Building, Construction News and the ICE offer their 10 great tips for lobbying campaigns

This week I was delighted to hand over the reins as Chair of CAPSIG to my successor, Phil Morgan, head of external and public affairs at the Civil Engineering Contractors Association.

CAPSIG is the construction and property special interest group of my professional institute, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations. It's a group of 250 or more bright minds in PR working in property, architecture, construction and related sectors, who meet four or five times a year to network and share ideas on best practice in PR. I have had the privilege of chairing the group for more than four years, so it was high time that someone else took over the role. I've no doubt Phil will do a great job... Although not too good, please Phil... ;-)

The official election of the new Chair for CAPSIG was also marked by an excellent event on lobbying campaigns in construction. (I shall put the link to the presentations from this event as soon as it's available).

We looked at three recent campaigns that have aimed to influence political support and policy for the construction industry and that are, to varying degrees, still active now:

• Nick Edwards, Editor of Construction News, talked about CN's Vote for Construction campaign *
• Sarah Richardson, Deputy Editor of Building, talked about Building's Charter 284 *
• Lionel Zetter, one of the PR industry's most distinguished consultants, talked about the campaign for a National Infrastructure Investment Bank (NIIB) run by the Institution of Civil Engineers.

(* sorry, the links to CN and Building may only be helpful if you are a subscriber to these publications - their websites now have paywalls).

Each campaign has clearly enjoyed some success so far, although I got the sense that (much like the rest of us) they are facing a much harder task now if they still want to lobby a coalition Government.

But it was particularly fascinating to hear how and why industry magazines choose to run their own campaigns. Like professional institutes and trade associations, these titles see themselves in much the same light as membership bodies - lobbying on behalf of their readers in order to build loyalty, to be seen to be 'giving something back', and to position themselves as leaders in the industry.

Phil asked each of the speakers for their views on what makes a successful campaign. Here are the 10 great tips they offered:

1. Have clear aims - this is where I think both Building and the ICE campaigns were particularly strong. CN had a broad message that could be adapted to different local needs, but the others had the edge simply because they had set out much more specific and measurable actions they wanted to see. Obviously, the more targeted and detailed you can be in your aims, the more focus, impact and success you are likely to achieve. 
   
   
2. Don't campaign against your own readers/members - cue an interesting discussion about whether CN would ever run a campaign on tackling health and safety failures in the industry... but that, as they say, is another story...
   
   
3. Commission research first - Building used the LEK report, the ICE commissioned its own research and discussion paper on the feasibility of the NIIB (see link above), and CN tapped into the political insights and resources offered by its sister company DeHavilland. This research gives a strong factual foundation to any lobbying or PR campaign and means it will be taken more seriously.
   
   
4. Make it memorable - via a catchy name, striking logo, publicity stunt etc. This is where Building made a huge impact. The agitprop graphics created by Group Production Editor David Rogers were awesome, and created a strong visual brand for the campaign that Building used over the six weeks on the run-up to the Election.
   
   
5. Aim to make a difference - and, if I may add something here, make sure you claim the success afterwards. There's no point going to all the effort of lobbying for change if no one knows about it. As Sarah said at the CAPSIG event: it pays to be "shouty and intelligent".
   
   
6. Offer solutions - this is particularly important in the current climate. A campaign cannot just be a whinge.
   
   
7. Align with Government - or, in other words, don't be stubborn and try to push water uphill. And forget any special pleading for the sector. Know what the Government's aims are, and propose a clever, low cost way they can meet those aims.
   
   
8. Forge alliances with others - something I believe is absolutely critical if you aim to achieve thought leadership (here's an earlier blog post on this). But there was no chance of Building and CN cuddling up together on a joint campaign, I was told - no matter how great the threat to the industry. This is where the ICE and other professional institutes can take the lead. Interestingly, Building pre-tested its campaign with several industry groups and then made many phone calls over a couple of weeks to ensure they could sign up key people and organisations to the cause. Even they knew it would not be enough to put the Charter on the front cover and expect everyone to respond - the team had to get out there, be proactive and work hard to recruit the campaign's supporters. One thing I particularly liked about CN's campaign was the way it provided readers with information on prospective parliamentary candidates in their area, plus other information that would allow supporters to localise the messages behind the campaign.
   
   
9. Be realistic about what you can achieve - all three campaigns demonstrated this modesty and realism, and this plays well with Government and readers/members alike.
   
   
10. Have patience - oh, how true! Campaigns may only run at full throttle for a short time, but the real success comes from sustained, long-term effort. Like the ICE's campaign, think in terms of several years and - assuming it's worth doing - make the commitment to see it through to the end.

So what else would you say is essential for a successful lobbying campaign?

And what campaigns should UK construction be running now, faced as we are with many new political, economic, social and technological challenges? Participants at the CAPSIG event suggested campaigns on energy security, respect for people/employees, support for SMEs, recruiting new talent into the industry and improvements to the public procurement process. What would you add to that list?

Following on from my earlier post, here are some Easter-tide thoughts on 10 steps towards absolving a business from the 'Six Sins of Greenwashing'^TM (TerraChoice):

1. Let's audit what you say about your business at the moment, looking at the whole life cycle of what you do/produce and how you do it. Also what you don't say. There may be more that you could be celebrating than you realise, and there is some great advice out there from organisations like Futerra on 'words that sell' and how to make your green news even more compelling.

2. Let's find the proof. If you haven't done this already, let's pull in the experts to measure what you do to protect or improve the environment. As the old adage says, you can't manage what you don't measure. The greater the value being placed on a claim the more robust the verification needs to be. (Actually, it is now arguable that all PR professionals should demand to see the evidence up front before setting pen to paper. If clients have not yet started the process of gathering evidence, then that press release should probably be shelved for a while. Green stories need to be told, but given the media and society's scrutiny these days, and the vitriol poured upon anyone accused of greenwash, this will soon become the only way to protect our clients' reputations and ensure that green claims don't come back to bite later).

3. Let's talk about why you do it. Be honest. Are environmental claims required simply as part of your competitive language (in which case, proceed with the utmost caution and strategic clarity), or because they are at the heart of your brand values (in which case let's find even better ways to show it)?

4. Let's look again at where you do it. Can your carbon-cutting activities be extended further throughout your business or supply chain maybe? Is the whole house in order? If not, why not? (You'll be asked that question by a journalist).

5. Time for a quick calculation - do you put more money, time and energy into promoting your sustainability credentials than you actually invest in the activities themselves? I'm not looking for any client to reduce its fees on PR of course! But we will challenge any client to consider whether the balance is always quite right.

6. Let's check how your stakeholders are responding. Do they see your activities as spin or as genuine commitment?

7. Let's communicate the journey, not just the end result, and if necessary find suitable words for an act of contrition. Warn the Board. As Nick Reilly has pointed out, moving to a genuinely positive attitude towards improving the sustainability of your business may mean you will need to confess to a recent change of attitude - perhaps even leaving you at a competitive disadvantage for a while. But this will set you upon a new base from which you can build with confidence and integrity and outstrip your competitors.

8. Let's get clear on the correct use of language. The media can itself be very lazy using fluffy terms like 'eco-friendly' and 'sustainable', but we need to work together to improve accuracy in our words (and our pictures too). 'Zero carbon' will hopefully be defined by this summer, so that should make life easier. 'Carbon neutral' is also being defined at the moment - a little-publicised consultation by DECC should help sort this out by October 09 latest.

9. Let's follow the CIPR guidelines and its 10 practical tips for any green PR campaign. Also be aware of the forthcoming update of Defra's Green Claims Code.

10. Finally, let's all just slow down a bit. In the current green goldrush, it's very easy to get swept along with enthusiasm, make mistakes or over-claim when we're in a hurry. Most greenwash is not caused by malice, but comes as a result of moving too fast, without enough strategic thinking or attention to detail. "Slow down to live a good life", as a Zen master somewhere is bound to have said...

Well, gadzooks. Following on from my last post here, I went exploring and checking my compliance with the detail of the CIPR social media guidelines.

The guidelines have been substantially revised this year and now form part of my professional Code of Conduct. They point out to PR practitioners the need to bear in mind the potential legal issues surrounding the use of social media, including the laws on copyright and intellectual property.

And thus, on investigation, it looks like I'm breaking the law at every turn - and chances are, so is everyone else who is writing a blog, putting links on their website, tweeting about interesting stuff in the press, or even emailing each other links to something worth reading.

I'm talking about 'deep linking', the practice of creating hyperlinks that go direct to a site's interior pages rather than just the home page. We do this all the time - for example, if I tell you there's something fabulous you must read on Building's website, I am highly likely to post a link that takes you directly there, not just link you to www.building.co.uk and leave you to try and fish out the relevant page yourself.

As one of the leading authorities on the Internet, Jakob Neilson, has written: "Deep linking is good linking... A website is like a house with a million entrances: the front door is simply one among many ways to get in. A good website will accommodate visitors who choose alternative routes... Deep linking is your friend: it gets users to their preferred destination as quickly as possible."

But it also turns out to be contrary to the 'Terms of Use' of almost all the websites we checked out today: Here's just a very brief selection:

• www.architectsjournal.co.uk - "We welcome hot links to the home page of our website, but not 'deep linking' by which we mean that you may not include a link to any page of our website that is not the home page." (The same goes for cnplus, nceplus and the other sites operated by Emap).
• www.building.co.uk - "Any link to this website without our written permission is prohibited. Notwithstanding authorisation to link to this website, linking to any page other that the initial start page of www.building.co.uk is prohibited...." (The same goes for BD, BSD and the other sites operated by UBM).
• www.telegraph.co.uk - "You must not deeplink to... the site without our prior written permission."
• www.timesonline.co.uk - "...in accessing [our] websites, you agree not to... set up links to any microsite, except the home page of the website, without our express written permission..."

But wait...Hoorah, a solitary voice of sanity:

• www.ft.com: "A site or service that links to FT.com may link to the home page.. and on an ad hoc, non-systematic basis deeplink to other pages of FT.com..."

Both Contract Journal and the Guardian also seem marvellously free of convoluted T&Cs on linking too, unless I've missed something.

Unsurprisingly, it turns out that there is still a lot of legal debate on this issue. Reviewing case law is not my forte, but allegedly (a good legal term), linking to news items on a site owned by a newspaper or other news provider is particularly problematic, and this has been prone to litigation both in the EU and States.

So what to do? "Sue me, punk" is one thought that jumps to mind - the law's an ass, and in the right mood I'm always up for a good fight against nonsense like this. But for now, I think we shall probably have to contact all the key media we link to and ask permission to link to news stories rather than just the home page. I'll let you know how we get on - it will be an interesting exercise in its own right. In the meantime, expect to see more links than usual to FT.com until it's sorted.

Got any other advice? Please do let me know if you have been affected by the issues raised in this story, as the BBC might say.

Just like the snow storms over the South East today, there has been a flurry of activity and comment recently on the topic of the relationship between blogging, social media and public relations (including media relations):

• The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (my professional institute) updated its Social Media Guidelines.
  
• At the same time, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising published its social media research paper.
• PR guru and veteran blogger Stuart Bruce was one of the first to comment, pointing to critical reviews of both publications by other PR experts and asking whether separate guidelines were even necessary, over and above the CIPR Code of Conduct.
• Sustainable building expert Mel Starrs also alerted me the other day to a post by Adam Singer on PR and its interactions with the blogosphere, which in turn took me off reading Louis Gray's comment on the relationship between PR companies and bloggers... and I could have gone on reading well into the night.

This topic will have been (and will surely continue to be) the topic of choice for every bright young thing on the CIPR Diploma, and I'm not going to attempt any sort of academic analysis of this still-drifting issue.

Nor am I going to get into blogging just about, well, blogging. That would be of very little interest to my clients and other Footings fans.

However, let me pull out a few points from the CIPR guidelines that you might find of interest:

The CIPR Code of Conduct is very clear on what you, the client, should expect from me, the PR professional. It is all based around three principles: Integrity, Competence and Confidentiality.

Taking them in reverse order:

Confidentiality is an absolute given. In any activities, whether I'm 'on duty' or not, and whether a client is past, present or future, privileged information stays confidential. In social media terms, that means no tweets, blog posts or online hints about what's not for the public domain.

Competence is clearly essential too - if I'm going to advise my clients about the use and impact of social media, I need to understand it (and use it) myself. I'm giving it a fair shot, as you can see! But I will always say if we are getting towards the limits of our professional competence, and I can pass you on to the specialist associates we work with.

Integrity is the slightly puzzling one when it comes to social media. Obviously I get it when the CIPR stresses the need for accuracy and honesty. That's a no brainer, as my kids would say. But the requirements for openness and disclosure do get a bit complex (and possibly over-cooked in places).

As a general rule, I always err on the side of total disclosure. Unlike many 'normal users' of social media, PR professionals are required to be completely up front about their identity, their interests and any potential conflicts of interest. No 'ghost' blogs, no false representation on blogs or other social media sites etc. I do not have multiple profiles on Twitter, for example - it's @lizmale or nothing I'm afraid.

But I have to admit that I find it a bit galling that I am recommended by the CIPR to state my profession even when 'off duty' - if I'm posting a comment on another blog unrelated to my work, for example. ("My name's Liz and I'm in PR. Liked last week's recipe, Nigella..." Yuk, that feels horrid.)

I do have personal views, political views even, that I want to air and that I should be able to express anonymously if necessary. Thankfully, it's rare that I would find it awkward not to put my name next to any viewpoint, and if a comment could impact on my clients or colleagues in any way then it's just not going to happen in the first place. But yes, I do discuss some issues online using a pseudonym. So long as I can demonstrate my integrity to the CIPR Disciplinary Committee (should that ever become necessary, God forbid), it should be ok.

Anyway, I think it is true that, in time, it will seem very odd that the CIPR has issued guidelines on the use of social media (there aren't separate guidelines interpreting the Code of Conduct for financial PR, for example).

But given that so many PR people are social media newbies just like me, I think some attempt at pinning down the implications are very helpful in places.

For example, I probably would not have considered so carefully the legal issues about quoting from others, or the need to check other websites' terms of use to see whether I am allowed to 'deep link', ie. create direct links to web pages deep within their sites instead of just linking to the Home page.

That particular point was quite a shock actually. In fact, I think I'd better do a quick check on previous posts before I get into trouble... excuse me a minute