The ultimate goal of issues management is to manage public perceptions of an organization to effect a positive reputation and, ultimately, business success. The basis for this is simply human nature: We want to do business with a company that has operations, products or services worthy of our patronage. We want to do business with somebody we trust. Someone who shares our values, someone positive.
Sounds simple enough, but in reality it takes planning and strategy to make it happen. Elevating a corporate reputation often begins with the basic tenet found in one of our Rules of the Road essays: “Play your game.” And a corollary of playing your game is to “stand for, not against.” If we are against something, it cannot be because “here’s what’s wrong with it.” No, we are against this because we are for that. The difference is resounding, thunderous.
Imagine, for example, that a state EPA or Department of Natural Resources has informed industry statewide that: (a) it plans to regulate about 400 substances currently in use, from paints to industrial chemicals, that staff thinks might be hazardous to health, (b) permits will be required henceforth, and application-to-permit time will range from nine months to one year, and (c) the agency will not discuss the proposed regulations with industry but will proceed immediately to regional public hearings and then enactment. The agency has essentially told industry, “If you don’t like it, sue us.”
That was exactly the case some years ago, when we were hired by a consortium of trade associations and major corporations two weeks before the first hearing. Preparations to litigate were already under way, but a last-ditch prayer and phone call brought in issues-management communication counsel.
Take the high ground
The group had readied an impressive counterproposal with data to refute the regulatory agency’s premise. With the door barred to direct negotiation, our first advice was to spring the counterproposal—and experts to support it—on the agency, in front of TV cameras, at the regulatory agency’s own hearings. But with what positioning?
It would have been fatal to claim the agency did not know what it was doing, had an anti-business agenda, or that fears for public health were over-blown. Instead, we adopted the position that “there is a better way to protect public health.” In that context, our clients took the high ground in proposing methodologies that are more trustworthy for public and industry alike, and in the process the agency’s agenda, incomplete “cry-wolf” research and the needless rush to regulate all became apparent. Under a positive position that allowed media and public to choose who was the more trustworthy, the regulators lost. Badly.
The regulators withdrew their proposal after packed houses, negative media coverage and an onslaught from credible experts at all three hearing sites. With one exception, print and electronic media actually editorialized in favor of industry and against the state on an environmental and health issue. If the difference between “for” and “against” is subtle, it is nonetheless the most crucial aspect of a campaign, the determiner of success or failure.
To stand for, instead of against, works on three levels of issues and public affairs management. It will create contextual perception where there may be none, help change the existing perception, or reinforce it.
|
The most effective approach is to communicate a position positively to the key external or internal audiences that are most critical to your success. Taking this approach lets you set the agenda. It is playing offense instead of defense. Emphasizing the positive and subordinating the negative can lead your audiences to give more weight to the pluses of the public policy issue involved, making them more inclined to take actions in support of an organization’s goals.
Stand loud and proud
As one plank in a comprehensive strategy, standing loudly and proudly for something, and staying on that message, can alter perceptions and lead to the changed behaviors we need in order to move forward.
Another of our clients wanted to secure support from its North American business partners—distributors—to accomplish a positive corporate community affairs goal, but many of the partners initially thought the goal would undermine their own businesses.
Working with senior management, the communications agency changed contract language between the organization and its distributors to “encourage” distributors to participate in the community affairs program. Then we set up the corporate program to be run by, and through, the Sales Department. (Distributors, after all, are beholden to Sales and—have we not all seen it?—can tend to ignore Corporate Affairs initiatives.)
Next, the agency worked closely with the sales organization to create credible communications and training through traditional sales channels that the local partners already used and respected. Through this approach, local partners were educated in why the community outreach program not only was the right thing to do, but ultimately also made good business sense for them. They were trained in how to implement the program in their communities with the involvement of critical stakeholder groups.
As a result, participation by local business partners exceeded the client’s expectations in the program’s very first year. That participation was 100 percent.
Over time, standing for, not against, will result in stronger relationships with key stakeholders such as educational, labor, financial and healthcare communities; improved relations with government agencies and legislative bodies; less negative targeting by these same entities; and, less credence given to outside “activist” groups that may target us.
Of course, standing for something does not mean ignoring the opposition’s barbs. It is still vitally important to identify and correct untruths, false assumptions, unfounded rumors, inaccuracies and misconceptions. But standing for is the bedrock of corporate reputation. Several studies have shown the sequential relationship among brand reputation, sales and shareholder value. The first sets the trend for the ensuing two over the long term, for better or worse.
Ultimately, standing for is not only good counsel; it is good business. |
