Corporations as Candidates
The Manship School Guide to Political Communication,
Chapter 6 (by Matthew Dowd)
Published in 1999
Political communications can take various forms, from efforts on behalf of partisan candidates, to nonpartisan campaigns, to initiative and referendum campaigns. Corporations and companies have found a new way to use public policy debate in political communications to accomplish their external goals.
Although the corporate world is affected by legislative and regulatory government activities, it has kept some distance from direct debate of public policy. In the past, involvement of corporations has been limited to making contributions to political candidates (who use these finances to design their own political communications) and forming political action committees to make future contributions. In addition, companies sometimes hire lobbyists to carry a particular message directly to a decision maker.
These efforts were very direct and were based on established relationships. Corporations and their lobbyists had confidence that a particular decision maker could control debate and public policy action. This political communication is akin to the "old" world of political candidates' communications, when a few influences decided the candidates in a race, had a strong impact on newspapers, and exerted much more control over the political campaign environment that they now do. But this world has changed. Campaigns began to make use of mass media communications to speak directly to a larger body of voters.
Many corporations are cognizant of the shift in the public policy development that has occurred the last fifteen to twenty years. This shift occurred for a variety of reasons. First, public policy making has become a much more open process. Far fewer agreements are reached behind closed doors with limited or controlled debate. The press (both newspapers and electronic media) is a much more active participant in this process-thus government officials' constituents are more aware of policy development.
Second, the speed at which information is disseminated to the public has increased dramatically and will continue to do so. News sources include not only twenty-four-hour news programs and local cable programs but also the Internet. Such "real-time" information brings voters much closer to decisions that are made, and their input and reactions can likewise be instantaneous.
And third, governmental bodies have become much more heterogeneous. In areas that were traditional strongholds of Democratic officeholders, Republicans have gained strength. In formerly solid Republican areas, Democrats now hold offices. The number of minority and female officeholders has increased dramatically over the last twenty years as well and will continue to do so. This diversity has broadened the debate and limited the effectiveness of relying on a select number of "old boy" lobbyists to carry messages. Though lobbying is still a necessity, corporations should view that function as only one element of a broader campaign for public approval.
POSITIONING THE CORPORATION
Since the public is now a major part of public policy, corporations must use political communications to make themselves heard. Corporations can use the methods originally adapted for traditional candidate campaigns and conduct their own campaigns. These tools include research; mass communication, both broad (media) and narrow (direct mail, brochures); field operations; and interaction with the press.
Because the public and information seekers are more attuned to public policy, corporations need to have a firm basis in research so they can gauge voters' sentiment on issues, evaluate the opinions of public policy makers and influences, create and disseminate proper messages, and position the corporation itself. There are obvious exceptions, but research enables corporations to assess the position they should take. This research can include focus groups, public opinion polling, message testing, and any number of other methods used in political campaigns.
Corporations have begun to use broad message communications to affect the public policy debate as well. It is not surprising to see "candidate-like" spots communicating public policy positions to involve the general public or key opinion leaders. These spots may be positive, negative, or comparative. They can be aired far in advance of the time decisions are made, they can mobilize support on behalf of a particular goal, they can attempt to affect the debate as policy develops, and they can position the public policy "postaction" to prepare for future developments.
In traditional political campaigns, field organizations have been used to deliver messages to or to mobilize particular constituencies. Many statewide campaigns involve county coordinators, precinct workers, and volunteers. Corporations also have these tools at their disposal. In many companies, employees at all levels can deliver messages across all political jurisdictions. Employees recognize the significant impact public policy can have on their corporation's success and are eager to become involved.
Finally, since the press plays a more active role in policy decisions, corporations must work with it just as a political candidate would. Proper messages need to be communicated, at the right times and in the right ways, for corporations to be successful. The press receives input from a variety of sources, and corporations need to play an active role in these communications so their messages will be heard.
THE FUNDAMENTALS OF CORPORATE POLITICAL COMMUNICATION
As corporations use these political campaign tools and begin to assume a role similar to that of a candidate running for office, it is important that they keep in mind some fundamentals of political communication.
Candidate's must always stay "on message" and repeat this message similarly in all venues, including television spots, candidate rallies, discussions with the press, communications by volunteers, and any other contact with voters. Similarly, corporations need to stay on message in any communication related to the public policy debate. All broad communications must be consistent with communications directly to decision makers, and the same message must be communicated to the press as to the corporation's employees. Variation from the consistent message will not only reduce overall effectiveness but could negatively affect a corporation's position with key decision makers. Because opponents will seize on inconsistencies or flip-flops, corporations should avoid communication one message to one audience and another message to a different audience. For example, a corporation communicating a certain message to Wall Street analysts (such as expected higher earnings or reductions in the number of employees to cut costs) and another to opinion makers could alter the public policy debate.
Another fundamental in political campaigns is designing communications to influence the key voters in a race. Corporations should concentrate resources primarily on affecting the decisive "votes" in the public policy debate. Many candidates drain resources in communicating to those who will not get involved (nonvoters) or to voters who have already made up their minds. Corporations need to ensure that communications are not directed toward constituencies that will not affect the public policy debate or toward decision makers who are already firmly resolved about an issue.
A campaign's resources must be planned so they will have the maximum impact when a voter goes to the polls. The media schedule, press hits, candidate travel, voter mobilization-all should be laid out to reach culmination on election day. Many times candidates peak too early, too late, or not at all. Corporations in political communication must also identify the "election day," which could be a vote on a particular amendment, or any event at which the public policy debate will culminate in a decision. Corporations need to plan the campaign communications to peak on these particular election days.
CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY
Corporate involvement with political communications in public policy debates is similar to traditional efforts by candidates, but there are differences as well. While certain tools and processes can be adopted from the candidate political consulting world, certain dissimilarities need to be acknowledged.
First, corporate campaign efforts are not driven by historical voting patterns that affect candidate's campaigns. In the latter, certain demographic and geographic elements follow historical election patterns. For example, African American voters normally support Democratic candidates overwhelmingly, while upper-income white voters traditionally support Republican candidates. Though there have been exceptions to this rule and others, historical voting patterns do exist. In corporate campaign efforts, coalitions of voting or decision blocs cut across nearly all geographic and demographic bounds. Since public policy debates can affect constituencies and locations very differently, it is not unusual for there to be very diverse coalitions.
Further, since there are many emerging industries and corporations that did not exist or were not envisioned ten or twenty years ago (for example, Internet providers, high-tech firms), there are no historical voting patterns. The days in which-or so pundits said- Republicans supported business interests and Democrats were consumer advocates are long over, if they ever existed.
A second difference for corporate "candidates" is that while for traditional political candidates the opposition consists of one player, in corporate public policy campaigns there usually are multiple opposing interests involved in the campaign. This opposition list could include other corporate entities with different public policy goals, associations or coalitions of certain direct consumer interests, labor unions, and other worker groups. Thus the lines are not always clearly divided into two separate and distinct political camps. Sometimes the public policy debate is framed and divided into two separate efforts. Usually these are coalitions with multiple decision makers who have different public policy interests and different long-term business or positioning goals. This factor makes the political communications much more difficult and often more reactive. Because of these multiple opposing interests, compromises in public policy are usually forged, which sometimes cause the "winners" and "losers" to be indistinct. In traditional political campaigns, it is very clear who won on election day.
In corporate campaigns, election day can be difficult to pinpoint, and there is usually more than one. Sometimes the election days for corporate political efforts are imposed from outside sources and are readily apparent: for example, a legislative body designates a day a vote will be taken on a particular piece of legislation. But many times these election days are moving targets (for example, committee votes) and often have to be imposed or selected by the corporate candidate itself. A corporation could, for instance, determine that a particular meeting of opinion leaders is an election day that must be "won." Yet in practice, in corporate campaigns, there are almost always multiple election days, as, for example, when a legislative committee votes several times on parts of the same bill.
Finally, corporate campaigns usually don't end at the last election day; certain public policy issues will be revisited, and regulatory bodies will continue to monitor activities. Whereas a political candidate's campaign ends definitively in victory or defeat, corporations are generally unable voluntarily to enter and exit the public policy debate. It is an ongoing process that can have a dramatic effect on a corporation's business life.