There is a lot of work in Brussels spent communicating public policy positions to decision makers and influencers.
Chatting with friends in the Commission, Perm Reps, and the EP, most of this work does not land. There are some simple reasons why this work fails, including it is sent at the wrong time, does not make sense, or does not provide any credible evidence to support the position being promoted.
All these mistakes are easy to avoid. Below I’ll look at how you can make your ideas make sense.
Write for the reader, not yourself
Every year a lot of forests are sacrificed to push out position papers, briefings and reports.
They are often written by experts for the limited number of experts in the institutions. Before you do any writing, it makes sense to work out who your intended reader is.
Your audience could be:
- A technical expert: seconded national expert, maybe desk officer, Technical Expert in Working Group
- Policy lead: Desk officer, Head of Unit, Perm Rep
- Political decision maker (Cabinet, Commissioner, MEP, political adviser, Minister)
This is a pretty small audience. On most legislative files I’ve worked on there has been around 650 people deciding and influencing a file. Most of the key decisions are taken by 25-50. None of the 25-50 has ever been a technical expert.
So, we are not talking about influencing the 7 billion plus people on the planet or the near 450 million EU citizens. If you want to go down that root, advertising spend can get expensive (see here for some key brands’ spend).
Don’t try to educate
A lot of hope is given to being able to emulate the Neo Uploads education model to persuade people about a position.
Until such time that we can all learn kung fu at the click of a button, you’ll have to give up on the idea of ‘educating’ officials and politicians in an instant. Just stick with informing and influencing.
I dislike the idea of ‘educating’. It reminds me of this.
A Checklist that works – write for a smart 10 year old
There is a model that will help you produce copy that influences your reader.
1. You need to understand the issue. Not to a post-doc level of understanding. You don’t have to be an expert. Many experts find it hard to communicate in words that non-experts can understand.
2. You need to distil the idea down to its essence.
3. You must put this ‘essence’ into your own words.
4. You need to put your thoughts down into 2-4 sentence paragraphs that a smart 10-year-old can understand.
5. You need to get feedback that what you have written makes sense for the intended audience. Too often, experts freak out at the plain simplicity of what is being put down on paper. They want text written for one intended audience – themselves. They forget that their need for complexity makes their ideas understood by only a few.
Process Chart
As a process chart, it would look something like this:
This model is not easy at first. It is easier to write long and understandable text. Writing clear, simple and easily understood text is hard work. Until Neo-level re-education software becomes available, it is likely the best way to influence any policy maker.