Lerbinger O. Corporate Public Affairs. Interacting with Interest Groups, Media, and Government

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

• Direct-mail preparation and distribution.

• Phone banking and telemarketing.

• Presentation and media training.

• website design.

• Polling and focus groups.

• Earned media outreach.

• Paid advertising.

• Fund raising.

A Services Buyer’s Guide published by Campaigns & Elections shows

how these activities—and some additional ones—are categorized:

• Telephone contact and mobilization.

• Telephone patch-throughs, direct connects.

• Grasstops organizing and field operations.

• Targeting and demographic planning.

• Lists/labels/district matches/database.

• Lobbying direct-mail printing and processing.

• Lobby direct-mail creative, strategy, and planning.

• Electronic media buying: local markets.

• Electronic media buying: regional and national markets.

• Newspaper ad placement: local markets.

• Newspaper ad placement: regional and national markets.

• Public relations and event planning.

• Litigation support services.

• Media training and speech preparation services.

• Polling and focus groups.

• Satellite broadcasting services.

• Broadcast fax services.

Coalition building pertains to both direct and grassroots lobbying, as

does the use of the research tools of polling and focus groups. Many direct

marketing tools—use of databases, direct mailings, and telemarketing—

apply to grassroots lobbying. Public relations skills are especially impor

tant for broad-based third-party advocacy programs because they in

volve media relations efforts and the use of websites to influence general

public opinion.

It is clear, however, that interpersonal communications prevail in the

execution of grassroots lobbying. Personal conversations with members

of Congress through visits or phone calls are supplemented with letters,

e-mail, faxes, and other electronic communication. Furthermore, com

puter technology has greatly enhanced grassroots effectiveness. It has

also enabled organizations to use astroturf techniques.

Telephones Are Still Useful

Phones are one of the most effective and essential tools of modern cam

paigns. Aside from door-to-door visits, the phone is the other chief me

262 I CHAPTER 10

dium of personal two-way communication. Only persons with phone

numbers, however, can be reached, and of these, only about 70% answer.

The phone allows a dialogue with voters to determine which issues

they deem most important and what they think about them. When this

feedback is used in subsequent conversations, a relationship is estab

lished, which cannot be accomplished through any broadcast medium,

says Wally Clinton, president of the Clinton Group, a Democratic firm

based in Washington, DC. Because the telephone is a medium of dialogue,

not monologue, Clinton shuns making prerecorded calls, “which disallow

the most powerful function of the telephone—the ability to communicate

persuasively, delivering a message and capturing feedback.”

Although volunteers can handle a few hundred or up to a few thou

sand calls, paid telephone banks are needed for larger numbers. For ex

ample, the 1994 campaign of New York governor George Pataki started

with 100,000 calls, followed by 1.1 million turnout calls 4 days before

the election.

Budget, of course, must be available. Thanks to deregulation of the

communications industry, however, costs have dropped by more than

50% in the last 7 years, says Mac Hansbrough, president of National

Telecommunications Services, a Democratic firm based in Washington,

DC.

(See Box 10.2 for benefits and costs of phone banks.)

Use Phones in Combination With Other Media. Phone calls work

best in combination with toll-free numbers, direct mail, and the Internet,

as the following campaigns illustrate.

• TeleMark, a telephone contact firm based in Portland, Oregon,

was hired to take inbound toll-free calls from radio ads produced by

the Public Response Group in Chicago on behalf of the Consumer Alli-

ance for Electric Choice. After capturing the name and address of the

respondents, the operators used their ZIP code to patch them through

to their legislators to express their opposition to a bill.

• National Telecommunications Services was hired by the South

ern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Sierra Club, and the National Wild

life Federation to persuade the president to veto the pave-the-parks

legislation. Patch-through calls were made not to a single destination

but to the president, key White House advisers, and members of Con

gress. This wider audience avoided a negative backlash that some

times occurs when one target is overwhelmed.

Modern technology helps in telemarketing as well as in other applica

tions. For example, predictive-dialing technology allows computers to

do the time-consuming work of dialing numbers, listening to busy

signals, and getting wrong numbers. Automated digital recording tech

nology enables the capture of fund-raising pledges, petition-signing

commitments, and other conversations that benefit from a permanent

audio recording. Furthermore, high-end computer systems and high-

GRASSROOTS LOBBYING I 263

264

Box 10.2 Benefits and Costs of Phone Banks

Consultants and vendors who specialize in telemarketing services cat

egorize paid telephone calls used in campaigns into four categories:

1. An ID call, which identifies the political leaning of the voter.

2. A persuasion call, which seeks to influence the voter and encour

age a patch-through call.

3. An attack “push poll” call.

4. A GOTV—“get out to vote”—call.

Push poll calls—distinguished from negative persuasion calls—are

highly controversial and should never be used, says Hansbrough. On

the other hand, Peck Young of Austin, Texas-based Emory, Young &

Associates, says phone banks are now applied to persuasion calls.

To contact 40,000 voters with a persuasive ID call and a GOTV

call may cost $50,000 says Tony Feather. Bob Corn, vice president

of Alexandria, Virginia-based Landmark Strategies, estimates that

the typical budget allocates 40% to 45% to ID calls, 30% to 35% to

GOTV calls, and 20% to 25% to persuasion. Phone banks are highly

cost-effective, as suggested in fund-raising applications, especially

when used in combination with direct mail, television, radio, print,

and other fund-raising media. Each medium reinforces the other,

creating a powerful message, says Ellinger. Because phone calls in-

crease donor awareness and motivation, he states response rates

with current donors are three to five times that of direct mail, and

with lapsed and nondonor audiences, response rates of 10 times or

more are common.

Using paid telephone banks has several advantages besides the

ability to reach a high volume of voters in a short period of time. Be-

cause professional operators are used, they can get reliable identifi

cation because they are unbiased. The enthusiasm of volunteers is

likely to create a bias, although this motivation would not be harmful

in persuasion or GOTV calls. It is essential, however, that phone

bank operators be “well-trained, prepared to handle questions and

are accent neutral with acceptable diction,” says Linda Cherry, presi

dent of Cherry Communications, a Republican firm based in Talla

hassee, Florida. She says that there is a wide range of quality,

accuracy, and reliability within the industry.

Professionally trained operators can also take greater advantage of

the targeting of calls to desired voters, who can be identified by im

proved voter lists, polling information, and demographic data. Data

collected from previous phone conversations are also useful. In per

suasion calls, operators can present tailored scripts to different seg

ments of voters in a single advocacy program.

speed modems provide the capacity to track data in almost real time.

Better desktop analysis allows for more detailed statistical information

so that trends can quickly be spotted and adjustments made to messages

where necessary.

Computer Technology Enhances Grassroots Effectiveness

Modern information technology that combines such hardware as fast

computers with vast storage capacity, software, and databases has

greatly facilitated and enhanced the effectiveness of grassroots lobby

ing. State-of-the-art information systems support all of the elements of

grassroots lobbying: constituency building, constituency communica

tion, and constituency activation. The latter capability is particularly

important because sudden legislative developments place a premium on

capacity and speed.

Computer technology is used for the following purposes:.

1. Maintain membership lists in databases.Oneoftheoldestuses

of information technology is the creation and maintenance of mem-

bership lists, such as files of employees, stockholders, community

leaders, and other company stakeholders. Computer databases al-

low easy updating and immediate access. An example of strategic

use of databases is the National Association of Life Underwriters,

which built a network of more than 10,000 members who serve as

contacts in 521 of the nation’s 538 congressional districts. Local co-

ordinators routinely meet with each member of Congress three or

four times a year.

2. Classify and sort constituents. The computer can sort a constitu-

ent database into categories relevant to a specific campaign, provide

cross-tabulations with other databases, and allow instant communi-

cation through connections with laser printers, telephones, and

“broadcast” faxes. Through the use of available software, it is now

easy to sort and mobilize constituents in a variety of ways:

• By congressional or legislative districts. One specialized soft

ware is the Congressional District and State District Identifier Sys

tem. Another is a program by Rocliff Associates of Delavan,

Wisconsin, that enables an organization to identify the legislative

districts where employees, stockholders, retirees, and other con

stituencies reside. If grassroots action is needed in particular dis

tricts, an organization can target those constituents, inform them,

and ask them to take action. Anheuser-Busch used this software

system in an effort to oppose an additional federal excise tax on

beer. Using its file of 40,000 employees, 40,000 stockholders, 200

major suppliers, and 960 wholesalers, the company was able to

target constituents in the districts of 22 key members of the House

Ways and Means Committee. Anheuser-Busch also sent its 200

major suppliers information packages “consisting of a letter ex

GRASSROOTS LOBBYING I 265

plaining the tax issue and the company’s position, a background

information sheet, talking points, and details of how the issue

would affect the company, the industry, and the supplier.”

• By activism and political connection. For example, the National

Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) maintains a database

that includes names, addresses, phone and fax numbers, geo

graphic regions, legislative districts, number of employees, types

of business, issue positions, and political backgrounds. The NFIB

has divided this membership list of 617,000 persons into target

groups based on the degree of activism: an A list of 400,000 mem

bers who responded at least once to a direct-mail activation; an AA

list of 200,000 members who responded to more than one di

rect-mail activation; a guardian list of 40,000 most active mem

bers; and a key contact list of 3,000 members who have close

relationships with public officials.

• By ZIP codes. Software used in marketing has been adapted for

grassroots lobbying needs. For example, the Prizm Cluster System,

provided by Claritas of Alexandria, Virginia, helps to reach con-

sumers for public affairs purposes. According to ZIP code, every

U.S. neighborhood is assigned to one of 40 clusters, each of which

represents people with similar backgrounds, means, and con-

sumer behavior. The Ford Motor Company used this system in

1985 when it, together with GM, successfully convinced the De-

partment of Transportation (DOT) to reduce its miles-per-gallon

fuel average for passenger cars. From an initial list of 1 million cus-

tomers, Ford targeted 25,000 of them in a direct-mail campaign.

The response rate, measuring those who communicated with DOT,

was 12.6%.

3. Inform citizens and provide interactivity. The Internet and other

online networks can inform citizens and provide feedback and

interactivity through specialized websites and online debates. Web

home pages allow organizations to inform current and potential con

stituents who own computers and are likely highly educated with

high incomes. For example, the American Crop Protection Associa

tion, a lobbying arm of the farm chemical industry, sought to enlist

member support for the Republicans’ version of the Safe Drinking

Water Act when it was held back by Democrats. It posted a message

on its website saying, “We have been meeting with committee staff

and others to put back pressure on the GOP to not give away so much

in their push for consensus that they produce a bill that our industry

can’t support.”

Meanwhile the opposing group, the Environmental

Working Group, used the Web to inform Internet users that Repre

sentative Greg Ganske received $17,750 from groups interested in

changing pesticide standards, implying that the chemical industry

intended this money to influence his stand.

A website was at the center of Washington-based Edison Electric

Institute’s grassroots lobbying efforts to support the White House’s

266 I CHAPTER 10

“Clear Skies” plan. Members of the association were urged to partici

pate in the “industry outreach effort to mobilize employees, retirees

and shareholders” to counter controversy surrounding it, namely,

that it would roll back deadlines for meeting public health standards

and leave carbon dioxide emissions unregulated. The website fea

tures “a general advocacy page, talking points that members of each

group can use to write their Congressional representatives, and let

ters for members of each group to send to Congress.”

The cam

paign also asked industry executives to travel to Capitol Hill in

support of the plan.

Adeficiencyofmanywebsitesisthattheyprovidelittleopportunity

for interaction and therefore can’t capitalize on the motivation that is

built when relationships are established with constituents. Although

focusing on social responsibility issues, this failing was noted in a

study of 100 websites of Fortune 500companiesbyS.L.EsrockandG.

B. Leichty.

On the one hand, they found that 88% had websites, and

80% of them dealt with at least one social responsibility issue. For ex-

ample, Olin described environmental and conservation issues and

Avon its Breast Cancer Awareness crusade. What the sites lacked, how-

ever, were sufficient “dialogic features”—features that encourage an

exchange of information and views between a company and its

publics. (The websites in the Esrock and Leichty study were aimed at

three major audiences: shareholders/investors [68%], prospective em-

ployees [68%], and customers and customer service [51%].)

Interaction is encouraged with such features as explicitly inviting

users to return to the site, including links to other websites, providing

a constantly updated calendar of events, and inviting users to voice

their opinions on issues. (See chap. 2 for how interest groups are

learning to incorporate these features.) The Esrock and Leichty study

showed that companies were at least making their sites more invit

ing. For example, three out of four prominently displayed icons or

links for site maps or search engines on the front page.

Some websites already permit a highly interactive way of dissemi

nating information through a kind of coffee-shop exchange that can

“provide dialog, give-and-take, a depth of background and kinds of

information that are impossible, or at least rarely seen, in traditional

media.”

One format allows each candidate to pose a tough policy

question to the other; by the next day, each would have responded to

that question at length and posed another. The process, which would

then be repeated, has two advantages: Relatively long written re

sponses would be provided and appeals to emotion would be limited.

The written responses could also be retained in an archive.

4. Mobilize immediate support. Grassroots lobbying technology,

such as e-mail advocacy, telephone patch-throughs, and grassroots

databases enable companies to mobilize immediate support for spe

cific legislative events. For example, Bonner & Associates sent farm

ers, senior citizens, and small-business owners predrafted e-mail

GRASSROOTS LOBBYING I 267

messages that, when forwarded to congressional representatives, ap

pear self-composed.

Similarly, the Pesticide Action Network and the

NRA have mobilized up to 200,000 members at a time.

In applying the telephone patch-through technique, computers

can sort and redirect a call to the office of a particular member of Con

gress. Databases can also be used to generate letters to Congress, as

Citicorp did to reach its employee volunteers and generate 38,000 let

ters to Congress and to newspapers on the banking reform law. By

using its computer-driven phone banks, the U.S. Chamber of Com

merce can call 215,000 members about issues of concern to the orga

nization. When a key vote looms, “a computer will start dialing their

numbers with a recorded message with three options: Press 1 to have

a mailgram or letter sent in their name to their representative; press 2

to record a voice-mail message for the lawmaker; press 3 to have a

computer connect them immediately with the lawmaker’s office.”

ORGANIZING AN INTEGRATED LOBBYING CAMPAIGN:

HOW CSE DOES IT

Public affairs managers face the challenge of integrating all the elements

of a grassroots lobbying campaign with its overall public affairs goals

and activities. Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) has done this suc-

cessfully. It transformed itself into an integrated lobbying organization

in 1993 when the administration proposed an energy tax. Since then it

has been interested in several other issues. In 1994 it spent close to $5

million on advertising and grassroots efforts to oppose the administra-

tion’s health care reform proposal, and in March 1995 it became in-

volved in the House debate on overhauling the nation’s civil litigation

system. It has also pushed for a balanced budget amendment and

sought reform of the FDA.

CSE is a 250,000-member conservative advocacy group that receives

its financial support from such bastions of free enterprise economics as

the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation,

and the Sarah Scaife Foundation; from trade associations such as the

American Petroleum Institute and Pharmaceutical Research and Manu

facturers of America; and from companies such as CIGNA and R. J.

Reynolds Tobacco. Its fight for legal reforms is supported by the Ameri

can Council of Life Insurance, Americans for Lawsuit Reform, the NFIB,

and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

To bolster its power base, CSE maintains a research-and-education

foundation. It commissioned a poll by Luntz Research of Arlington, Vir

ginia, showing that many Americans had serious doubts about the FDA.

CSE’s grassroots efforts are helped by its chapters in six states: Louisi

ana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.

CSE recognizes the value of a professional staff and outside experts.

Among the persons and organizations it hired are (a) well-connected

268 I CHAPTER 10

field operatives to help organize campaigns in key states; (b) the San

Diego-based firm Direct Communications Corporation, which “places

calls to its members and allows them to patch calls through to their

Members of Congress”; and (c) Elizabeth Sauer, a grassroots specialist

who formerly worked for the public relations firm of Fleishman Hillard.

CSE uses a variety of tactics to achieve its political goals, including

advertising, bumper stickers, and demonstrations. To help sway key

senators on the balanced budget amendment, it took out ads in several

states. It spent about $50,000 in Delaware, where Democrat Joseph R.

Biden, Jr. was a late convert to the bill; and about $15,000 in North Da

kota in an unsuccessful effort to persuade Democrats Kent Conrad and

Byron L. Dorgan. Its spending on negative ads in the 1994 campaign ap

proached $1 billion. It was the season of sleaze, as judged by a Ketchum

newspaper ad deploring the excesses of negative advertising.

In fighting the Clinton administration’s health care reform propos

als, CSE distributed bumper stickers and buttons to its members. It also

coordinated a series of demonstrations to counter the bus tour the ad-

ministration organized to promote its health care proposal.

CONCLUSIONS

Grassroots lobbying achieves its true purpose when it withdraws from

astroturf techniques and draws on the true opinions, feelings, and goals

of the electorate. It is unrealistic, however, to expect average persons to

take the initiative in advancing even their own goals. Leadership is

needed. Sometimes a spontaneous leader emerges, and often enough, a

public interest group provides a leadership role.

Businesses can also legitimately provide leadership if their goals are

consonant with those of the public; this public opinion surveys can de-

termine. If public opinion is not yet sufficiently advanced, a company

can choose to influence it. Part of the strategy of Glaxo Wellcome’s

Civic Action Network, for example, is to educate the public with such

messagesasthatittakes15yearstofundanddevelopanewlife-sav

ing drug.

This effort is part of constituency communication, dis

cussed earlier. Furthermore, the instruments of opinion leader

communication and strategic media relations should be used both be

fore and during grassroots lobbying efforts. As stated by Margery

Kraus, president and CEO of APCO Associates, “Popularizing your

cause through talk radio and engaging the public through a variety of

media actions have never been more useful tools for the government

relations professional.”

ENDNOTES

1. Edward A. Grefe, “An Introduction to Grassroots,” in Winning at the Grassroots:

A Comprehensive Manual for Corporations and Associations,byTonyKramer

with Wes Pedersen (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Council, 2000), p. 8.

GRASSROOTS LOBBYING I 269

2. Ron Faucheux, “The Grassroots Explosion,” Campaigns & Elections, Vol. 16,

No. 1, December 1994–January 1995, p. 20.

3. Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “Washington’s Power 25,” Fortune, December 8, 1997,

pp. 144–158.

4. Wes Pedersen, “The Power of Grassroots Is Demonstrated Via a Study of Its

Impact on Congressional Staffers,” Impact, October 2003, pp. 1, 3.

5. Hjalma Johnson, “Team 21: Future of Grassroots Lobbying,” ABA Banking

Journal, Vol. 92, May 2000, p. 17.

6. Michael D. Lord, “Grassroots Strategy and Tactics: What Works, What Doesn’t,

and Why,” in Kramer, op. cit., pp. 238–239.

7. Ibid., p. 239.

8. See Gerry Keim, “Corporate Grassroots Programs in the 1980s,” California

Management Review, Vol. 28, Fall 1985, pp. 110–123.

9. Chris Casey, The Hill on the Net: Congress Enters the Information Age (Boston:

AP Professional, 1996), p. 223.

10. Pete Engardio, “Activists Without Borders,” BusinessWeek, October 4, 1999,

p. 144.

11. Ibid., pp. 144–145.

12. Tom Price, “Creating a Digital Democracy: The Impact of the Internet on

Public Policy-Making” (Washington, D.C.: Foundation for Public Affairs,

1999), p. 2.

13. Ibid., p. 15.

14. Ibid., p. 9.

15. Ibid., p. 5.

16. Ibid., pp. 12–13.

17. Ibid., p. 13.

18. Wesley Pedersen, Winning at the Grassroots (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs

Council, 1989).

19. Grefe, op. cit., p. 4.

20. Fraser/Associates, Getting the Most From Grassroots Programs in the 1980s

(Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Council, 1980), p. 15.

21. Faucheux, op. cit., p. 24.

22. Glen Caroline, “Maximizing Campaign Volunteers: The NRA Way,” Cam-

paigns & Elections, Vol. 24 , April 2003, pp. 26–29.

23. See Jerry A. Hendrix, Public Relations Cases (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth,

1988), pp. 236–243.

24. See Michael E. Dunn, “Developing an Effective Grassroots Program: Tem

plates for Success,” in Kramer, op. cit., pp. 17–19; also see Pedersen, op. cit.

25. Dunn, op. cit., p. 13.

26. Dunn, “The Future of Grassroots,” op. cit., p. 226.

27. Ken Silverstein, Washington on $10 Million a Day (Monroe, Me.: Common

Courage Press, 1998), p. 94.

28. Faucheux, op. cit., p. 22.

29. Elizabeth J. Welsh, “Grassroots Activation and Mobilization: Tools and Tech

nologies,” in Kramer, op. cit., p. 119.

30. Michael E. Dunn, “The Future of Grassroots,” in Kramer, op. cit., p. 279.

31. “Digging up the AstroTurf,” Ragan’s Media Relations Report, February 17,

2003, p. 3.

32. Paul Cordasco, “Corporate Giants Call on Shareholders in Support of Bush

Tax Plan,” PR Week (US), April 7, 2003, p. 1.

33. “Bailout Lobby—How Chrysler Corp. Orchestrates Support of Bid for Fed

eral Aid,” Wall Street Journal, September 6, 1979, p. 1.

270 I CHAPTER 10

34. Sally Goll Beatty, “Philip Morris Boosts Marketing via Catalog,” Wall Street

Journal, November 4, 1996, p. 5.

35. Dunn, op. cit., p. 13.

36. Faucheux, op. cit., pp. 25, 53.

37. Ibid., p. 24.

38. Rick Chase and Stephen M. Ramsey, “Second Chances: Lessons Learned and

Mid-Course Corrections,” in Kramer, op. cit., p. 43.

39. Ibid.

40. Ken Deutsch and Mark Reilly, “Using the Internet for Grassroots Effective

ness,” in Kramer, op. cit., p. 143.

41. Ibid., p. 140.

42. Engardio, op. cit., p. 148.

43. Interview by Mary Clare Jalonick, “Grassroots Lobbying: Trends and Tech

niques; Consultant Q&A,” Campaigns & Elections, February 2003, p. 45.

44. Ibid., p. 22.

45. Ibid., p. 22.

46. Jalonick, op. cit.

47. Ibid.

48. Silverstein, op. cit.

49. Richard Alan Nelson, “Activist Groups and New Technologies: Influencing

the Public Affairs Agenda,” in Practical Public Affairs in an Era of Change: A

Communications Guide for Business, Government, and College, ed. Lloyd B.

Dennis (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1996), p. 416. Also see

Silverstein, op. cit., pp. 212–220.

50. Faucheux, op. cit., pp. 53–54.

51. Ibid.

52. Price, op. cit, pp. 15, 19. The author of the study is P. Michael Lord, Babcock

Graduate School of Management.

53. Silverstein, op. cit., p. 95.

54. Leslie J. Gianelli, “Maximizing Consultant Relationships: Hiring, Managing

and Assessing Your Consultants,” in Kramer, op. cit., p. 51.

55. “Grassroots Lobbying & Issue Advocacy Services Buyer’s Guide,” Campaigns

& Elections, February 2003, p. 44.

56. Ibid., p. 20.

57. Wally Clinton was one of eight consultants and vendors specializing in

telemarketing services whose answers to questions were solicited for an ar

ticle, “Telephones as Strategic Tools,” Campaigns & Elections, Vol. 18, August

1997, p. 22.

58. “Telephones as Strategic Tools,” ibid. p. 23. Stated by Tony Feather of New

York-based Campaign Tel, Inc.

59. Ibid., p. 22. Stated by Clinton.

60. Ibid., p. 23. Stated by Powell.

61. Ibid., p. 23. Stated by Hansbrough.

62. Ibid., pp. 21–22. Stated by Feather.

63. Faucheux, op. cit., p. 23.

64. Pedersen, op. cit., p. 107.

65. Faucheux, op. cit., p. 21.

66. Pederson, op. cit., p. 107.

67. However, in retrospect, the association didn’t want this message to be

public, so it pulled the description of its lobbying efforts from public

access.

GRASSROOTS LOBBYING I 271