Posts filed under ‘public affairs’
Libya highlights Europe’s defence weakness
The ability of we Europeans to provide for our own defence has been increasingly in doubt since the end of the cold war. I well remember George Robertson, when he was NATO Secretary General, contrasting the size of Europe’s military forces, running into millions, with the inability of European allies to provide just a few thousand troops for NATO operations.
The Libyan campaign has forced the issue into sharp focus. Last Friday’s speech by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Security and Defence Agenda meeting in Brussels spelled out the harsh realities of a changing world and warned Europe of the consequences of neglecting its military capabilities.
Gates describes the present situation as “unacceptable” and cites the fact that 11 weeks after the Libyan operation began – under NATO auspices – some European partners have run out of firepower and have had to ask the Americans for new bombs and rockets. According to him the Italian airbase for operations over Libya can only handle half the sorties for which it is equipped owing to lack of equipment. It’s symptomatic of a wider failure.
Two major assumptions seem to lie behind Europe’s lack of defence capabilities: the first is the belief that the world has become more benign, and that in this kinder world we need no longer worry about our capacity for military action. The second is that if action is needed then we can always get the Americans to do the dirty work.
Each of the two assumptions is surely wrong. Of course we face different threats from those we faced in the cold war years, many of them unpredictable, but there are always dangers round the corner. For instance we tend to assume that the Arab spring is a surge towards democracy equivalent to Europe’s velvet revolutions. That is indeed an outcome devoutly to be wished, but it is by no means guaranteed. Every Arab country has its own version of the revolution. Just look at the mayhem in Syria, which could have major repercussions across the region.
The US Secretary of State touched on the changing politics which undermine the second assumption. The generation of US politicians whose experience was forged during the cold war has now moved on, to be replaced by political leaders with quite different priorities, impatient of European demands for American involvement and wholly preoccupied by a ballooning budget deficit. It was striking how indignant some EU leaders were that President Obama refused to take the lead role in Libya. But as Obama has reasonably said, Libya is Europe’s problem.
It is the very unpredictability of international events which make it so difficult for governments to plan defence spending – and to justify it to voters, but as Robert Gates says, it is barmy to spend money on sophisticated fighter aircraft and not provide the armaments they need for active combat, or the electronic capabilities and intelligence resources to direct their operations.
A collapse of trust between allies could even threaten the demise of NATO. As the American global commitment diminishes so Europe has got to do more in both diplomatic and practical ways. The common European Security and Defence Policy should provide the framework and the common will to improve capabilities, but there’s little sign of it doing so. It should also be working much more closely with NATO. But who will provide the political leadership? Regrettably there is not much sign that either Cathy Ashton or national leaders are capable of that.
Michael
Time to throw away the trusty old position paper?
A framework for thinking about how what you want helps your audience
It seems that the position paper is about as standard issue as a BMW 320D or a Blackberry Bold for the public affairs professional in this town. You simply would not leave for a meeting without one. I think it’s time to change all that. It’s time to throw away the rather haggard old position paper and replace it with the shiny new ‘Benefits Statement’. Ta-dah!
No, I’m not saying that we all need to be made unemployed; something which UK nationals may associate with benefits statements. Just that one of the key public affairs document needs to be re-tooled and re-focused if it’s to do its primary job of helping convince our audience to go in our direction within any public policy debate.
There are of course good position papers and bad ones. Brevity good. German academic style papers with fifty million footnotes bad. A single point good. A list of twenty five things that are all equally important bad. General calls for support bad. Clear instruction on what to do if they support your point of view good.
My issue with the position paper is that given its name it’s a little hard to get past the general idea that it should all be about the organization writing it. What your organization thinks. How your organization is affected. While all these things are important to you, nine times out of ten I’m guessing they are not that important to the folks you’re trying to convince. So while you clearly need to work out what you think and why, when you come to putting it down on paper I’d suggest starting it’s time to focus your thoughts on the benefits for the people you’re trying to convince. What and who do they care about? Why is what you say important to them? Above and beyond persuading them you are right what are you going to say to make them act?
In thinking about these questions, I’ve come up with my own 4Ps of what policymakers care about in my humble view (see above). Clearly the emphasis one places on any one of the 4Ps depends on the assessment of the issue and the folks you are communicating to. However, I find it a useful starting point for thinking. I hope it’s of use to you too.
James
A tale of two cities
Since my return to Brussels I’ve been getting a lot of questions about the differences between public affairs in Washington D.C. and how it is practiced here in Europe’s capital. My not so groundbreaking conclusion is that while the objective of public affairs may remain the same, the practice of public affairs is shaped by the market’s conditions.
As such, to kick us off in what I intend (at this stage) to be a series of posts reflecting on my time in the U.S. below you’ll find some contrasts between the two markets that I came up. I’ll take a look at my views on the impacts of some of these pairs in the coming weeks.
Elections v Selections
Politics v Policy
Confrontation v Consensus
Fast v Slow
Closed v Open
Money v Insights
Emotion v Facts
Public v Elite
Many v Few
Periphery v Center
No prizes for guessing which side is Brussels and which is Washington.
James
The same broom for the last twenty years
I’m not the only person to have recently returned to FH Brussels. Last night we welcomed back many of those who have made us what we are today at drinks for FH Alumni in our offices. Like any organization that’s been around a while we’ve seen our fair share of colleagues come and go. Yet there’s still a sense of stability around the place. I’ve worked out that our current management team has a combined FH lifespan of 96 years (average of 9.6 years). That’s some organizational memory for any agency in any market.
As an FH old timer (9 years and counting), it was great to see so many former colleagues and current friends in one place. Our reception and meeting area on the second floor may be shiny and new, but for those returning it seemed, to me at least, that the feeling was one of returning home.
The event reminded me of a story told by Michael Berendt when he finally moved back to the UK a few of years ago (he still remains a colleague and writes an interesting blog on EU affairs here). Michael compared FH Brussels to Trigger’s broom in a scene from the UK TV sitcom Only Fools and Horses. I’ll not spoil this classic piece of British television comedy for you, it’s embedded above for your viewing pleasure. I think you’ll get the message.
Thanks to all of those handles and brush heads who turned up last night. You’ve made this broom what it is. We look forward to seeing you all again for our 20th birthday bash in June.
James
btw – it’s great to be back inside the Brussels Bubble. Look forward to getting back in the groove and posting on this blog in the coming weeks. Next post from me will contrast D.C. and Brussels from a P.A. perspective, unless something else takes my fancy.
A selection of recent posts on FH blogs
In my post A quick tour through the FH blogosphere, I shared some articles from other FHers writing on their own or team blogs. Here’s what some of them have been up to so far this year.
First of all we start by welcoming back James Stevens to Brussels. Having originally pioneered this blog back in the day, James has been in the Washington DC office for the past year and writing his own blog Bubble to Beltway. Here is his last post about the influence of interest groups in the legislative process and how more measurement is needed in Public Affairs – What I want is more data.
Which ties nicely with another colleague concerned with measurement from across the pond: Don Bartholomew, or MetricsMan, writes an excellent summary of the lessons learned in social media for 2011. Not strictly PA, but knowing what to measure in the digital realm is absolutely essential whatever the communications discipline, so definitely worth a read.
Steffen writes about reaching decision makers online, outlines ten key points that resonate with audiences when he presents on digital and PA to various audiences, and describes why campaigning more widely than the government relations comfort zone is important in a post entitled Campaigning to achieve PA goals, pay heed to the constituent consumer.
Outside the communications and public affairs arena, Michael Berendt gives his perspective on current affairs, specifically how Libya’s fate will have a major impact on Europe.
And of course I cannot sign off without welcoming FH Amsterdam to the blogging fold. They have been going for a couple of months now, writing about the digital and public affairs intersection. Definitely worth the Google translate!
Rosalyn
FH Podcast: Kroes and digital – interview with Ryan Heath
In our latest podcast, I have a chat with Ryan Heath, speechwriter and social media manager for European Commission Vice President and Commissioner for Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes. In an impressively varied and accomplished career so far, Ryan has been Assistant Director at the UK Cabinet Office, political adviser to former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has written for publications such as the Sydney Morning Herald, and published a book on Generation Y, as well as editing The Gay Marriage Blog.
Ryan and Neelie’s approach to social media is spot on, and in stark contrast to the majority of political actors in Brussels who just can’t get past using online channels as just another way to blurt out one-way messages. Instead, they seek to be better at their jobs through social media, by gathering better intelligence and building relationships with the people who provide it (a cue to Public Affairs professionals if ever there was one.)
As ever, keen to hear your thoughts, so please comment away.
Click here to subscribe to the podcast on iTunes.
Steffen
The Highlights – “Social media: what works & and what doesn’t?” from the European Public Affairs Action Day
So Thursday was the long awaited European Public Affairs Action Day, organised by the Parliament Magazine, and of course it was every bit as good as it promised to be. We hosted a workshop entitled ‘Social Media: what works what doesn’t’? We aimed at having a range of perspectives in our panel to get a good picture of how social media is being developed in different areas, from industry to national and then European politics.
Michael Adolph from FH started off with some of the inspiring work they do in Washington and highlighted that good quality content which shows real personal enthusiasm for the subject matter is most likely to resonate with audiences. He showcased a video for Johns Hopkins University’s Malaria Free Future campaign, which demonstrates how a fresh approach to traditional funding applications with creative visuals and a proactive online outreach can make a practical difference to malaria sufferers.
He was then followed by Samuel Coates from the UK Conservative Party. He gave very straightforward advice: don’t just believe the hype but find out who your audience is and reach out to them. Try to build a relationship rather than just following the latest social media trend and using those media channels like you would a foghorn.
Finally, we rounded off with another perspective, that of Ryan Heath who, as a member of Neelie Kroes’ social media team, has the opportunity to experience firsthand the way social media is shaping the government/citizen conversation. Definitely the most eye opening quote of the day comes from our dynamic Australian who said that on Neelie Kroes’ website ‘a single average blog post gets as many views as all of her 2010 press releases combined’ – a clear sign that the more immediate and personal nature of a blog post resonates with audiences.
Yes a good time was had and it was great to see so many industry leaders there. We videoed the panel and have a few snippets from the audience coming soon so watch this space…
Rosalyn
A Quick Tour Through the FH Blogosphere
Whilst we’d like to think that Public Affairs 2.0 was the only blog worth reading when it comes to the digital/public affairs/PR sphere it’s not the case at all! There are quite a few excellent bloggers at FH who blog in both a personal and professional capacity, and we thought we’d bring you a few samples once in a while, from Brussels to across the Atlantic.
Firstly staying in house; some of our regular contributors to Public Affairs 2.0 also have their own blogs, one of these is our Digital Strategist, Steffen Thejll-Moller. He writes here about the struggle to implement digital in public affairs, remember: don’t blame it all on the old fogeys.
Liva Judic is based a little further afield in our Paris office and describes herself as a ‘social media addict’. Her blog Merrybubbles is a regular upload of all things interesting and digi. One of her great articles is about the digital divide around the world and how mobile technology is being innovatively implemented in unexpected places.
James Stevens, whilst technically no longer a Euroblogger, now offers a unique European perspective on the goings on in Washington DC. His article ‘Neither the US nor the EU wants to kill its citizens’ takes a look at the transatlantic relationship in reality, especially in light of regulatory convergence. Whilst in his most recent article examines the line between government relations and public affairs, and how we can learn from each other.
But of course blogs take many different formats and not just personal perspectives. The FH London office clearly translates in-depth briefings into accessible blog format. For example, see their outline of the recent UK government’s spending review.
So I hope you enjoy sampling a little taste of where else the digital discussion about public affairs and public relations is taking place.
Rosalyn
Why the shortage of influential policy bloggers in Brussels?
Some people will tell you there are scores of influential policy bloggers in Brussels. Unfortunately, they’re wrong. There’s an active throng of smart and passionate Eurobloggers who write about the EU and a number of issues surrounding it. Most are aggregated on bloggingportal.eu and many of them are influential: some are being treated in line with members of the press and even being mentioned by Commissioners. But most influential Eurobloggers are individual citizens who write to raise awareness of issues they care about. They occasionally write about policies, but their primary aim is not to influence a policy area.
That’s the dividing line. An influential policy blogger is an authority on a policy area who has a professional interest in it. They represent an organisation – be it a single issue pressure group or a global corporation – that is one of many stakeholders on a set of policy areas and present that organisation’s positions in blog format. The level of expertise and relevance of the blog is such that it is read by all or at least most other relevant stakeholders including policy makers and key influencers. At this point, the blog can arguably be called an “influential policy blog” (although I’m not going to define influence scientifically.) How many are there in Brussels? Far fewer than I can count on one hand.
Why not? The old “policy makers don’t use the web” chestnut certainly won’t hold any longer. What’s more, it’s advocacy of the most open and transparent kind; and it allows organisations to move beyond purely focusing on key policy areas to engaging on broader issues and build relationships in the process. Plus the flexibility of the medium allows them to enhance their advocacy by producing an ongoing narrative in line with events rather than the “all your eggs in one basket” approach which face-to-face meetings or a one-off position paper demand.
So why the poor uptake? Three broad reasons, I’d say:
- Sometimes, the sensitive nature of their industry may force PA professionals’ hand. Fair enough, although I suspect they won’t be able to keep quiet forever.
- Other times, it’s just a question of sticking to what they know best – and frankly, who can blame them? It’s worked for years and blogging is both time-consuming and a little frightening. Presenting your views to the world rather than a narrow set of key stakeholders: why bother unless someone is twisting your arm?
- Communicators (internal and agency) haven’t done enough to help organisations make the shift. The basic sell is: this is not a fancy add-on but a basic publication tool which, used well, has the potential to improve your reach and influence. Too often, the sell has been tactical i.e. selling “blogging” per se as something near-revolutionary rather than what it can do. We for one are doing our best to change that, but it won’t happen overnight.
Over to you. Do you agree with the premise: are influential policy bloggers indeed far and few between in Brussels? Is that perhaps a good thing?! And the reasons I cite for the scarcity? Keen to hear your thoughts.
Steffen
