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

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

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

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

• Government entities that already are positioned as gatekeepers of the public good tend to avoid the “heat” and instead wait until an issue has cooled off.

Neither is helpful, and both are costly. When a client’s objectives are stymied by needless government intervention or delay, the client is left with less-than satisfactory options: reconsider, redraw, withdraw or litigate.

What began as noise made by a tiny slice of the total constituency ends with the opposition winning the initial skirmish. What started as a minor hurdle becomes a real obstacle. It will now cost larger sums to undo a blocked project, elevate a damaged brand or find an interim operational solution while approval of the total project is tied up in unresolved delay. And it may require a legal bill as high as it was unwarranted.

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

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

Example No. 1:
A utility asked the state to approve storing spent nuclear fuel outside its nuclear plant and safely above ground until it could be stored in a federal repository in future years. Activists and the media labeled the proposal as a “nuclear dump” on the shores of a major waterway.

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

Example No. 2:
Public opposition was mounting to a major municipal sewerage district’s practice of applying treated sewage sludge to outlying farms as fertilizer. Local governments passed ordinances banning the practice. The district asked us to publicize its changeover to an injection-method of application, which would reduce offensive odors wafting over nearby subdivisions. But citizen opposition had become so entrenched that, by itself, a public relations strategy would appease no one.

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

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

Example No. 3:
One of the world’s largest meat processors made the highest bid for a bankrupt rival’s production and processing unit. The bid was accepted, subject to regulatory and bankruptcy court approvals. Lawmakers and activist groups mounted a media-focused campaign opposing the acquisition, claiming it would lead to the ruination of family farms because the buyer was a large corporation.

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

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

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