How you can communicate with decision makers in Brussels

Last week, I was asked to look at some lobbying material to see if I understood what was being asked for.

It was hard to find. After the 3rd reading, buried at the end of page 2, I discovered the essence of the ask for politicians and officials.   The feedback appeared to be it did not land.  This did not dissuade the same material from being sent to the same decision-makers for one last charge.

This dystopian picture is not isolated and has been in Brussels for a long time.  In 1996, I was struck by a leading organisation that sent letters and position papers that had perfected the fine art of hiding any helpful information and using value-laden language at the start that led at least half of the MEPs to put the correspondence straight into the bin. I am not talking about the Scientologists who used to send in lots of material. I believe they had a higher read rate.

Why do we hate to communicate

 

I’ve tried to understand why this is tragically common.   It is like a lot of people don’t want to communicate.

In Brussels, we communicate with a small group of people, mainly officials, politicians and their advisors, and to a lesser extent, journalists, think tanks, and some experts.  Most are based in the EU Quarter and, to a lesser extent, officials, politicians and others in the national capitals.

In practice, many people ignore communication, and rather than speaking to the audience, they speak to themselves/their organisations (see  Option 2 in the chart above).

Why the Audience is all that matters

 

If you want to communicate with the real audience,  you need to start from the end in mind.  The only important thing about your communication is getting the right response to what you say.  What comes out of your mouth/pen may be heard/read differently by the audience. If they don’t understand it, are insulted by it, or bin it, you have failed.  You want the audience to agree with you, decide in your favour, or reconsider their position and back you.

You need to communicate to the audience and speak to them, and not to you. If your letters and position papers to politicians and officials come across as a channelling of your inner angst that reflects your interests and values alone, the chances of your communication landing with the intended audience are slim to nil.  Of course, I can’t discount the possibility that a critical decision-maker or politician who can sway events in your favour is your clone.  It is just that the likelihood of it happening is low.

There must be easier ways to provide a constant loop back of white noise of self-justification. Is there a clever piece of AI that will record an inner group monologue and put it to soothing Gregorian chants so believers can download the track?

If you are happy with this status quo, please stop reading.

Here is my approach. It is imperfect, but it may give some pointers.

You can see option 1 in the chart above.

First, you are writing for a specific external audience. It is not for an internal group.  You are not looking at your collective belly button.

Second, you need to work out where they are coming from (their values). Don’t project your values onto the audience.

Third, you need to tailor your language to the audience.

Fourth, work out the level of detail your audience needs.

Fifth, you are communicating to get a decision, so you need to create a compelling picture for them to decide/reconsider

You need to make sure what you say is concrete and backed up by facts, data and proof.

You are likely going to be considered with scepticism. So you need to:

(1) be able be able to justify what you are saying.

(2) come across as if you know what you are talking about.

These are rare skills and take many years of practice to master.

It helps to give them tangible, concrete reasons to back -up your claims.  You can :

1. show them., e.g. infographics, pictures

2. tell them, but it tends to work only if they trust you

3. provide a real experience, e.g. a site visit. Often the most effective

4. Provide abstract information, but this is unlikely to influence them.

5. Start with the big picture,  then the details. The details can be further down or in an annexe.

You should get feedback to see whether your communication lands with the audience, that is it influences and persuades. If the feedback says no, adjust until it does.

Note

This may be heresy for technocrats, but logic and reason persuade a small majority, although in Brussels, it may be more. Most people are persuaded by other reasons, including it looks right, sounds right, and feels right.