy per month. A woman who purchased a gun to protect herself from her estranged husband (against whom she obtained a restraining order) was attacked by him; her gun malfunctioned, but she survived the attack. However, due to the proposed law, she would not have been able to purchase another gun because it fell within the restricted time frame.

Another member reminded a local legislator who was fighting the location of a gun range near his church that a 90 year old church member who was gunned down at a local restaurant was killed by those who illegally obtained guns, and that that issue was more important to address than the location of a practice range.

The Bottom Line: How can you advocate for others you do not represent? Remember, legislators expect you to talk about how you benefit; when you look out for others, you increase your persuasion quotient.

So, agree or disagree with the NRA, there are factors besides the “money and power” theme to to their effectiveness, but they are not as predictable or malignant as the “money and power” theme, is it?

And, like any other group, they benefited from the mistakes of their opponents. Here’s a few of them for your consideration.

Rahm Emmanuel’s Recruiting of Pro Gun Democrats

Something Democrats who favored the background check legislation have failed to remember (and few in the media are reporting) is that many of their colleagues were recruited to run for office precisely because they were “pro gun democrats”.

That’s right, back in 2006, an element of Rahm Emmanel’s strategy to win back the House in 2006 was to recruit candidates who supported gun rights. There was a reason Rahm Emanuel recruited them all those years ago–he felt that they would be less threatened at the polls because of the NRA’s ability to impact elections.

The Bottom Line: The philosophy and campaign platform of an elected official of any level still matters. Legislators who ran in pro-gun districts and included their support for gun rights are going to generally maintain that commitment and philosophy.

Leveraging Your Opponent’s Mistakes

Michael Bloomberg has tons of money and holds himself in high regard. He has created the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Group which will impact this debate. He has already spent $12 million of his own money for advertisements against the NRA’s position in key states. However, I believe it backfired in this recent debate.

His group ran ads over the last congressional recess in places like Arkansas and Arizona. Instead of winning over Arkansas and Arizona voters, it gave Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) the ability to say that “New York City didn’t tell them how to vote”.

Many gun safety advocates will press on and continue to run ads, which is a standard tactic and is perfectly acceptable. However, we know how just running TV ads worked for Karl Rove’s Super PAC efforts to elect Mitt Romney. You’ve got to have several tactics at the ready and not throw money at a couple obvious tactics.

The Bottom Line: Sometimes your opponent makes a miscalculation which benefits you. Be ready and unafraid to leverage it to your advantage.

The post Five Reasons The NRA Won The Recent Gun Control Debate That Have Nothing To Do With Politics appeared first on Showalter Group Website.

A couple weeks ago, the U.S. Senate adopted numerous “message” amendments to the 2014 budget resolution.  The message amendments are nonbinding, but reveal the causes that have momentum for the “real” budget fight later. According to The Hill, there were some distinct winners and losers in the battle. Among the winners: Medical device companies, retailers, the oil and gas industry, and seniors groups and unions. The losers included sugar reformers and campaign watchdogs.

The post How Special Interests Won and Lost the Budget and Sequester Fights appeared first on Showalter Group Website.

It’s that time again to see what, if anything, we can learn from those who have to influence legions of people who do not report to them, do not know them personally, and could not care less about public policy. . . . namely, our elected officials.  This time we have President Barack Obama and his State of the Union (SOTU) speech.

1. Own the Awkward – I knew it was coming. As Senator Rubio’s rebuttal speech went on, I sensed from his rate of speech and enunciation that he was going to need water to utter another word. I envisioned him grabbing his throat and pleading for water, in fact.

Rubio’s water grab was an awkward moment for him and his viewers. But he wisely owned it, and probably won some friends in the process.  His team tweeted this photo as a part of his “response” to the State of the Union address. It shows a sense of humor and just makes you more human.

As to how he got himself into that predicament, we do know from the communications literature that we tend to speak faster when we are excited to share our message, as well as when we are nervous. So I attribute this to his genuine enthusiasm for his message and also that he had to be just a little nervous. If he wasn’t nervous, I would be worried. After all, this was not a speech to the Tampa Rotary club.  If you are not nervous on that kind of stage, it makes me think you just don’t care about what you are saying.

The Bottom Line #1: If you have an awkward moment, (tripping over cords, spilling water, your phone ringing during your talk, etc.)  own it, just like the Senator did. It’s hard not to like someone who can laugh at him or herself.

The Bottom Line #2: There is nothing awkward or wrong about getting a drink of water, but, believe it or not, it’s how you do it that matters.  Have it near to you, so that you don’t have to lunge or take a hike to reach it. I also think a glass of water is better for a quick sip than a water bottle. It’s faster (yes, I’ve timed myself), there’s less chance of missing your mouth, and more natural. More elegant, even.

2. Control the Setting – This is one of the most intractable parts of the rebuttal speech that impacts the perception of the message and messenger. There’s just not much to pick from — compared to the House floor, any setting other than the Senate floor or Oval Office will be viewed with less authority.  And Rubio wasn’t getting access to either of those.

It’s like being asked to present a strategy presentation from a cubicle when your CEO just did it from the boardroom. However, I do think his setting,  Speaker Bohener’s conference room, was one of the best in years. Thebackground showed the Capitol’s 19^th Century neoclassical architecture, complete with one marble column visible on the right of the screen. Better than a library setting with potted plants.

The Bottom Line: When you make a presentation, do you control the setting? It’s your show, and you should arrive early so you can arrange the room in a way that makes you comfortable. Don’t use the podium because it’s there – move it. Don’t sit at a panel if you speak better standing up—get up and stand at the end of the panelist table to deliver your remarks. If you move around the room when you give a presentation, and it is set so that there is no strolling room, change the seating.  It’s not about the meeting organizer’s comfort, and the audience could not care less. I’ve been doing this for a while and have yet to hear an audience member (or client) demand a “do over” because I rearranged the setting.

3. Inoculate Your Audience – Senator Rubio stated that Obama’s “Favorite attack of all is that those who don’t agree with him – they only care about rich people.” Rubio is letting the listener know the tactics that will be used to counter the Republican position, thus inoculating the listener.

He went on to say, “So  Mr. President, I don’t oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.”

The Bottom Line: Alert your audience to what those who disagree with you not only think, but what they will say about the issue. How will they try to discredit your views? What tactics will they use to do that?  

4. Respect Your Opponent – Senator Rubio began his remarks by congratulating the President on his re-election. In his conclusion, his “God bless our President” sentiment was a gracious and unexpected touch. It’s hard to dislike someone who expresses good wishes to someone with whom he disagrees.

The Bottom Line: No matter how vociferous the disagreement, is there anything nice you can say about your opponent or their logic, position, style? If so, hold your nose and do it. It never hurts to be nice.

The post ‘Own The Awkward’ And Three Other Presentation Lessons from Senator Marco Rubio’s State Of The Union Response appeared first on Showalter Group Website.

Even political junkies admit that the State of the Union (SOTU) speech can be tough for the President delivering it. It’s a list of policy proposals that can cause one to fall into a trance, regardless of their value or importance. Kind of like some of the presentations you may have to deliver for your organization.

Thus, it’s an exacting task to make it persuasive and engaging. Here are some lessons we can learn from President Obama’s delivery. You can read my thoughts on Senator Rubio’s rebuttal here.

1. Front Load It – You want to save memorable lines for last as a call-back technique, but you also have to front load your talk with your top priorities. Your audience remembers most what they hear first and last, and less of what’s in the middle. President Obama started with results and what matters most -– avoiding the sequestration budget cuts.

The Bottom Line: Take the two-minute test: if you had two minutes with your audience, what would you say? Start there as you craft the opening of your talk.

2. Put Your The Foot in the Door – At the end of Obama’s speech, he urged Congress to pass stricter gun control measures, generating applause. Did you notice how he continued to talk over the applause, citing names of victims of gun violence who “deserve a vote”? This is an example of the classic “foot in the door” technique.

As Dr. Kelton Rhoads of USC reminds us, “This influence tactic of ‘talking over the cheers’ could be considered a variation of the classic foot-in-the-door gambit. In foot-in-the-door, the salesman asks for a little commitment (the foot in the door), followed by a larger commitment (the salesman squeezes through the door). So the first, smaller or easier action (opening the door a crack) makes the second, larger or more difficult action more likely. The smaller and easier commitment here–cheering a well-received phrase from the previous sentence–allows more of the salesman to squeeze in through the door while the cheering is still going on.

The momentum of the cheering also helps cover whatever new concept is added. People are unlikely to break off mid-cheer and think critically about the new material that’s been added. You don’t hear people yelling: ‘Yaaaaaaay–wait, now hold on, what do you mean by that?’ New material that follows immediately gets the momentum cheer. Cheering crowds aren’t known for their critical thinking skills. And accomplished orators know that.”

The Bottom Line: Is there a proposition that you know your audience will cheer for or support? How can you use that door opening to win them over to new ideas?

3. The Authority Tactic – Obama asked Congress to consider supporting the creation of an Energy Security Trust by invoking the authority principle of influence: “So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. If a non-partisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we.”

He’s implying that these individuals, by virtue of their positions, know better. Have CEO’s, general or admirals ever made a bad decision? The “authority” principle of influence, states that we shortcut our reasoning if we see that certain authority figures support a cause or position. It’s like telling someone, “These people are smarter than you, if they approve of this concept, it would be unwise and/or stupid for you to think otherwise.”

The Bottom Line: I have mixed emotions on this technique, as it is bereft of evidence. It relies on the thinking of others without personal examination of the issue. It’s the “everybody’s doing it” rationale from junior high on steroids.

If you use this tactic, cite why the authority figures came to their conclusion.

4. End With the Underdog – Making lofty public policy issues real requires drilling down to the individuals who are affected by those policy decisions. Obama didn’t do anything new here, but I am surprised by how many smart, articulate professionals don’t use this technique in their public presentations. He deftly (continuing the tradition started by the great communicator President Reagan) incorporated examples of his legislative proposals bolstered by flesh and blood characters like Brian Murphy, the Wisconsin police officer who saved lives with his heroism during the Wisconsin at Sikh Temple shooting, New York City nurse Menchu Sanchez, and 102-year-old Miami voter Desiline Victor.

The Bottom Line: Are there flesh and blood characters that you can integrate into your presentations? The more “ordinary” and similar to those you are trying to influence, the more persuasive the example or story.

The post Four Presentation Lessons from President Obama’s State of the Union Speech appeared first on Showalter Group Website.

It’s time to reflect upon what we can learn from business involvement in politics during 2012. There is rich material for us to learn from, and I could write about much more than this column allows. However, I have prioritized those concerns that apply to the widest swath of businesses possible. In other words, the big picture.

Hang Together – Which implies:  coordination and organization among businesses.

As Darrell Shull, COO of the Business Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC) told me, “Some are trying to divide the business community over the fiscal cliff situation, but there is not a bit of daylight there, we are sticking together.” He is right on these high profile issues. The business community prides itself on its coalitions, joint policy statements and white papers, all of which are helpful and do show a degree of unity. But when one member of an industry is targeted for lack of political correctness, industry partners scatter.

My colleague Dr. Kelton Rhoads reminds us: “Saul Alinsky knew that as long as businesses saw themselves as are separate entities, they’re easily picked off, one by one. Businesses need to stop seeing rival businesses as their prime competitors. Recognize them as fellow entrepreneurs and allies. Other powers are eroding the very foundation of business; wake up and recognize who they are. Show some solidarity when your business competitor is targeted for being politically incorrect. The business community needs to learn what “community” means. Organize, organize, organize. ‘Hang together,’ as Ben Franklin said, ‘or hang separately.’”

What happens when a member of the business community is targeted for being politically incorrect? What happened to the companies who dropped their membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) due to ALEC’s involvement in state voter ID laws and other social issues deemed unacceptable by far left groups? Who stuck by them?

As one PR Director for a national chain restaurant told me, “Our industry, like any other, is very competitive and we follow each other, copying successful products and offerings. So in that aspect we acknowledge each other. But look out when it comes to being attacked by an outside group—-no one will stand by you. It’s really shameful when you look at the big picture, when you realize what’s at stake.”

The Bottom Line: When the business community starts sticking together like unions do (unions tend to support each other regardless of the type of union being challenged), they will have more persuasive clout. For now, many can be picked off “one by one.”

Understand the Difference Between Voter Engagement Tools and Political Persuasion. OK, I am going on a bit of a rant here, so stick with me. Political engagement tools such as websites dedicated to employee voter registration and issue information are nice and help your brand. Who can criticize the efforts of a company to provide employee voter registration tools and encourage good citizenship? But if those tools were so effective, if the business community was really moving its employees to cast a vote based on the impact to their jobs, I contend that the election outcome might have been different.

What we have is a gap of trust and communications, not a gap in the tools. For example, business trade organizations provided more voter registration and get out the vote tools and issue communications to their members than ever before. The U.S. Chamber’s web site, Vote for Jobs, was one example. The National Association of Manufacturers did a great job of making sure manufacturing was in the presidential race conversation at every opportunity, equipping members with a NAM Election Center web site with many tools for increased involvement. And the pioneer for providing these tools to the business community, the Business Industry Political Action Committee, (BIPAC), created get out the vote tools, candidate voter guides, and weekly election updates to over 6,300 companies and associations. They and other business associations did all they could to empower their member organizations.

BIPAC’s research validates that employees value this type of election information, and that they trust political information provided by their employer. But they can also get very partisan messages online from other sources with which they more closely identify.  So there is a disconnect. They may value the employer provided information, but until they identify themselves as a free enterprise voter, there is still work to do.

The Bottom Line: Voter empowerment tools do not translate to voter persuasion. What are you doing to build trust and emotional allegiance to your issues?

Earn Trust Before You Talk – An unprecedented number of business owners and leaders reminded their employees not only to vote this year, but to vote for Mitt Romney and Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate.  They explained the ramifications to their bottom line if President Obama was re-elected without a GOP controlled Senate to stop certain proposals.

I personally think those types of conversations are long, long overdue (regardless of the political cause, by the way. I’m for more involvement by everyone!), so kudos to those courageous executives. However, your employees don’t believe you. As one executive at a national trade association reminded me “Amy, we can provide all the information to educate our member company employees, to share how the election of certain candidates would affect their business, but if the employees don’t trust the top guy, it doesn’t matter.” He is so right.

I’ll never forget an audience member confession at one of my speeches which confirmed this. He said that his CEO broke with the tradition of silence during elections and sent a memo to salaried employees, reminding them that certain candidates for the state Supreme Court were more preferable for their business concerns than others. My audience member, a VP of Government Relations for this company, reported that he was told by fellow executives: “If he wants us to vote for a certain candidate, I’m voting for the other guy.” That’s an apt example of unintended consequences, isn’t it?

The Bottom Line: Senior company leaders have to demonstrate that everyone is “in this together.” The reality is that your employees do not see the negative impact of public policy on the executive suite. You need to demonstrate that what happens to them happens to all of you, that you are in this together. But they don’t see that, and thus they don’t trust what you tell them about the issues and how elections have consequences.

Understand the Legislative Communications Funnel – Although the best way to influence is to deal directly with the decision maker (members of Congress or your state legislators), you have to go through their staff, especially on Capitol Hill. Research findings from Dr. David Rehr of GWU’s Graduate School of Political Management and Columbia Books is required reading.  The most surprising finding?

Congressional staff look to other congressional staff for insight on critical issues. While some may consider this a prime example of following the lemmings, it illustrates one of the main principles of persuasion — that in times of uncertainly, we look to “many similar others” for guidance. Despite the reams of expert opinion and policy analysis available to staff (which they do thankfully also use) they still look to each other for guidance. 

The Bottom Line: To successfully influence, one element is knowing how your prospect receives and prioritizes information. Strive to have your message heard by all pertinent congressional offices and staff who can sway your issue. People talk. 

If You Commit Corporate Treasury Dollars to a Super PAC, be Transparent – Do what the CEO of Scotts Miracle Gro James Hagedorn did,  and explain in plain English what you are doing, and why you are committing corporate funds to a particular cause or candidate.  Scotts had a lot of credibility in this effort because they had publicly endorsed Ohio’s Democratic Governor, Ted Strickland, in his race against GOP candidate (now Governor) John Kasich. It showed that the company’s leaders put some rational thought into the process rather than allocating endorsements and money based solely on political affiliations.

The Bottom Line: If it is important enough for your corporate dollars to funnel into a super PAC, make sure there is a thoughtful strategy, metrics and accountability measure available to you as a contributor.

P.S. If You Commit Personal or Corporate Treasury Dollars to a Super PAC, Do Your Homework We like to think that those with the purse strings do a lot of analysis and thinking about these decisions, but the tons of money given to Karl Rove’s Super PAC clearly showed this is not the case.  InUnderdog Edge, I wrote that powerful people have less time to think, to reflect, and thus make snap decisions based on advice and their “gut.” This was a flawless example of that principle.

Rove was able to convince hundreds of individuals and organizations to contribute to his super PAC, American Crossroads, based solely on his reputation. His track record of helping twice elect a then-unpopular president contributed to his influence cachet.  Rove’s operations, American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, backed Mitt Romney with $127 million on more than 80,000 television spots. Ten of the twelve Senate candidates and four of the nine House candidates that the Rove groups supported also lost their races.

The Bottom Line: Context, candidates, and strategy change from campaign to campaign. Success in one arena does not necessarily translate to another.  Note to future super PAC contributors – think twice when David Axelrod and David Plouffe ask you to contribute to their super PACs.

The post The Right Way for Businesses To Engage In Politics In 2013 appeared first on Showalter Group Website.

People with Little Name Recognition Can Yield Great Influence

Every year I keep a running tally of lesser-known people who successfully influenced up the food chain. We can often learn more from them than the powerful. Power does not equal persuasion skills. In fact, successful underdogs are more skilled at persuasion because their task is much more difficult, yet they succeed. Most people don’t realize the people who have power can be lazy communicators.

“We naturally assume that dominant, successful people are gifted persuaders:Barack Obama, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, etc. And perhaps they were, at some point in their careers. But persuasion is a “gateway skill” to success. When one becomes sufficiently powerful, continued success relies more on the skillful allocation of accumulated power than on persuasion. The powerful simply don’t need the tools of persuasion as much as the rest of us do. They have coercive tools at their disposal that the rest of us don’t,” according to professor Kelton Rhoads of USC’s Annenberg School for Communication.

“Steve Jobs was a great example. As a CEO he was forceful, challenging, peremptory, and by all reports relied on the stick more than the carrot. Persuasive people tend to be open to persuasion from others. But Jobs was highly resistant to persuasion from his engineers, his physicians, even his wife, who pleaded with him to treat his cancer using standard medical practices. Likewise, any current list of “most persuasive people” would include President Obama, who at this point of his career relies much more on the momentum of consolidated power, than on his gifts of persuasion,” Rhoads said.

We know that those who influence up, as documented in The Underdog Edge, probably have more influence skills than those at the top, and we can learn from them. When underdogs reach their goals, it gives hope to other underdogs who are afraid to bark because they think only the rich, the powerful and the connected can get their way.

So drum roll, please, here is my list of the top underdog persuaders of 2012.

Amy Showalter’s Top Underdog Persuaders of 2012

Nate Silver – Our research found that winning underdogs almost always have to use unconventional tactics to win; they can’t play by Goliath’s rules. Silver changed the way people analyze the hyper-abundance of political polling information, winning praise from some and criticism from others. Like many underdog influencers, he took the unconventional path. He predicted election outcomes by including in his methodology the pollster’s historical track records, assigning each a value to indicate “pollster-introduced error.” In essence he evaluated the pollster’s reputation when using polls to predict election outcomes, something never attempted until now.

Laura Vikmanis – Want to persuade Hollywood to make a movie about your life story, but haven’t changed the world through your inventions or by fostering world peace? Try to get a job competing against those twenty years younger than you, a job that is based on youth, good looks and fitness. Laura’s status as the NFL’s oldest cheerleader at age 43 influenced women to think less of their age and more of what they want from life. After her husband left her in her late 30’s, she thought being a cheerleader “looked like fun,” so she tried out. And failed. Most women would quit at her age, but not Laura. She tried again, and made the squad. This is her fifth year as a Ben-Gal.

Jeremy Lin –  Who can forget “Linsanity”? The fever overtook not only New Yorkers but sports fans everywhere when the undrafted Harvard graduate came off the New York Knicks bench to help win games and a spot in the starting line-up.

Jeremy displayed patience and grit to reach his goal, reminding all of us what’s possible. He shattered stereotypes about Chinese-Americans in the process.

Texas Road House – Want to get free advertising? Be unconventional and turn a negative into a positive. When Consumer Reports surveyed more than 47,000 diners, TexasRoadhouse won the dubious honor of “the noisiest chain in America.” To turn the “negative” publicity in their favor, they hit the media with their “Proud to Be Loud” campaign, reminding readers that it’s more fun to be in a loud restaurant than “one with wine sipping or chirping crickets and clinking silverware,” according to their founder and CEO, Kent Taylor.  Roadhouse reports over half a million dollars in free advertising – they have no national ad budget (another unconventional characteristic)  and improved employee morale.

Jean Kabre –  This concierge to power brokers of Washington D.C., persuaded employees in the 101 Constitution building to raise money to provide wells for safe drinking water in his home African village of Tintilou – even though there is no tax write off for those charitable contributions. He also raised $10,000 for leukemia research.

Jean is remarkable because he is known as a generous, sacrificial giver himself. He was raising money for leukemia research without telling anyone his home village had no running water or electricity. Employees in the building report that Jean is genuinely kind and nice, a required trait for successful underdog influencers. ‘Hair on fire’ individuals do not engender our help.

Gurbaksh Chahal –  This multi-millionaire was a bullied kid who says his adversity is his greatest gift. He was bullied because he looked different. Kids tried to routinely knock his turban off his head.  He created the start- up company ClickAgents at age 16, and sold it for $40 million. His second company, BlueLithium, was sold to Yahoo for a mere  $300 million in 2007. His latest business, RadiumOne, is an advertising network harnessing social interaction data.

Chahal proves our research findings, which showed a pattern of adversity and loss is prevalent among high achievers and effective underdog communicators. Adversity makes a great teacher and develops a fortitude that others cannot replicate. We find it in the arts and business.  Paul McCartney and John Lennon both lost their mothers at a young age. Wendy’s founder Dave Thomas grew up an orphan in multiple foster homes.

If you have an underdog for consideration in my 2013 list, email me:amy@showaltergroup.com.

The post The Top Underdog Persuaders of 2012 appeared first on Showalter Group Website.