Hello
all,
I
just came from the fall meeting of the Green Group CEOs, and I thought I’d share
some interesting insights.
I
don’t know that these gleanings qualify as “inside information,” but we’re not
supposed to attribute comments made during the meeting, so I’ll be a bit vague
about who said what and refer to everyone as “they.” The topic at hand was
communicating and organizing support for the climate change legislative
agenda.
What
doesn’t work:
1.
The person who runs perhaps a very well-known entity working on climate
change said they spent $15 million this year so far on broadcast TV ads.
Despite all sorts of in-depth testing and focus groups, they do not
have any evidence whatsoever that it has had any impact. So,
they’re dropping that strategy in favor of highly localized cable TV buys in
individual ZIP codes where they can do intensive follow-up testing. If they are
correct, it turns out that a shortage of money is not the only obstacle to
making an impact.
2.
Despite strong creative talent producing viral Internet videos, this also has
not worked. It seems that what does or does not take off and get millions of
hits on the Internet is quite random. It’s not an argument against trying things
now and then, just a cautionary note about the very low likelihood of
success.
3.
In focus groups with young people, the only message that worked was “Obama.”
Everything else (save the planet, save the wildlife, green jobs, etc) turned out
to be background noise and was tuned out.
What
seems to be working:
As
they went on to describe what does seem to be working, it occurred to me that it
is a marriage of 21st century technology with
19th century “shoe leather” methods.
It
is all about highly targeted, often labor-intensive, individual
relationships. For example, they (the mysterious “they”) are using paid
canvassers to collect 85,000 individual letters supporting climate change
legislation. By individual, I mean they are sending canvassers to visit people
in their homes to ask each person to sit down using their own stationary or
whatever they have around the house and write a personal multi-paragraph letter
to their congressperson or senator. They’re even doing this in rural areas
where it’s necessary to drive from house to house. Then, on given date,
all 85,000 letters will be sent (or delivered) to individual legislators.
Imagine the impact of getting 300 or 500 or 1200 actual letters from real
people in their own words.
They’ve
also created a “wall” which contains videos from thousands of people who say in
their own words why they care about climate change. Some people are famous (such
as Stephen Hawking); most are just plain folks. I believe they said they have
1700 people on the wall from Montana alone, where Sen. Baucus is a key
target. You can see the wall at
http://www.repoweramerica.org/wall/
Conclusion:
So,
as someone once said about fundraising (actually, almost everyone who knows the
field, says this): “It’s all about relationships.” All of us have
developed very sophisticated filters to deal with the incessant onslaught of
messages from every sort of new and old media. I mean, is anyone really all that
excited to log on and find 77 new emails in the last four
hours?
All
things considered, it seems to reinforce – or vindicate – our strategy which,
frankly, was born of economic necessity. Even groups that have access to many
millions of dollars and who are the “hot” issue of the day are finding that it
comes down to retail politics and to the long, slow, hard work of building
relationships one-on-one.
The
tools may vary from old-fashioned, face-to-face conversations to the newest high
tech device. But it all needs to be used to break through the noise so that real
people are talking to other real people. No shortcuts.
Best,
John