Nearly every day, I am reminded of one of the core rules of thumb of lobbying and campaigning ‘ step in at the right time, with the right message, to the right person/people.
In any government, administration or Parliament, once a decision is agreed on, it isn’t easy to walk it back. People don’t like asking their hierarchy to reverse what they just agreed to. It feels awkward and embarrassing. In talks, you move along Article by Article. When an agreement is reached on one Article, it is difficult to tear it up a few weeks later and put at risk other agreements that have been reached along the way. In negotiations, your word is your bond, so you don’t want to be seen as unreliable, untrustworthy, or not in control by backing out of agreements.
What to do
Firstly, one of the key things a lobbyist needs to know is when the key decisions are being taken. These are not public meetings but the behind-the-scenes meeting when officials or politicians meet to finalise a line to take. The public publication of a decision or the meeting for the vote is often the physical representation of agreements agreed to weeks ago.
Secondly, you need to know who the key decision-makers are on a file. You can’t target a random list like the whole of the Commission or a whole DG. There will be a limited number of officials and politicians in the Commission, national government, Council, and the EP, who will hold any sway on your file.
Thirdly, you need to know what they need and want to hear. You have two choices. Engage on terms that appeal to you, or engage on terms that resonate with your audience. Many lobbyists go for the former. In 25 years, I have not seen it work once. If it has, please let me know. It amounts to what I can only liken to the ‘laying on of hands miracle-working, last performed by a man in Judea 2000 years ago. After all, if your audience agrees with you already, you’d probably not need to lobby them. And, you likely have nothing to lobby about.
The only alternative I’ve seen that persuades is to stick yourself in your audience’s mind (shoes if you prefer the image), and convert what you want to say into language and values that speak to the audience. If your audience is focused on how an action can impact the Green Deal, adapt your language and mirror their thinking.
Fourthly, integral to this is using real evidence. Long gone are the days when you could bluff and bluster it. You need to provide authoritative evidence to support your points. This real evidence can’t come from the Ivory Towers of Trump University. You can’t go for partial citation hoping that the right people won’t read the evidence. It is likely that they know the expert you cite – they did their post-doctoral work with them.
The key signposts of all EU decision-making are well-posted. Once you know those steps, all you need to do is find the planned schedule for adoption and intervene on time, bringing the right evidence-rich information to the few decision-makers.
Why not follow this approach
The main detractors against this approach are common.
Firstly, internal meetings detract from your limited time to meet the right people. I know of one firm that has the working rule that their lobbyists spend over 50% of their time in external meetings with decision-makers.
Secondly, if, as a matter of faith, you refuse to adapt your language to the values of your audience, your chances of persuading them are low.
Thirdly, if you rely on faith rather than objective evidence, persuasion is tough.
Fourthly, you choose to ignore the timetable and step in too early or too late, before even the idea for a decision exists or when all the decision (proposal or voting line) has been taken but not yet made public.
Finally, you ignore steps in how any EU decision or law goes through. You believe your issue will be one of the ‘unique’ files when the Heads of State step in and make the decision themselves and force it upon the Commission and EP. Such events happen, but yours is unlikely to be one of them.