By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President
March 31, 2011
When AT&T announced its $39 billion bid to buy competitor T-Mobile in March, the Washington Post wrote breathlessly of the firm's "fierce lobbying clout" that includes an army of well-connected advocates and a powerful PAC. Experts and consumer advocates agree, said the Post, that the influential telecom company is "well-positioned to make its case."
Then the Post mentioned an important detail in the seventh paragraph of the story. It seems that "Congress does not have direct oversight over the deal." In fact, AT&T needs approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Justice Department, not from Congress.
Yes, Congress holds the purse strings to the FCC and can weigh in on the proposed merger. But this is not shaping up to be an old-fashioned lobbying battle. The proposed merger, and the process that will be followed to determine its fate, are far more complicated than that.
Yet reporters and activists continue to trot out lobbying and PAC spending numbers to disparage corporate political activity. This is true whether it's the AT&T/T-Mobile deal, a regulatory issue ("Oil Lobbyists Focus New Attention on Regulators") or a corporation's decision to launch a new product ("Apple's iLobby").
Last year I wrote about the unfairness of this story line - especially in a political system that supposedly protects "the right to petition government." But that's not the focus of this post.
Today I'm ready to claim this story line is more than an over-simplification. It's a myth. That's because there are fewer and fewer old-fashioned lobbying battles. Public affairs professionals, just like their cousins in public relations and marketing, are increasingly taking integrated approaches to communication that build support - and certainly not buy support - for their cause.
In 1996, in his best-selling book The Death of Competition, James F. Moore noted "the central game of strategic management is moving from managing oneself to leading a community of allies." The visible assets of a company, he said, "are often far outweighed by the innovation-driven power of its invisible assets - community goodwill, shared vision, enthusiasm of customers." These assets extend the influence of the firm.
At about the same time, author Rosabeth Moss Kanter wrote an article for Harvard Business Review called "Collaborative Advantage" that made a similar argument. Companies that understand personal relationships and know how to get the most out of their business alliances are more successful than those that don't, she said.
How do these ideas apply to public affairs in the 21st century? When a company faces a crisis or seeks to take advantage of a new market opportunity, it can no longer rely on its size or financial strength to win the day. Its community of allies is often more important than its paid lobbyists or PAC.
We see this trend in the rise of grassroots activism, the engagement of suppliers in legislative outreach, the formation of alliances with advocacy groups, the use of issue advertising, and the growth of social media as a communications strategy.
Everyone involved in the public policy process - from labor unions to corporations to associations to activists - is taking a more wide-ranging approach to getting their message across. Why?
Here are five major reasons:
- Constituents matter more than lobbyists. A new survey of congressional staff by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) shows that 46% believe personal visits from voters have "a lot of positive influence" in persuading an undecided member of Congress, while only 8% say lobbyist visits have the same impact.
- Voters listen to political messages from employers and interest groups. Companies have become a trusted source of political information for employees, says BIPAC, a business-oriented grassroots network. And an earlier CMF study showed that most Americans who contact Congress are asked to do so by a third-party organization.
- Washington is getting noisier. Every year, a growing number of groups and individuals - representing every conceivable cause - clamor for the attention of Congress and the White House. Smart advocates know they need to be engaged, but in most cases their engagement can't be limited to direct lobbying and PAC contributions.
- Inside deals are becoming scarce. Recent political scandals have taught elected officials there's little upside associated with granting special favors to old friends, former colleagues and large campaign contributors.
- Long-term, strategic campaigns work. Successful companies and non-profits start early, find common cause with others, develop a positive reputation and build public awareness of their issues. Their goal is to create a favorable environment for their public policy priorities, not to gain a "quick win." If they do their job well, they'll win far more often they they'll lose.
As AT&T begins the long process of trying to convince the FCC and the Justice Department that merging its wireless network with T-Mobile's will be good for America, we'll witness a case study in this new approach to public affairs. Because the stakes are high, conventional politics will play a role. But so will every other strategy that can be used to win the hearts and minds of the public.
Just this week, for example, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson told the Council on Foreign Relations that the merger would enlarge the company's network capacity and improve iPhone service. Was he lobbying the FCC or the Justice Department with those comments? Not really. Was he hoping to gain the support of influential members of the Council on Foreign Relations and millions of iPhone users across the country? Absolutely.
Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.
[Full disclosure: AT&T and several other telecom companies are members of the Public Affairs Council.]
