Charlie can tell you anything you want to know about Ohio State Football,
and he can tell you one thing you need to know
about nonprofit communications.
I watch politics closely as a laboratory for communications. It is the most perfect laboratory, because a political campaign is nothing more than a communications campaign. There is no better place to study "what works," because there is also a zero-sum scorecard: one wins, one loses.
So I was watching football with my son Charlie when a political ad came on. Charlie, 13, does not take a broad interest in civic or world affairs, unless they involve The Ohio State football team or certain video games. So I was stunned when he said of the ad, "All that guy did was talk about the other guy. Why would he pay for a TV ad just to talk about the other guy?"
I was stunned, for several reasons. One, Charlie had never made a political comment in his life until then. Two, because he said exactly what I was thinking!! We had a brief discussion about it until Ohio State made a big pass play and Charlie went wild, and well, that was that.
The ad was one in exchange between two candidates who have done nothing both label each other -- liberal, right wing, etc. It's gotten very negative, and each side feels compelled to respond to the others' barbs. The cost? Many, many millions of dollars in a statewide race.
Negative advertising has its place, and it can work in certain circumstances. If you discover that your opponent considers himself a Nazi and wears a Nazi uniform on the weekends and belongs to a Facebook group called "Blame the Jews," you should point that out. Even then, though, you'd be best to have an underling or surrogate handle the dirty work!!
But negative advertising, generally, is very old-school, for very out-of-touch candidates who have just not been paying attention. Hey, have you heard that we have a horrible recession? Hey, got anything to say about jobs for Indiana residents? Or improving education? Hey, do you realize I don't care what you think about the other guy -- I want to know what you think about ME!!!! What are you going to do for me and people like me!
They aren't saying. ...
They are violating the first principle of communications: Respect your audience. They can't even respect their opponent! Disrespect; people will forgive a lot of things, but not that. Respect for your audience means, "What is it that this audience needs to hear from me -- what message is most relevant to their lives?"
That principle is as true in nonprofit communications as it is in politics. As a case in point, see the article below about a nonprofit fundraising solicitation that had not one relevant reason for me to donate -- just a generalized generic request for funds. Fundraising is no different from politics, except that votes are cast with dollars. People need a reason to vote -- or donate. A reason vested in their own interests.
Communications 101 begins with answering the audience's one and only question: What's in it for me!
Case in point: We had a candidate in Indiana who lost his first race by the narrowest of margins -- in fact it was too close to call, it went to a recount. Both candidates had run very positive campaigns, engaging each other in important issues in a meaningful dialogue that really helped educate the community. Both candidates had gotten praised for their positivity (because it was so unusual). The same candidate ran again four years later, with different advisers. Very negative. He got stomped; it wasn't even close, he simply got trounced.
This is why I love politics as a laboratory for those of us who engage in nonprofit communications in the public interest -- because you can see what works; it is measurable by vote counts.
So back to Charlie's observation. Why WOULD a candidate pay for TV time just to talk about his opponent!??
Even if you are under attack, let it go!! People want a voice of opportunity, a voice of hope. That's what we need to hear. That's what would get people out to vote.
These two particular candidates are representative of the great majority of races across the country, and it causes me a real problem. I have always voted faithfully, considering it a privilege and duty to do so. But I want to vote FOR SOMETHING. These candidates give me nothing to vote for! The sum of their campaign is that candidate A opposes Candidate B, who hates Candidate A. So what? How does that help be make a decision?
I would love to hear a candidate say, "I'm Jane Doe, and here are 3 things I stand for that would make life better for Indiana residents" and then list 3 specific things. They wouldn't even have to be BIG things. In fact it almost wouldn't matter WHAT they were, or even whether I agreed with all of them; I would just be impressed that a candidate was talking about himself or herself, and what he or she stands for, with a view toward improving life for me and my fellow residents of Indiana. Even if I disagreed with certain policies, I'd vote for such a person based on the message of hope, of opportunity, and of leadership.
Thanks for the lesson in communications, Charlie. I only wish the candidates could hear you.
Have a great day!
Steve Cebalt, Author
The Communications Handbook for Nonprofits and Foundations
--
