That influence is growing.  Don’t take my word for it or the collective voices of the masses that have coalesced in DC for various rallies and protests this past year.  Take instead the cold hard facts of the corporate communications budget.

In 2010 Communications’ government relations budgets increased by 7%, the largest shift in Communications budgets according to CEC’s annual Resource Allocation Benchmarking Survey.  CEC members can view the full survey on the website: 2010 Resource Allocation Benchmarks.

For example, in last year’s survey, 23% of mid-sized companies (i.e., those with revenues between US$5 and $15 billion) were reportedly responsible for government relations.  This year the percentage of these mid-sized companies responsible for government relations grew to 31%.  That’s a 35% increase!

So, government relations budgets are rising, but what are communicators spending these additional funds on?  While the survey doesn’t delve into the specific types of activities, my recent conversations with members in this space suggests that for many communicators, they are just beginning to figure out how to set up a government relations arm.  Here’s some of the most common questions I’m hearing:

• How are other companies organizing their government relations departments?
• How do we educate the C-suite on the importance of government relations?
• When not housed within Communications, how does Communications collaborate with the GR function?
• Should we call it government affairs or government relations? What’s the difference?
• What are good sources of training and onboarding for government relations staff?
• How do we create a strategic plan? What are the key components? How do we know what to measure?
• How do we start and operate a PAC?

Is your function boosting its focus on government relations?  Do you share these same concerns?  Do you have answers or advice to share?

CEC Related Member Resources:

• 2010 Resource Allocation Benchmarks
• Leading Public Dialogue on Key Issues
• Deepening Government Relations in China

You don't have to camp outside of the Capitol to influence the government.

 The government’s influence on business is growing worldwide.  According to a recent McKinsey Global survey, 63% of executives believe the government’s impact on their industry will increase in the next 3-5 years.  It’s no surprise then that we here at CEC have been bombarded with questions about how to set up a more potent and persuasive government relations function within Comms.  Communicators are seeking to influence government and thus, more fully exert their freedom and license to operate. 

However…what if, instead of thinking about how to directly influence the government, we thought about influencing  those that hold disproportionate influence over the government — the public. 

Today’s public has tremendous power to guide the agendas of government and, by extension, business.  To be sure, the public has always had an interest and stake in the running of its government.  Social media, however, has changed the game completely.  People now have an easy means of: 

1. Forming communities that revolve around key issues (and span space-time boundaries)
2. Mobilizing against companies and governments that are deemed poor performers on those issues

In short, social media amplifies debate. 

This has dramatic implications for communicators in the government relations/public affairs space.  The ability to proactively shape debate by directly engaging with the public – not just with lobbyists and congressmen – early on is critical. (CEC Members: learn what this means for your public affairs function here.)  Of course, shaping public debate is easier said than done, and the evolution of debate is hardly linear.  It’s messy, complex, grueling, and gets exponentially more difficult for Communications to influence as it grows over time.  Your best bet, then, is to influence public opinion before issues become legislative priorities.  Rely only on reactive tactics and you may find yourself camping outside the Capitol and stalking lobbyists as the bill nears its final stages.  Here are two tactics to help you: 

Two Key Tactics to Shape Public Debate Proactively 

1. Be Transparent.
   Share your company’s position on key (even controversial) issues before a stakeholder makes a derisive claim against your company.  We’ve seen quite a few companies develop issues-focused blogs that not only shape debate, but also bring controversial conversations onto the company’s home turf.
2. Empower Employee Advocates.
   The voice of your employees is more credible than that of the corporate center.  It’s critical to help employees understand and be prepared to articulate the company perspective on key issues. CEC Members: visit our website to learn how Monsanto has developed a three-pronged approach to enable employees to communicate the company’s position on key issues.

Before you find your company’s current modus operandi up for debate in front of Congress, invest in new ways to sense and respond to public perceptions early on.  Let me know what you think about these tactics — or if you’ve tried other approaches that have been successful.  And if you do find yourself in Washington, let me know…I’d love to treat you to a Cup of Joe at my favorite spot, Sidamo.

Here are the most important things for corporate communicators to know right now about the health care reform bill:

1. There are hundreds of different provisions affecting employers
2. Many of them will be phased in over time
3. Some of them won’t start for eight years
4. Effects depend on the states you operate in…
5. …and the demographics of your workforce
6. Several provisions still require more clear interpretation
7. A lot depends on what your insurance provider does
8. They don’t know either

In other words, the level of uncertainty remains extremely high.  But fundamentally, the bill centers on A) a mandate that all individuals have health insurance (and all employers with more than 50 workers offer health insurance or face penalties) and B) the creation of state-run exchanges—a competitive marketplace of insurance plans—supported by subsidies for some participants to increase access to coverage.  In fact, this expansion of the individual and small business market is occupying most of coverage providers’ attention right now.

Large employers are most impacted by numerous other requirements that increase minimum coverage standards, which may in turn result in higher insurance costs being passed through to corporations and ultimately employees.  Examples include no cost-sharing for basic preventative care (begins 2011 for new plans and 2018 for existing ones) and dependent coverage through age 26 (2010).  For communicators who support open-enrollment, an additional key provision requires employers to automatically opt-in all eligible employees (2014).

That doesn’t seem like anything immediately alarming, but at least a dozen corporations grabbed headlines last week with SEC filings (which employees read as well) announcing bill-related charges in the next quarter of up to US$1 billion.  It’s important to know that those charges relate only to the removal of an unusual double tax exception for retiree prescription drug benefits, and the staggering sums are the result of accounting rules that require public companies to report the present value of cash costs extending over the life of the bill. (A Credit Suisse analysis suggests only 20 companies would incur charges of more than $5 million per year.)

Verizon went notably further in its communications by sending employees and retirees a memo warning of possible cost increases and coverage changes.  But others have in turn suggested that all communications from companies thus far have been intended to influence the politics of ongoing reform, and indeed the House Oversight Committee has invited CEOs of many large companies to testify about discrepancies between public filings and CBO estimates.

So, while there may not be many specifics to convey, all this confusion likely warrants a response.  Jennifer Benz, CEO of Benz Communications, offers a sound sample memo that rightly acknowledges the uncertainty and complexity, describes the company’s assessment process, and reaffirms commitment to the organization’s benefits principles.

But I think savvy communicators should go further by viewing their initial communications as the opening phase of a campaign to ensure that their company is the source employees trust for information about their health benefits.  As our sister program serving finance executives observes in a new brief, employee contributions may increase or your organization may decide to exit major elements of the benefits business altogether, but the more employees trust your company’s decisions, the easier any changes will be.

These early actions for communicators will help build trust on this issue:

1. Double down on empathy and transparency in immediate communications
2. Provide access to clear, non-partisan summaries of the legislation
3. Train benefits managers to handle the current uncertainty with employees who will undoubtedly contact them
4. Invite such dialogue online or in other forums
5. At minimum, educate managers about where to direct inquiring employees
6. Work with your benefits team to create a timeline of possible effects so that the appropriate level of communication is baked in to how consequences unfold
7. Begin early communications around a more certain provision such as the automatic opt-in provision to build credibility
8. Attend to both traditional formats like a memo and emerging social networks from which people get coverage advice

I’m hoping you can share your early thoughts and plans below.

Update (4/7): Here’s a new blog post by the MLC, our sister organization, on how Marketing can start managing the consumer implications of reform.

These developments reminded me of three recent member conversations on the following question:  Will social media erode the line between traditional lobbying and public relations?   I won’t predict the future, but I’ve seen enough smoke lately from some very credible parties to suggest the potential for a significant fire.   

As a primer on this issue, I recommend this July 29^th 2009 BusinessWeek article.  In it, authors Theo Francis and Steve Levine argue that Obama administration reforms on lobbying have prompted onetime lobbyists to deregister in favor of roles as “strategic communication advisors.” This limits their actual face time with politicians but frees them to leverage social media and other grassroots channels to mobilize people in support of their client’s interests.  This observation prompted Courtney Barnes of the PR News Blog to forebodingly ask whether lobbyist use of social media will end up commoditizing the expertise of communications professionals—or, perhaps, if communicators’ social media skills will increase their strategic importance in the policy arena within their organizations.

So, while some observers are suggesting not just a blurring of the lines but a potential turf war, the smoke that I’ve seen merely shows the smart money preparing for an integrated approach:

• First, Edelman recently acquired Grassroots Enterprise, an organization that uses social media to trigger a “multiplier effect” by connecting people to policy makers.
• Second, the American League of Lobbyists now offers its members some sort of vague social media accreditation.
• Third, several companies such as Google, Verizon and Cisco maintain policy-oriented blogs that allow Government Relations staff to comment on day-to-day issues and new studies, but also provide outlets for employees whom public policy most impacts to reach to deciders and influencers directly and credibly.

Clearly, there’s something going on, and if you’re like the three members I recently spoke with, you may well be asked by your lobbyist, your trade association, or even your CEO whether you should dissuade, endorse, or lead social media initiatives on behalf of your organization’s political interests.  Given the risk of commoditization that Ms. Barnes raises, I’d argue that the answer must be at least a strong advisory if not leadership role.

No matter where your current involvement in government relations lies, I’d be curious to get your thoughts on any smoke you’ve observed in your organizations.  Also, those familiar with D.C. may be interested to know that CEC’s parent company recently hired former D.C. mayor Anthony Williams as Executive Director of our new Government program, so maybe I’ll ask him too!

Update:  Does the Citizens United decision—allowing corporations to spend directly on candidates, not just on issues—increase the propensity for these lines to blur?