BROWNSTONE COMMUNICATIONS

Social Media in Government Relations: How and Why

2011-02-09T09:22:00.003-06:00

Organizations, associations and corporations are asking themselves whether or not they should get involved in social media and if so, how? Recently, I’ve had conversations with professionals who struggle to understand social media, particularly as it relates to applying those tools to accomplish government relations and business development objectives. Frankly, failing to harness the immense potential of social and other new media technologies in pursuit of an organization’s communications objectives is short-sighted at best.

Having worked in government, and political and government relations capacities for the last 25 years, I’m fortunate to understand creative and effective messaging in a public policy context. And, more recently I’ve had the unique opportunity to have been immersed in modern communication tools and technologies as they’ve evolved (and continue to). If you look close enough, you’ll find talented people on one side or another of that equation. It’s extremely rare to find those with expertise in both. The good news is that the social media world in which we operate today didn’t even exist when the Obama 2008 campaign set the (old) gold standard for online communications, so there is time to catch up with some help.

In the last two weeks, I’ve participated in dialogue with two different clients about the role social media can play in driving issues critical to government relations success (as the local, state or federal level). The two clients are different. Their needs are different. But each of their situations affords me the opportunity to not only develop but also explain a specifically tailored program. Both clients do share one thing in common -- neither is particularly conversant in social media.

The first client is a major state government relations firm with literally hundreds of clients with whom they work across the country. I’ve worked with that business in one capacity or another for almost 15 years. The second is a large corporation, in a fast-paced and challenging industry, with significant state government relations operations. They include representation in all 50 states, and are supported by sophisticated in-house communications and research departments working to provide. I’ve worked cooperatively with this company for many years and know them well.

The two organizations are very different. What they share is a limited familiarity with social media. The perceptions they share about social media are extremely common, but not necessarily consistent with reality. If you have several friends who are not on Facebook or Twitter, there are a couple of themes that will arise consistent with all of them about their perceptions are of those social media platforms. In the business world, Linkedin is more familiar with many, but often just as misunderstood.

What are their perceptions? Their hesitation in getting involved often relates to two things. First, many are private or modest people. They really don’t want to be social with others beyond their protected social networks in “real life” and they don’t want people knowing their private business. The second reason is that they think it’s stupid. They understand that in Facebook you have a limited number of characters and you can post a status update. They understand the same about Twitter. And they assume everyone posts every mundane occurrence in their daily lives. Understandably, they're puzzled about why anyone would want to share or have others share with them silly information like “I went over to Aunt Betty’s house today and ate some apple pie.”

I get it. But let’s be honest, they don’t give the rest of us much credit. There is some of that on Facebook and Twitter, but there is a lot more too. In addition to maintaining personal friendships, I maintain, create and strengthen many business relationships. I participate in many business activities. And for me, what they are missing, is that both platforms exist as a major clearinghouse and/or clipping service that provides instant and immediate information on the subjects of your choosing. The clipping service is free of charge (except for time invested) and tailored exactly to your liking. They are free to take from it and contribute to it.

And, often information comes much faster to Facebook and especially Twitter than it does from TV, radio and newspaper (including online). How many times have we seen with breaking news (or election results for that matter) when the crew on CNN or FOX are merely sharing what their staff is picking up on Twitter. Why not get it ourselves and faster (and often more in depth and more accurately and completely)? These are some of the examples that I used to explain the benefits of participating in social media. As a business, especially a communications-based business like government or public relations, it borders on insanity to think you aren’t taking advantage of the opportunity to distribute your information in those vast networks with ability to identify and target particular audiences.

My clients are swayed when they learn that 92 percent of Americans get their news from more than one source and that 75 percent get much of their news from online sources like email and social media, it helps them pay attention. Whether they are promoting their own business or promoting public policy issues, it can’t be done effectively these days without social media, at least not cost-effectively. I can’t imagine leading any genuine organization and not incorporating a specific social media program into efforts to achieve our goals.

In 2011, companies are expected to increase social media budgets to make up 20 percent of overall marketing budgets. And separate from social media, companies are expected to spend as much as 15 percent of their entire marketing budgets on online advertising. It’s where people get the news. It’s where people network and build relationships and it’s where the news is most efficiently and effectively delivered.

There is another good reason many of these programs are misunderstood. It’s because they are evolving quickly. I’ve applied social media tools for both political campaign purposes and issue advocacy over the last several years. I’ve studied, written and spoken extensively about social media applications in the political process. As I indicated earlier, the Obama ’08 campaign was clearly the gold standard of online communications. But times have changed dramatically.

The size of Facebook has more than quadrupled since 2008 and has approximately 600 million users. The size of Twitter has grown nearly 100-fold since 2008, has over 100 million users and is expected to double or triple in coming years. Linkedin has more than quadrupled since 2008 and has more than 80 million members with a heavy business focus. In 2010, Facebook became the most visited website on the internet, surpassing even Google. To put things in perspective, recognize that when the Obama ’08 campaign was the gold standard, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin didn’t truly exist in any way resembling what exists today.

If you don’t understand social media and you believe your association, company or organization may benefit from a social media program, let me give you a bit of a warning. Beware of the snake oil salesman who says his public relations firm have been leaders in all of this for years and years. You’ll know he’s lying because what’s out here today didn’t even exist two years ago.

This entry was cross-posted at Pundit League in a regular weekly column by Brian Fojtik, President of Brownstone Communications LLC. You can learn more about Brownstone's work focusing on government relations, coalition building, issue advocacy and specifically applying new/social media in those contexts here.

Social Media in Public Affairs and State Government Relations

2011-01-18T09:44:00.002-06:00

Most Americans (92%) get their news from more than one source and more people get their news online than from newspapers or radio. Seventy-five percent of people indicate they get their news from email or updates on social media sites. That compares with 54 percent who say they get news from radio news programs and 50 percent from newspapers. While 75 percent of people who get their news from email and social media sites, 34 percent have indicated that they have reported news, commented on a story or shared it on social media sites like Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter.

State legislators are no different and if anything, they are more likely than not to have an active account on Twitter and Facebook. It is becoming increasingly apparent that if you are an elected official in the United States and you are not utilizing Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin to communicate, you are missing out on a golden opportunity. And if you work in state government affairs or public relations and don't have your fingers on this pulse of information, you're falling behind your competitors.

Facebook is valuable in large part because it has nearly 600 million users and it’s growing. 44.3% of American users are men. About a third of those, 48.8 million, fall between the ages of 35 and 65. By far the fastest growing age group on Facebook are those 55 and older. The second fastest growing segment is those age 35-54. And an even more impressive statistic is that Facebook passed Google in 2010 as the most visited website on the internet. If your public affairs or government relations department wants to move forward, they can't do it effectively without an integrated social meda effort.

The good news is that the world changes quickly. In 2008, the Obama for President campaign was justifiably recognized as the gold standard for online communications. Competing Democrats and Republicans were light years behind what the Obama campaign put together. Well, you don't have to climb the mountain that Obama conquered. That world doesn't exist anymore. When Obama mastered online communications, Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin didn't exist to the extent we know them today. Facebook and Linkedin have quadrupled in size since then and Twitter has grown 100-fold.

The link below provides great information about legislators on Facebook and Twitter and this changing world.

http://www.capstrat.com/insights/articles/state-legislators-whos-connected/

Brownstone Communications LLC is the premier niche firm that marries state of the art expertise and experience in social media and traditional communications with unparalleled experience in state government relations and issue advocacy in all 50 states in a high-pressure, fast-paced environment.

Integrate Social and Traditional Media for Effective Communication

2011-01-16T15:47:00.000-06:00

It's impossible to have a comprehensive marketing program without utilizing social or new media. It's also challenging to have a cost-effective marketing program without utilizing the mediums where increasing numbers of Americans acquire information. After all, in 2010, Facebook was the most visited site on the internet. Visits to Facebook exceeded even those visits to Google.

Here is a funny little video that demonstrates how new or social media techniques can be integrated with traditional marketing tools. It's a fun way to communicate an an effective communications strategy.

Pink Ponies

http://bit.ly/gzZPWW

Why and How to Use Social Media in State Government Relations

2011-01-11T22:48:00.000-06:00

Organizations, associations and corporations are now asking themselves whether or not they should get involved in social media and if so, how? I’ve had frequent dialogue with many who are asking themselves questions, particularly as it relates to applying social media tools for government relations related activities.

In just the last two days, I’ve had lengthy dialogue with two different clients about the role that social media can properly play in state (or local or federal) government relations. The two clients are very different and their current needs are different, but both provided me with an opportunity to explain a specifically tailored program to two very different audiences. Not unlike others with whom I’ve conversed on this subject, both audiences did share one thing in common -- neither was a participant in or particularly well-versed in social media.

The first client is a major state government relations firm with literally hundreds of clients with whom they do work with at the state and local level across all 50 states. I’ve worked with that firm in one capacity or another for more than 10 years. The second client is a major corporation with a significant state government relations operation that includes legislative counsel or lobbyists in all 50 states, and full communications and research departments. This company has been a client since I started my firm, and I’ve worked cooperatively with the company for many years prior.

In addition to having limited familiarity with social media (and other new media, that is significantly less “social”), like the general public who may not use social media, their perceptions about what it entailed were common, yet not necessarily consistent with reality. If you have several friends who are not on Facebook or Twitter, there are a couple of themes that will arise consistent with all of them about their perceptions are of those social media platforms. In the business world, Linkedin is more familiar with many, but often just as misunderstood.

What are their perceptions? Their hesitation in getting involved often relates to two things. First, many are fairly private or modest people. They really don’t want to be particularly social with others beyond their social network in “real life” and they don’t want people knowing their private business. The second reason is that they think it’s stupid. They understand that in Facebook you have a limited number of characters and you can post a status update. They understand the same about Twitter. And they assume we post every mundane occurrence in our daily lives. They And understandably are puzzled about why anyone would want to share or have others share with them silly information like “I went over to Aunt Betty’s house today and ate some apple pie.”

I get it. But let’s be honest, they don’t give the rest of us much credit. There certainly is some of that on Facebook and Twitter, but there is a lot more too. In addition to maintaining personal friendships, I maintain, create and strengthen many business relationships. I participate in many business activities. And for me, what they are missing, is that both platforms exist as a major clearinghouse and/or clipping service that provides instant and immediate information on the subjects of your choosing. The clipping service is free of charge.

And, often the information comes much faster to Facebook and especially Twitter than it does from TV, radio and newspaper (including online). How many times have we seen with breaking news (or election results for that matter) when the crew on CNN or FOX are merely sharing what their staff is picking up on Twitter. Why not get it ourselves and faster? That is a way that I help explain the benefits of participating as an individual in social media. As a business, especially a communications-based business like government or public relations, it borders on insanity to think you aren’t taking advantage of the opportunity to distribute your information in those vast networks when you have the opportunity to target specific audiences.

My clients are swayed when they learn that 92 percent of Americans get their news from more than one source and that 75 percent get much of their news from online sources like email and social media, it helps them pay attention. Whether they are promoting their own business or promoting public policy issues, it can’t be done effectively these days without social media, at least not cost-effectively.

In 2011 companies are expected to increase social media budgets to make up 20 percent of overall marketing budgets. And separate from social media, companies are expected to spend as much as 15 percent of their entire marketing budgets on online advertising. It’s where people get the news. It’s where people network and build relationships and it’s where the news is most efficiently and effectively delivered.

There is another good reason many of these programs are misunderstood. It’s because they are evolving quickly. I’ve applied social media tools for both political campaign purposes and issue advocacy over the last several years. I’ve studied, written and spoken extensively about social media applications in the political process. The most telling fact about use of online communications in political campaigns is that the Obama ’08 campaign was clearly the gold standard of the time. But times have changed dramatically.

The size of Facebook has more than quadrupled since 2008 and has approximately 600 million users. The size of Twitter has grown nearly 100-fold since 2008, has over 100 million users and is expected to double or triple in coming years. Linkedin has more than quadrupled since 2008 and has more than 80 million members with a heavy business focus. In 2010, Facebook became the most visited website on the internet, surpassing even Google. To put things in perspective, recognize that when the Obama ’08 campaign was the gold standard, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin didn’t truly exist in any way resembling what exists today.

If you don’t understand social media and you believe your association, company or organization may benefit from a social media program, let me give you a bit of a warning. Beware of the snake oil salesman who says his public relations firm have been leaders in all of this for years and years. You’ll know he’s lying because what’s out here today didn’t even exist two years ago.

Brian Fojtik is the President of Brownstone Communications LLC, the nation's premier social or new media communications consultants specializing in government relations and issue advocacy in all 50 states.

Historic Day in Wisconsin Politics

2011-01-05T12:47:00.002-06:00

In 1987, a wet behind the ears College Republican and reporter for the Badger Herald daily newspaper on the campus of the University of Wisconsin began reporting to work regularly in the office of Republican State Representative Peggy Rosenzweig. What to follow was 23 years of work in the Wisconsin legislature, on Wisconsin political campaigns and in the private sector lobbying Wisconsin legislators. That young man who ventured into the Wisconsin State Capitol twenty years ago and never really left was me. And the recent swearing in of Governor Scott Walker, Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald and his brother, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald on Monday was a surreal experience for me to share with them.

Since working for then-State Representative Rosenzweig, I’ve worked for a Lieutenant Governor, a Secretary of State, a U.S. Senator, a State Senator, a Governor and spent the last fourteen years in the private sector lobbying each of the above and more, the last two as President of Brownstone Communications. It should be noted that not all the positions indicated above were in Wisconsin. Most were, but I also worked in Illinois politics and government. And in 13 years as a regional government relations person for UST, I managed a government relations program in seven different states and developed a national agenda and worked with national organizations of Governors, Attorneys General, Speakers, Senate Presidents, legislators and others. Still throughout it all there has been Wisconsin, where I was born and raised.

I consider myself fortunate to have had occasion to know Scott Walker before he even entered public office when we were both political operatives working together in Milwaukee County to promote the same ends. I worked on the campaign of incumbent U.S. Senator Bob Kasten and Scott was the Chairman of the Wauwatosa Republican Club. It didn’t surprise me in the least when Scott later decided to run for State Representative, later Milwaukee County Executive and now Governor. He’s extremely well-equipped to handle the job of Governor and he has a great team around him.

I was more than excited, as well, to see other friends of mine with whom I worked in those days, at the inaugural festivities and assuming important positions of power in the Walker administration or with the transition. Mike Grebe, who served as Chairman of the reelection campaign of Bob Kasten’s so many years ago, served the same position for Scott Walker’s Campaign for Governor. John Hiller who was on our political team back in those early days is finishing up work as Chairman of the the Walker transition team and has been working with Scott since the beginning.

And I couldn’t have been happier than to see my good friends who have worked hard for Scott become Chief of Staff (Keith Gilkes), Administration Secretary (former Speaker Mike Huebsch) and DNR Secretary (former Senator Cathy O’Donnell Stepp). All three are great leaders, will be great assets to the Walker administration and will be great for the state of Wisconsin.

All the excitement occurring in Wisconsin doesn’t only revolve around the Executive Branch, not even close.

Brothers Jeff and Scott Fitzgerald, in becoming the new Speaker and Senate Majority Leader, will be exemplary stewards of the taxpayer’s interests in each of their roles. Both Jeff and Scott have been close and dear friends since the days they joined the Legislature. They are both committed, principled conservatives with a core commitment to the values of limited government, low taxes and reduced government spending. Not only are those values that I worked for in Wisconsin, but I’m pleased because both Fitzgeralds are such good friends. Their values are family, faith, Wisconsin. I’ve gotten to know them so well and it will be immensely exciting to see them execute their duties as leaders of both houses of the Wisconsin State Legislature.

Others have also ascended into leadership positions and critical roles within the Legislature and the administration. Most exciting to me are two folks who I have also known since the beginning who will chair the powerful Joint Finance Committee, which is legislative committee which handles the state budget and all critical issues related to taxing and spending. Senator Alberta Darling and I had a great opportunity to spend some time together at the inaugural activities and reminisce of her early days in politics when my two oldest children, now 17 and 16, were toddlers who appeared in Senator Darling’s campaign brochures when she ran for State Representative. And Senator Darling’s, co-chair of the Committee, Representative Robin Vos is a true conservative with whom I had the opportunity to work years ago when were both staffers for Racine County legislators from the same Senate District. Robin eventually ran for office himself and has been steadily climbing the ladder to more and more responsibility and now he and Senator Darling co-Chair the most powerful and significant committee in Wisconsin.

It’s amazing how things work out. And I guess one of the benefits of growing older is that many of the talented folks with whom you worked as a committed young operative, eventually assume control of the levers of power. I’m blessed that it’s happened to me in Wisconsin. And really, Wisconsin is blessed. Each of the people that I’ve mentioned above is truly a talented, gifted, principled leader that takes his or her work seriously. I couldn’t feel more comfortable seeing Wisconsin in anyone else’s hands.

New Media Today: Burying Internet Search Results

2010-10-18T21:16:00.000-05:00

In just a couple short weeks, the voters will finally be heard. The steady stream of political rhetoric populating our internet worlds -- email inboxes, Twitter and Facebook news feeds and everywhere we turn -- will thankfully start to come to a close. It is my full expectation that any objective look into which political or third party issue advocacy campaigns were effective, which campaigns exceeded expectations and which were able to avoid disaster or accomplish miracles will have done so through the effective utilization of new media tools. The end results will see demonstrated through that process should serve as an example and a warning to those groups and interests that want to impact policy after the elections.

Third party issue advocacy groups interested in impacting public policy, and corporate government relations and trade and professional associations that want to impact policymakers must have a presence in new media. There are a great number of public relations and other firms more than willing to make that case to corporate and third-party America and separate those entities from their money. Unfortunately, most of those public relations firms are simply using the same old communication models they practice with traditional media and simply targeting a larger universe by expanding their audience to include the blogosphere and other online entities.

It is better to proceed in that manner than not to proceed at all, but most of those organizations could spend their resources much more effectively and efficiently by operating not with traditional public relations firms, but by working with smaller, more agile, adaptable and creative firms. These smaller firms are able to create news, build interest in issues to appeal to mainstream media and utilize other tactics to not only develop and drive messaging, but also to fight the efforts of their adversaries to spread undesirable messages about them.

It's no surprise that that business competitors have utilized a wide variety of tactics to tarnish the reputations of competitors or the image quality of their products or services. The online world provides a myriad of opportunities to do so. Wisely, current consumer product or service providers are using the internet and platforms like Facebook and Twitter to interact with customers whether those customers are happy or dissatisfied. Are you having trouble with your particular internet service provider or your cellphone service provider? Maybe you're having trouble with a particular brand of TV or mass email service provider. If you are experiencing such problems, it might a lot more effective to simply have a lot of Twitter followers and speak loudly about the problems you're experiencing and have a lot of other Twitter followers be willing to dialogue with you or share your frustrations.

Companies are wisely monitoring dialogue about their companies in real times in places like Twitter and Facebook. If you were having trouble with your cable TV provider and you commented as described above, you may very well be discovered and get someone working diligently to fix your problem before the story gets spread any further on Twitter or Facebook. And as someone who has handled new media communications on a political campaign, I can tell you that nothing is as disconcerting as seeing negative comments about your candidate populate the tops of Twitter searches or Google or other search engine inquiries.

One of the more recent, but certainly very real developments in this environment is employing professional firms to monitor those developments in new media and with popular search engines like Google and to work to bury negative information about a candidate, a client or a specific product or service offered by a Company. Without even getting to the veracity or significance of the actual allegations included in such inquiries, we're all familiar with the idea that perception is reality. If I do a Google search for you as a political candidate, as a Company or about the product or service your company offers, my perception and willing to invest time, money or a vote on you will be greatly impacted by what I find when I search in Google, Twitter or look you up on Facebook.

First, it's critically important that you have a targeted and deliberate effort to populate important places with positive information. You should have a website. It's probably a good idea to have a blog whether separate or incorporated in your website. You should have a Facebook business page, a LinkedIn business or cause-related page and a Twitter identity (or several) that regularly populate the internet with favorable information about your company, your products and the service you provide. That is the foundation where you start and you should ensure that your presence is at least as good (ideally is much better) than that of your competitors.

Those tools allow you to have the online infrastructure in place to not only populate with favorable information that you can control, but also to allow you in a good position to respond to negative or crisis situations should they occur. It's as simple as providing your company with insurance. You may look at things and determine that you serve all your clients well, you have a steady stream of new clients and everyone is happy about what you have been able to do for them. Well, that's ideal. But it also means that someone else would like to have your clients whether they be existing or a percentage of your prospective new clients, so there is always incentive for people to spread negative information about you or your firm or organization. In yesterday's world, that simply meant a whisper campaign. Nowadays those communications can be shared online and they can spread like wild fire.

It's critically important that your name and your reputation be monitored. And if a competitor does decide to spread negative information about you, your firm or the service your provide (whether accurate or not) it is important that you have the ability to move that information way from the top of search results on Google, Facebook and Twitter with a positive campaign of your own. Except for very specific researchers, most who search for information don't continue past the first page or two provided by Google. If you are able to keep negative information on pages 4, 5 or 6 of a search (rather than popping on lines number 1, 2 or 3 of the first page) you will keep those negative perceptions away from millions of interested, seeking, viewing eyes.

Please don't hesitate to take a look at www.brownstonecommunications.us if you would like to learn more about how to drive your messages or utilize online tools to both drive your positive message or protect your company, your campaign, your product or service from the negative perceptions being perpetuated by your competitors. You can't avoid being part of the online discussion about your company, your product and your services. You can ensure that the favorable messages you control will be seen in that world. And you can be sure to create the online infrastructure necessary to put into action if any competitors attempt to disseminate any negative information about you or your business. It's up to you to put yourself in that position of power.

Coalition Building is Critical in Attempting to Influence Public Policy and Elections

2010-10-04T23:17:00.000-05:00

It is impossible to develop a truly efficient public and/or government relations campaign effort without maximizing opportunities to build coalitions that allow client strengths to grow exponentially. Those who are fighting in the public policy arena gain great benefit by employing experienced and proven legislative counsel. Such counsel is expensive and sometimes out of reach of some organizations. Whether one has the ability to retain that counsel or not, it is imperative for companies or associations to identify, plan and build coalitions that suit the particular company, industry or issue.

Successful coalition building doesn't happen by accident. First and foremost, relationships and existing networks are the place to begin. Brownstone Communications works with a broad network of professionals from a variety of disciplines in all 50 states across the country and in the District of Columbia. Additionally, Brian Fojtik, the President of Brownstone Communications and those with whom he works enjoy broad experience in working as active, long-term members of national policy-based legislative organizations, national professional organizations, partisan networks that span all fifty states and the broad span of individuals, corporations, professional and trade associations (retail, wholesale, manufacturing, commerce and others) and with members who make up the core constituencies of these organizations.

The importance of the relationships cannot be underscored enough in building successful and effective coalitions. Relationships alone, however, will not get the job done. In addition organizations attempting to impact public policy or elections must rely on professional and creative coalition builders with experience. Such coalitions start with the organizations and individuals themselves. They expand to primary stakeholders and secondary stakeholders. Who is directly impacted by the policies or action of interest? Who is secondarily impacted from a professional, financial or employment perspective? How about from a personal perspective? And which organizations or individuals have the most impact or could potentially impact decision makers the most? Political donors? Friends? Family? Political supporters? And what ability exists to reach those individuals and convince them of their stake in the issue? A thorough assessment by a creative professional is key to maximizing the voice of your movement or organization.

Brownstone Communications clients can be assured that no matter what the level of resources available for a specific program, creative, aggressive and effective coalition-building skills will be put to work to support their programs. You can learn more about Brownstone and the services they provide at www.BrownstoneCommunications.us Brownstone represents unparalleled experience and relationships in the coalition- building world that puts your efforts well-ahead of that of your competitors from day one.

New Media: Big Firms Often Come Up Short

2010-10-03T03:20:00.000-05:00

It has become clear that organizations, movements and businesses across the globe have increasingly recognized that they need a new media presence or program, while simultaneously recognizing that they have no idea how to go about doing it. It's also increasingly clear that there are many public relations and "new media consultants" working diligently to separate those entities from their money and provide little in return.

I don't know a lot about automobile maintenance and the functioning and repair of my car. But I know enough that I need my car to be maintained and serviced when there is a problem. I've learned that my ignorance makes me vulnerable to those that want to separate me from my money. It's no different in the still emerging field of new media consulting. I've worked for over two decades in politics, government and government relations. In that time, I'm proud of the creative solutions I've devised to meet challenges that occur in a legislative setting.

In order to successfully confront those challenges, you need to understand your audience, the specific history and rules of the venue in which you're operating and how to successfully develop meaningful coalitions that strengthen your position. It's also helpful to identify the proper way to message your issue and motivate key stakeholders in the public doman to weigh in with legislators. As President of Brownstone Communications (www.brownstonecommunications.us) I'm good at managing those issues and challenges after doing so at a very high rate for over 13 years for highly-targeted industries under very intense pressure. Admittedly, there are others who are excel in this field.

There are also folks who excel at internet marketing and messaging. There are very few that excel at government relations, political campaigning, issue advocacy and effective online communications, but there are a great number of firms professing to be able to do so. In my most recent experience, most of those firms excel at neither. These firms are generally media firms or public relations firms that operate under the old model of taking a news story for a client to the mainstream media (whether it be print, radio or TV) and pitching the story in the hopes that someone will run with it to the benefit of their client or cause. Rather than creatively use new media to message effectively, these firms fall flat.

The "new media consultants" or media/PR firms that profess an expertise in "new media" or "online marketing" generally have little or no expertise in all the tools available to benefit their clients and causes. Instead, they simply practice the same model of "pitching stories" in an expanded universe that includes a variety of different blogs and other non-traditional venues. I applaud them for expanding the universe, but I caution potential clients not to see beyond the limitations of these firms.

When pitching potential clients, these firms are at the same advantage as the auto mechanic is in pitching me. I'm a sitting duck when my engine is making a funny noise and so are the potential clients of these media firms. One certain warning sign to look for are any firms that claim to have been experts in this emerging field for the last decade. The field hasn't seriously existed in the last decade. The 2008 Obama campaign is held up as an example of great use of online marketing. And to put it in perspective, the Facebook and Twitter we know today didn't really even exist two years ago.

Whether your challenge is providing a profile for your business that allows you to maintain relationships with current clients or customers or expose your business to potential new customers, you need a firm that will allow you to make news and noise with your targeted audience, not simply use the old model of pitching the occasional news story and allowing yourself to be heard only at the whim of others who control the information gate. The current new media environment gives you the keys to the information gate. Unfortunately, too many firms are ill-equipped or too lazy to use those keys.

There are opportunities for businesses, political campaigns, issue advocacy campaigns and any organization to use existing websites and blogs, to create websites and blogs, to take advantage of online radio and terrestrial radio, YouTube and other video formats and use Facebook groups to promote your unique story and messaging with audiences that need to hear it. Social networking such as LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook and advertising there and with Google and other locales provide other unique opportunities. It's still useful to use relationships to pitch stories to mainstream media and prominent blogs that reach targeted audiences. But you can strengthen that pitch dramatically by making your story a true story that is attracting attention and interest and action before you pitch it to more traditional media outlets.

It's a dramatically changing world. The world today provides extraordinary opportunities and few have the expertise to take advantage for those in the public forum.

Social Media Crash Course for NLC's "Internet, Politics & Technology" Weekend // Leslie Bradshaw // 4.18.09

2010-09-28T12:22:00.001-05:00

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

Social Media Crash Course for NLC's "Internet, Politics & Technology" Weekend // Leslie Bradshaw // 4.18.09

View more presentations from Leslie Bradshaw.

"Procrastination" Tales Of Mere Existence

2010-09-18T01:28:00.000-05:00

More Art Than Science: New Media Advocacy

2010-09-05T17:43:00.005-05:00

There are a lot of media and public relations firms marketing themselves as new media experts to political candidates, corporations, non-profits and trade/business associations. A lot of these firms are finding the market to be profitable. Businesses, non-profits, associations and political campaigns, however, are attempting to quantify the value received from these investments. Anyone who has studied or participated in this evolving field recognizes the significant challenges inherent in specifically quantifying the benefits utilizing traditional business measuring sticks.

Regardless of the ability to accurately measure the value of activity in the new media marketplace, organizations are beginning to understand that they risk being left behind if they do not at least begin to dip their proverbial big toe into the new media waters. I have the benefit of working with clients on efforts unrelated to their new media efforts and working with clients directly and specifically related to new media efforts. That experience includes using or observing efforts related to direct candidate committees in a political campaign, third party political campaigns, and issue advocacy from a political and corporate perspective.

It's fascinating. There are a lot of tools available to assist such efforts. At the end of the day, the tools are merely that -- tools that assist thoughtful human efforts to accomplish real human interaction, foster relationships and build a distribution network for relevant information. There is no magic program that will compensate for deliberate, thoughtful and artistic human activity. In my most recent endeavors into this arena, I have directly participated and helped construct a successful political venture in new media. We had an engaging and exciting candidate. The candidate was willing and interested in being personally engaged in all aspects of new media and truly believed it was an important endeavor. Likewise, limited financial resources forced us to seriously focus efforts on new media activities.

By successfully utilizing Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, blogs, websites and online radio, we were able to both develop a body of material to share and the means to distribute that information to an interested public. The successful utilization of online tools such as these do not generally or significantly lead to votes. While the number of voters who are actively engaged in each of those networks is growing, that in and of itself is generally not enough to win an election. It is, however, an excellent tool to provide exposure of a candidate to national and local media and to expose a candidate to opinion makers and shapers who can make a difference in a myriad of ways.

There is no one way to do it. Every candidate, every campaign and every situation is different. And the media is changing as fast as you're reading right now. Just think how much Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube changed since the 2008 election of Barack Obama. Were you even on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube in 2008? I'm guessing many of you were not. Some of you still aren't. And MySpace and MeetUp which played roles earlier have essentially disappeared. And there are dozens of other services that impact the ability to effectively distribute information and create networks. It will change even more by 2012. If anyone suggests they have it all completely mastered today, new developments are already making them liars tomorrow.

For comparison's sake, I observed the new media effort of a corporate client with which I was not involved (my activities on behalf of this client are not related to their new media efforts). A wise friend once pointed out that cute, cuddly puppies don't need lobbyists. It fits this client as they are representative of an industry that is often vilified. This client attempts to advocate for or against specific public policies, but it is handicapped by its unpopularity. We have significant challenges in attempting to convince the general public to adopt our policy positions, but we have experienced remarkable successes despite those challenges. Like I wrote earlier, every situation, candidate and effort, is different.

In this instance, the client has a website and a twitter identity expressly labeled with the largely unpopular cause. I believe that those two components are absolutely essential to the effort. It's honest and straightforward, but should be enhanced by being simply a part of a larger, more comprehensive effort. If I were directing this program for the client, I would suggest a number of approaches. First of all, I would create or become involved with one or more third-party advocacy groups that can more broadly make policy arguments without being dismissed out of hand as an unpopular messenger. Secondly, I would inventory all the third-party groups with whom the organization already enjoys relationships and connect the new media efforts of those groups with the company's effort. Thirdly, I would create Facebook groups, create an appropriately broad twitter presence, integrate all of the above together and begin cultivating networks and developing relationships with interested individuals before they are needed to specifically impact public policy. Online radio, YouTube, websites, use of existing blogs and creation of new blogs could all be a part of this network. It's not happening.

I give immense credit to this organization for having the foresight to begin the process of entering the world of new media. That is the first step and it's a critical step. But when this organization audits their investment into this new venture, determines how much they are spending and attempts to quantify the benefits they are receiving, they may be disappointed. One can only hope that the company recognizes not that the decision to invest in new media and online issue advocacy was a bad investment. Rather, the decision demonstrates proactive effort and foresight. Companies like this one just need to change how how they invest in such a program. Increasingly, organizations are learning that firms which claim they've got a perfect program or complete mastery of this universe are selling a bill of goods.

Bring me five different entities such as an individual candidate for office, an independent expenditure organization attempting to influence several campaigns, an industry association fighting for or against specific policy campaigns, a non-profit issue-oriented campaign and an individual corporation attempting to protect and promote its interests and you will have five very different campaigns. Give me five examples of any of one of those different categories and you will have five extremely different situations with different needs. And every one of those situations evolves over time. Some efforts will unexpectedly gain traction. Others, disappointingly, will not. And all of it occurs in a new media environment with new players and changing rules from week to week. Understanding the challenges and devising a strategies to confront them requires significant knowledge and experience in a variety of disciplines. It's also a lot more art than it is science.

Viral Marketing and Social Networking in Political Campaigns and Issue Advocacy

2009-11-21T17:18:00.009-06:00

The game is changing and changing fast. Any political consultant (or "new media" or "social networking" consultant) who claims they have a complete grasp on how websites, the internet, email, YouTube and social networking/media/bookmarking sites like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, CafeMom, Bebo, BlackPlanet, LinkedIn, del.icio.us, Digg, Reddit, Furl, StumbleUpon and Mixx (and many others, some which have yet to be created) will impact the upcoming elections is selling a bill of goods. But, they already are having a huge impact.

The fact of the matter is creative internet marketing as it relates to political campaigns is light years away from where it was just five or six years ago. It's light years away from where it was in November 2008 and in 12 months it will be vastly different from where we are now. Scott Brown, Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia, respectively are the latest big-time examples. It's not just about knowing the tools and putting messages out, it's creating the right messages and fully understanding how the tools interact with one another and can work together to achieve particular objectives.

While the Brown, Christie and McDonnell campaigns utilized social network/media marketing in their efforts, one could reasonably argue that the independent efforts of each campaign were more than buoyed by existing (independent and otherwise) efforts by disenfranchised and frustrated Americans who disagree with the policies of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama on a host of issues. The "tea party-esque" network of social media sites have grown organically and allowed these folks, like Ron Paul supporters before them, to broadcast and share opinions like never before. Just as importantly, to find and network with one another. Nearly every valid and independent study or poll demonstrates that Republicans and conservatives are (currently) using these tools much more effectively than Democrats or the left, but perhaps necessity breeds invention for those who are out of power and trying to unite against the establishment.

It didn't start with conservatives or Republicans, however. In 2004, former Vermont Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean changed the way the internet was viewed by political consultants, the mainstream media and voters. All too often, in politics as in business, innovation starts with seemingly insurmountable odds, lack of resources and insurgency. Dean was a little-known candidate from a small state without the institutional financial and political backing to win the race the way other candidates could. Ultimately, Dean didn't win the race, but he did put his mark on history. Howard Dean used the internet in ways that no one (in politics) thought could be done to network supporters and raise money. In effect, what he did made a political nobody into a political somebody that had to be taken seriously.

Like big government and big business and big advertising, big-time politics is big-time risk averse. Governments and big corporations have stifling bureaucratic processes that stifle creativity and "thinking outside the box." Big advertising agency and big-time political campaigns aren't much different. When you think of the phrase "too many chefs" or "too many chiefs" you can just as easily apply it to a big ad agency or a big national political campaign as you can to a less-than-great kitchen or a tribal strategy session that doesn't pack any punch.

Creativity is risky. And Howard Dean needed to take risks. He had no name. He had no money. No one knew who he was. As the Governor of a small state that seemed foreign and inconsequential to many across the country, about the only thing he did have going for him was that he was articulate, he was passionate and he was a physician. Well, that and $3.25 will get you a pretty good latte at Starbucks. Dean's campaign used a web tool called Meetup to organize passionate, motivated supporters. It started small but grew like the old Breck commercial. "I told two friends. And we told two friends. And so on. And so on." Dean's campaign found supporters via this web tool. The supporters grew and donated money. The money earned Dean respect from the mainstream media, more coverage and more momentum. Thus, more people were motivated to join the campaign until Dean's primal and final scream in Iowa represented the end to a great venture. Make no mistake, more than John Kerry, Howard Dean made political history.

Fast forward four years and it's a lot easier to remember how the Presidential campaign of an unknown first term U.S. Senator from Illinois who was African-American, had a strange name, had little money or institutional support (compared to Senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton) harnessed the power of the internet in his successful effort. If one was watching, he had to be shocked, amazed, surprised and impressed every single day of the last Presidential campaign. Every day, various audiences experienced another creative way that the Obama campaign was using another tool on the internet to reach out to them and connect them to one another. It is hard to imagine an effort being more effective. Just like in business and advertising, political campaigns take what works and use it. Over and over and over again. They keep using it. The same model. To be more creative or do something different is too risky. Ads look the same. Fundraisers look the same. Comments from the candidates sound the same. Until someone shifts the paradigm.

Dean shifted the paradigm and Obama had already begun learning from Dean's experience in his race for the US Senate in 2004. Dean was out by February 2004. Obama's US Senate election wasn't until November. And Obama was an insurgent, unknown, underfunded, underdog at that time. The campaign, to its credit, used everything Dean taught them and beat all the big money, all the institutional candidates and all the candidates with more familiar names -- in a landslide. Once again, the upstart, underfunded, long-shot candidate broke the rules and made history. The Obama U.S. Senate campaign learned from Howard Dean, improved upon it and changed the rules of the game. Obama's Presidential campaign took that to new heights.

Many don't realize that one of the founders of Facebook, Chris Hughes left Facebook and joined the Obama campaign early in the process. Obama had a website that was user-friendly and easy to network with other supporters, donate money, volunteer and provide relevant information that the campaign used to keep in touch, to share targeted information with targeted audiences and to grow support. While Obama had over 3,000,000 supporters on Facebook McCain's support crested at more like 200,000. And Obama had presence on MySpace, Twitter and other social networking sites including those that targeted specific ethnic, racial, gender or other things that drew them together.

The Obama Presidential campaign, as far as internet savvy, effectiveness and reach, was like the Dean Presidential Campaign or Obama U.S. Senate Campaign on steroids. So, the natural reaction by the establishment is to look at what Obama accomplished and simply choose to duplicate it. Well, let's be honest, if a candidate can come close to duplicating it, he or she would be at a good place to start. If a candidate has an established name, has a good fundraising base and has a reasonable amount of charisma and attractiveness, that candidate will likely be well-served by generally following the Obama model. But if that candidate is going to be beaten, in large part it will be because they are out organized, out-hustled and out-thought by motivated and better-networked organization in this ever-changing landscape.

The universe is changed. How many of you on Twitter today were on Twitter when Hillary Clinton started campaigning for the Presidency and the young upstart from Illinois came on the national scene? Be honest. None of you (excepting the IT professionals, of course) had ever even heard of Twitter. And many of you aren't even there yet. If you joined Twitter in 2008, the Twitter you knew then is already very different than the Twitter we experience today. How many of you were on Facebook? Not nearly as many. Not me. And if you were on Facebook, what was the average age of your colleagues there and how many of your friends, family members, co-workers and former classmates of yours were there in 2007? I can tell you that Facebook and Twitter have both grown considerably in this time. Demographics of the two have evolved differently. The applications and opportunities and methods of reaching people in either universe is dramatically different. And you can't ignore LinkedIn and other professional and social networking sites (and media sharing sites). They each play unique roles. They each have unique, somewhat overlapping audiences. Different messaging and methods are necessary to utilize the most useful aspects of each, combined with many, many other media tools and the the obvious websites, blogs and YouTube will be ignored at one's own peril.

We're seeing the dynamic evolve now. It's the insurgents and underfunded upstarts leading the way. While Dean and Obama used the old network (amazing that it was only four years ago and 1-2 years ago and that network is already dramatically different) on big national campaigns, this is the first time we'll be fighting on this new landscape with thousands of state legislative races, statewide office races and Congressional races.

There are over 100 social networking websites and services. We have seen only the tip of the iceberg in regard to the best way to utilize all those different tools together in an integrated way. And, to be honest, as much as it frustrates big government, big corporations, big advertising agencies and big, establishment political campaigns, there is no "best way." Each of the sites is evolving (or devolving) at breakneck speed. The way they relate to one another is changing quickly. And political campaigns and issue advocacy campaigns have increasingly gone from a mass-marketing campaign to myriad of micro-targeting and niche marketing efforts all under the banner of a larger air war.

Things are changing and changing fast. Pete Cashmore, founder and CEO of Mashable and perhaps the world's foremost expert (if there can be one) on social media wrote the following for CNN exclusively on November 19, 2009: "As 2009 draws to a close with Twitter undoubtedly this year's media darling and Facebook continuing on its path to global dominations, you may wonder which social-media service will become tech's poster boy in 2010. Among the Web's early adopter set, the answer is nearly unanimous: Foursquare."

Let's get ready to roll.