By Carrie Conko, Vice President of Communications at State Policy Network

It is the first week of January and like many, I have vowed to make some personal and professional improvements in the new year.

Sadly, I also know that fewer than 10% of all resolutions stick, and my personal performance on resolutions is not much better. (So, if you see me with a dessert in the near future, you can feel free to smack it out of my hand to help me keep my 2019 resolution.)

My other resolution is to get serious about focusing on the most important and productive at work. My goal is to cut the unnecessary and concentrate on the work activities that will best propel State Policy Network toward accomplishing our strategic objectives.

Why cut the extra?  It’s economical.

The Pareto Principle

Vilfredo Pareto was a 19th century Italian engineer who is most well-known as an economist, political scientist, and philosopher. He started his career working in the Italian rail and steel industries in the 1870s and started getting into economics in his 40s—there’s hope that I’ll have some major contribution to society yet!

Pareto is best known for the development of a field of economics that delved into productivity and the distribution of income and wealth. In his research he found that 80% of wealth (land in the case of Italy) was owned by 20% of the population. As it turns out this ratio—called the Pareto Principle—where 80% of results comes from 20% of effort is observable elsewhere:

• Microsoft found that fixing 20% of most reported bugs would eliminate 80% of related errors and crashes
• In fundraising, 80% of funding comes from 20% of donors
• In retail business, 20% of customers are responsible for 80% of sales
• When it comes to productivity, 80% of success comes from 20% of work.

How does that apply to policy? The Niskanen Center looked at the effects of the inputs and strategies pursued by libertarian organizations to apply external political pressure on Washington in order to achieve policy change. The analysis is eye opening (if not a tad depressing):

• Of the 509 significant domestic legislative policy changes since World War II, more than half (265) expanded government while only four percent (20) contracted government.
• Getting the so-called right people in office doesn’t seem to work either. Conservatives enacting some of our largest federal interventions like No Child Left Behind and the ever-ballooning federal budget are just a couple of examples.
• Public opinion also seems to have little relationship with the extent or direction of policy change. That might be a good thing since, they note, “If public opinion truly drove public policy, trade policy would be more protectionist, foreign aid would not exist, there would be more restrictions on abortion, a higher minimum wage, more generous unemployment benefits, tighter corporate regulation, and a more progressive income tax.”

Scholars are really good at telling us what doesn’t work. So, what does get results?

Fortunately, Niskanen’s team did that analysis, too, and the answer is something that we at State Policy Network have known for a long time: Issue advocacy organizations are the best at advancing policy change. There’s a reason why politicians leave politics and go to organizations that can advance their policy agendas. Research also demonstrates that the best-networked issue advocacy organizations are also the most successful.

When it comes to formulating policy, policymakers might not be as influenced by public opinion or even voters. However, they do pay attention to issue groups that are in a position to:

• Develop ideas. Think tanks are in the business of testing and finding solutions. A think tank that’s positioned to produce solid research has the potential to be the outsourced ideas shop for a busy policymaker or staffer.
• Test and build toward better outcomes. Think tanks can also help policymakers by weighing the likely outcomes of different policy reforms. Think tanks can take the time to do the analysis or comparisons and help a policymaker to know whether or not policies will have the intended consequence while also considering the unintended consequences.
• Build broad coalitions that lead to reform. Increasingly, think tanks have learned that social change involves more than research. The most effective think tanks work with policymakers, government officials, staff, researchers, activist, etc. to gain support for reforms in order to drive change.

If state think tanks can continue to position themselves to tap the power of networks in the states, as well as the broad national Network, there is hope for even more constructive policy change in 2019. Given all of that, I plan on keeping the following two questions front of mind as we delve into our overall strategy, branding and positioning, media, digital, and measurement:

• What’s the 20% that’s going to give us the biggest payoff and what’s the 80% that’s noise?
• What’s the work that’s going to position our organization to build effectively networked coalitions so that we have a seat at the policy making table?

This article is the first in a monthly SPN series on topics to help organizations build communications capabilities. Throughout the year, we will share ways you can build effective communications strategies and help position your organizations for success. As we kick off 2019, we’re going to start with Building a Communications Strategy.

Strategies and Tactics

It is important to understand the difference between strategies and tactics. Effectively differentiating between the two is vital to achieving marketing success.

A strategy is the plan for achieving an objective or goal. It’s the road to get to the goal—aka the objective.

Tactics are the steps taken to get to the goal.

Simply put, if I want to take a trip to Orlando to speak at a workshop. Orlando is my objective. My strategy to get there is to fly. To make that happen, I have to take several steps.  I will:

• Book a ticket
• Go to the airport
• Get on the airplane
• Get in an Uber at the Orlando airport
• Go to the workshop at the hotel

Strategies without objectives and goals are dangerous. I could get to the airport and decide that I’d rather fly somewhere else. Sure, I’d be flying but I wouldn’t get to where I need to be in order to speak at the workshop.

Tactics without strategies are also chancy. Instead of Uber-ing to the workshop hotel, I could jump on the Disney Magic Express and go to Disney World. I might consider that a personal win, but by taking that step I will go off course and miss my objective of getting to the workshop in Orlando.

Without strategies to help measure progress against it is easy to be distracted by tactics that contribute to the 80% of noise that doesn’t contribute to productivity.

Buy-In Alignment

I often get asked how to get buy-in for communications strategies. Most people see getting buy-in as a path to gaining autonomy. There is no silver bullet for getting buy-in. It is hard to make people do something they don’t feel invested in or something they feel tricked into doing. In the “buy-in with autonomy” model, communicators end up working by themselves to achieve communications goals.

The better model is to build a culture of communications where everyone feels they have a hand and a stake in the communications success of the organization. Building such a culture means seeking alignment instead of securing buy-in. Alignment is better than buy-in because it’s not about cajoling someone, it’s about openly seeking input and making strategies stronger. Colleagues with alignment understand and embrace communications strategies and support a culture of communications. In the alignment model, the entire organization is working to achieve communications goals.

Simply put, gaining alignment with colleagues while developing communications strategies will help you and your organization be more successful.

Typically, the leader of the organization is the most important stakeholder for the communications strategist. But, what happens when the boss doesn’t seem to be interested in strategic input or care if there is a strategic communications plan?

The answer is the same — seek alignment from stakeholders. Or as my favorite bosses have said, “Do it and seek forgiveness later.” There is nothing wrong with getting the strategic ball rolling by articulating a communications strategy and seeking alignment from stakeholders. It’s only dangerous when the communications strategy doesn’t take into account the organization’s vision, mission, and strategic objectives. Seeking alignment with stakeholders along the way means not getting out too far ahead or afield.

Ready to dive in? SPN members can visit SPN’s Member Portal to find training and templates that will help organize and articulate their unique communications strategies. If you have questions regarding SPN’s communications training program, please contact Meredith Turney at turney@spn.org.