MISTAKES PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCATES MAKE

1. Not being familiar with the legislative proposal

2. Not conducting appropriate analysis

3. Confusing motion with action

4. Not knowing when to stop.

5. Not managing client expectations. Unrealistic expectations can create untenable pressure to do the wrong thing or the right thing at the wrong time.

6. Not reaching a solid mutual understanding with the client regarding all aspects of the lobbyist- client relationship (including how and by whom decisions will be made, the respective roles of the client and the advocate, timeliness and frequency of reports and updates, what defines and constitutes success and much more). The existence of that understanding is more important than its specific details.

7. Not tempering persistence with patience, i.e. defining perseverance as persistence alone. Losing sight of the fact that the best definition of perseverance which is a crucial public policy advocacy component is that it is persistence plus patience in roughly equal quantities. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. Nothing happens overnight. Put your idea out there, and tend it. Monitor and wait for opportunities.

8. Not telling the truth. Lying may gain you an illusory short-term advantage but will destroy your reputation, credibility and ability to succeed. And, of course, the truth is easier to remember.

9. Not understanding that, in this technological age, anything that is put in documentary form will be known by everyone in the universe within seconds. If you put it in print, assume that you are dispensing it instantaneously universally. The price paid for indiscreet violation of this rule can be enormous.

10. Not sufficiently researching a legislator or staff member’s background and interests before communicating with them.  

11. Underpromising and overdelivering.

12. Speaking for someone else without specific, clear, definitive, precise authorization.

13. Losing a potential major victory by stubborn pursuit of the unattainable.

14. Taking setbacks personally. Policymakers have to balance a lot of very worthy competing interests. You won't win every time. Be gracious, don't burn bridges. Wait for the next opportunity. Another note, the end of the legislative session and near committee deadlines, a great deal of pressure builds, tempers run high, things are said, and feelings get hurt. Don't take it personally.

15. Sending the wrong "messenger" to communicate the client's point of view.

16. Displaying impetuousness instead of focusing on analysis and strategy.

17. Overreacting when frustrated.

18. Not understanding that, because many laws are not self-implementing, a legislative win or loss may be just the battle, not the war. Remember that in the case of non-self-executing statutes, regulatory agencies play a huge implementation role and that the public policy advocate’s job isn't over when legislation is enacted.

19. Failure to provide a workable solution. Many organisations do not consider it their responsibility to come up with a solution to the problem they have. If you are working with officials on the issue then understand that they will be looking for help and support, not a series of meetings with organisations who want to have the opportunity to get some issues off their chests. A workable solution can take many forms from legislation through to changes in guidance. However, the key phrase is 'workable' - be careful not to ask for the moon on a stick. If it is not within the power or gift of the stakeholders you hope can implement it then it is not workable.

20. Approaching the wrong people. Are the people and organizations you may need to work with, influence, or face opposition from relevant and do they wield power or influence? Are you dealing with the right people or are you instead heading off down a dead end, wasting time speaking to people that whilst relevant, are not in a position to really assist the campaign.

21. Intervening at the wrong time. Working with Parliament and government can be daunting. Time should be spent working out the timetable for a policy so that the campaign has, sometimes a best guess, built into it. This is essential as it relates directly back to the first point, delivering a workable solution. Solutions can vary over time depending on where the issue is in the policy-making process. It also highlights the need to get involved in policy development and design from the earliest opportunity. The more you can shape and offer constructive engagement the less likely adverse outcomes are. You can only know when this time is, however, if you are following the relevant issues and know the timetable.

22. Choosing the wrong level. There is a temptation to aim contact at the very top. In fact, going straight to the top from the outset will just show that you do not understand the policy-making process.  To determine whether you should target a local, state or national official or agency, determine where the issue has the most concentrated effect.

23. Too much emphasis on the media . The media card can be played too early in a public affairs campaign. The knee-jerk assumption that the media can be a way of applying pressure on politicians to take action can have exactly the opposite effect. If politicians and government feel pressurised too early without having had the option of dealing with the issue and considering it then the media spotlight can cause them to dig their heels in. This will only lessen the chances of success for the campaign, add to costs and lengthen the timescale.

24. Limiting the research. Limiting information-gathering to just one target agency or official.

25. Avoiding personal contact with officials. Cultivate relationships with staff members, too.

26. Having a weak or limited coalition. Be creative when looking for allies, and ask other businesses with complementary concerns to reach out as well. Educate all coalition members on the issues. Don't assume everyone is already on the same page. Select energetic and focused leaders who can keep members motivated. Define goals as broadly as possible, so everyone feels included and invested.

27. Making written communication faux pas. Double-check correct name spellings and titles. Provide sources for all data. Be concrete and specific. Research relevant requirements, such as time limits or numbers of signatures. Make communication personalized. Don't overuse rhetoric. Don't be discourteous.

28. Muffing verbal communication opportunities. In phone calls, in face-to-face meetings or public forums such as rallies or community meetings, humanize the story with examples. Use props or visual aids. Bring attention to who is supporting your issue . Research, review and rehearse. Don't drop names, be unprepared, be overly familiar or jocular, or use silly gimmicks. Avoid being long-winded, accusatory or impatient.

29. Missing messaging opportunities. Don't confuse a slogan with a message. Don't exaggerate the facts. Develop a well-framed, fact-based message, stick to it and get everyone working with you to do the same so one consistent message comes across. Don't assume the target official or agency "gets" it. Take time to educate them on the issue. Show them that this action affects more than just your side . Avoid using jargon, vague references or an uninformed spokesperson.

30. Lack of monitoring .You should make sure you are aware of all legislative changes taking place.

31. Poor prioritization of objectives, which can lead to misunderstandings and differences of opinion.

32. Lack of solid arguments and communication strategies. All aspects must be clarified and every time you must use the best means possible to transmit information.

33. Lack of clarity about your issue, your facts and your position.

34. Not targeting the right people. Analyse who has the power to make a decision on your issue and target your public policy advocacy at these people.

35. Not preparing for opposition. Analyse the opposition’s position and develop counter-arguments to theirs, since they may also be advocating the same person.

36. Not thinking about your target audience and how the decision-maker can benefit from agreeing with you. Include this in your arguments. Most decision-makers will agree more easily if they can see how your proposals link to their concerns.

37. Not getting to the point and sticking to it.

38. Not hearing what is said instead of what you want to hear.

39. Trying to personalise the issue. Decision-makers are concerned about the impact on their constituency.

40. Not learning the system first. Too many advocates don't take the time to learn the history and culture of the system they want to influence. At EU level it is necessary to understand EU processes and procedures. Their naiveté can doom a good idea and waste a lot of time. Too often, a group of advocates works for a couple of years to get a bill passed, only to find that it doesn't get implemented because there was no money for it in the budget. So they work for another couple of years to get it funded. But it still isn't implemented, because no one talked to the agency that was supposed to do it.

41. Leaving without closing the deal. Too often, an advocate makes a case with a policymaker, who says they agree completely, this is a serious problem, The advocate leaves feeling great, having made his/her point, but later learns that the policymaker didn't support the proposal. It's human nature to hear what you want to hear, but advocates need to listen carefully. If you want them to vote yes, ask for their vote specifically. If you want them to fund a program, ask for it specifically. Be polite, but endure the silence as you wait for their answer. Make no assumptions.

42. Not following through. Programmes are not done even when they are implemented - they have to be evaluated and adjusted accordingly to be sure they are solving the original problem. It is critical to keep up the pressure all through the process.

43. Lack of flexibility. If your proposal won't work, for whatever reason, find another that does the same thing. Reasons can be political, financial or just personal. Find a way around it. Get creative - repackage it, route it through a different agency, whatever.

44. Being too early or too late in the process. Intervening too late in the procedure is fatal – the battle will already have been lost

45. Advocating too long with lower ranking officials

46. Having a biased or superficial approach

47. Nagging, droning, buttering up, flattering, getting angry, pointing fingers, speaking in an aggressive voice

48. Inappropriate briefing materials

49. Basing a position on an excessively national position (at EU level)

50. Basing a position on emotion rather than facts

51. Being not sufficiently transparent

52. Lack of collection of relevant information. Both information about the content of governmental proposals and the effects on business as well as on the most relevant stakeholders (ministry, parliament, allies and opponents) should be collected.

53. Providing general information instead of short, reliable and targeted information which convince decision-makers (damage to companies, job losses), comparisons with rules in neighbouring countries (if they put your arguments in a favourable light, of course).

54. Using a negative rather than a positive approach. Politicians and officials are much more susceptible to a positive than a negative approach. What are the minimum changes required to make the proposal acceptable? But, does your mandate allow you to compromise?