Learning Lunches Dine on Strategy – Save June 19 for Energy Lunch
By Jay Vincent, The Saint Consulting Group
For 2012 I just hosted the fourth energy learning lunch of the year. Learning lunches are webinars where we share some of the insights gleaned from nearly 30 years building winning strategies for permitting controversial projects.
I want to thank the returning diners for their interest and participation over the past four months. Your feedback has been tremendous and your continuing interest much appreciated. Please tell your colleagues and invite those you think would benefit from the learning lunches.
At this point, more than 75 professionals across the entirety of the energy sector have joined these one-hour lunch clinics on such topics as engaging the public through the lens of the advocacy pyramid or techniques for identifying your supporters. I hope you will consider joining. The next Energy Learning Lunch will be Tuesday, June 19, at 12 noon CDT. More dates are available and signing up is easy. Just sign up using the link to the right. Click here to register.
Jay Vincent is senior vice president for business development for The Saint Consulting Group and business practice leader for energy, email vincent@tscg.biz
Strategic Comms, Pt 39: No Substitute for Grassroots Communication in Politics
(This is the 39th in a continuing series on strategic communications. Click here for earlier segments)
By Owen Eagan, The Saint Consulting Group
One of the hallmarks of our company’s success is our use of grassroots advocacy on behalf of our clients. This is our preferred method of communication because it allows us to interact with people directly and develop a dialogue through which issues and solutions can be explored. In fact, grassroots communication is so effective that it is increasingly being used in international diplomacy efforts.
For instance, the Emerson Election Project has utilized grassroots communication and person-to-person interactions in its public diplomacy or “soft power” efforts. This group was founded by Tristram Perry, a public diplomacy officer at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, and Dr. J. Gregory Payne, an associate professor at Emerson College.
The project’s first program involved inviting prominent Indonesian journalists to participate in the historic election of Barack Obama in 2008. Journalists from Indonesia, a country with the fourth largest population and the largest Muslim population in the world, had a particular interest in this campaign. Interest was not only piqued by Obama’s intercultural background (i.e., he had lived and studied in Indonesia) but also the fact that the country was preparing for only its second presidential election since becoming a democracy in 1999.[1]
The program consisted of briefing the Indonesian journalists on presidential politics through a series of seminars at the college and having them interact with various constituencies in swing states. As with any public diplomacy effort, the goal of these exchanges was to increase a mutual understanding between the participants and the hosts of the program. The program was a resounding success and resulted in more than 50 articles and 150 minutes of video for Indonesian audiences. In addition, a documentary on the program was created to further the project’s mission of promoting understanding through education.[2]
Given the fact that almost 75% of the American public does not have a passport, this severely limits their exposure to other cultures.[3] Therefore, these types of programs can help fill a void that is otherwise filled by mass communication sources. Even though these programs are used at a more macro level, they are founded on the same principles as the education and outreach efforts we conduct for our clients. And, though they may be more labor-intensive and expensive, they are yet another example of how there is no substitute for grassroots communication at any level of politics whether local, national or international.
Owen Eagan is a Senior Consultant for Saint Consulting, an international management consulting firm specializing in land use politics. He is also an adjunct faculty member at Emerson College, the nation’s only four-year institution dedicated exclusively to communication and the performing arts. Email Eagan@tscg.biz
[1] Mitchell S. McKinney and Mary C. Banwart, Communication in the 2008 U.S. Election: Digital Natives Elect a President (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2011), 313-326.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
Sign up for Saint Consulting Energy Learning Lunch, April 17, 12 Noon Central
vincent@tscg.biz
http://www.tscg.biz/The Saint Report blog: http:www.thesaintreport.com
Strategic Comms Pt 38: Why the Medium Is the Message
(This is the 38th in a continuing series on strategic communications. Click here for earlier segments)
By Owen Eagan, The Saint Consulting Group
Many people have heard the expression, “The medium is the message.” However, few people really know what it means or heed its importance. This aphorism, coined by Marshall McLuhan in his 1964 book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, still has relevance today.
What McLuhan meant was that the content of a mediated message is secondary to the medium, or the communication channel. For instance, McLuhan classified media as either “hot” or “cool.” Hot media is high definition media that requires very little participation on the part of the audience because of the level of sensory data presented. Cool media, on the other hand, is low definition media that requires more involvement from the audience due to a lack of sensory data.
To illustrate the difference, McLuhan analyzed the presidential debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960. He discovered that Kennedy was seen to win the debates among those people who watched the debate on TV, which he characterized as a cool medium. By contrast, Nixon was thought to win among those people who listened to the debates on the radio, described by McLuhan as a hot medium. There is some debate as to whether McLuhan would consider radio and TV as hot and cool media respectively today. However, the point remains that the medium certainly influenced the message.
Another great example involves a popular song about the advent of a new medium for music. That’s right, the first video on MTV lamented the passing of radio as the predominant medium for music – “Video Killed the Radio Star” by The Buggles. But what does this mean for developers? It means that developers not only need to develop an effective message but they also need to ensure the proper media.
For instance, a paid media blitz on TV would certainly smack of a developer trying to buy his or her way into a community. Therefore, developers should employ alternative strategies to engage the public directly through such means as open houses, etc., albeit in controlled environments (see Strategic Communications Part 9: Don’t Let the Mob Rule http://bit.ly/xECBat).
So, as you develop your outreach plans, make sure you choose the right medium to define your message. Otherwise, it might define you.
Owen Eagan is a Senior Consultant for Saint Consulting, an international management consulting firm specializing in land use politics. He is also an adjunct faculty member at Emerson College, the nation’s only four-year institution dedicated exclusively to communication and the performing arts. Email Eagan@tscg.biz
Should It Really Take Seven Years To Decide on a Limestone Quarry?
By Christopher M. Hopkins, The Saint Consulting Group
The Liberty Quarry application was rejected by Riverside County, California after a seven-year approval process which ended last month after a lengthy public hearing process. Granite Construction first applied for a permit to mine 135 acres of a 414-acre parcel for limestone in March — of 2005.
That’s seven years to determine if a limestone quarry should be allowed to operate. Seven years and untold millions of dollars in costs borne both by Granite Construction and Riverside County, not to mention the thousands of hours put in by the county, the company and residents of the area.
Can’t there be a more efficient process to decide if applications such as this should be approved or denied?
I have been following the Liberty situation for the past five years, watching the strategies of both the applicants and the opposition through the process. As usual, the opposition went overboard. Temecula Mayor Chuck Washington was claiming by the end of the process that “quarry related pollution” would directly lead to the deaths of 146 people over the life of the quarry.
Now that, in my opinion, is irresponsible at best, and at worst, downright negligent. It’s also the kind of hyperbole that helps drag out the basic permitting of a quarry into a seven-year ordeal. Read More »
The Promise and Problems of West Oakland – reprinted from The Monthly
West Oakland resident Royster Jackson remembers plans to rebuild the area from as far back as 1956
West Oakland is the first exit eastbound off the Bay Bridge from San Francisco. Its legacy of poverty, crime and high unemployment is making room for high expectations as a grand development plan takes shape to revamp West Oakland and to attract retail, light industry and new homes.
Together with a $1 billion expansion of on-dock rail at the nearby Port of Oakland and defunct Oakland Army Base, significant change is coming to one of the most geographically desirable locations in Northern California.
The East Bay Monthly has published an extensive look at the promise and the problems of West Oakland, written by Paul Mindus, director of business development for The Saint Consulting Group and a former journalist.
Click here for a pdf The Monthly – West Oakland feature or click here to read an online version.
Saint Consulting Group Wins Federal Court Case
Judge Affirms First Amendment Rights to Oppose Development Projects
A federal court has affirmed the right of real estate project opponents to actively oppose government permits, even when opponents are business competitors and even when their opposition is not publicly announced.
In a decision filed March 27, the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois dismissed all claims brought in a suit against The Saint Consulting Group of Hingham, MA, and SuperValu of Eden Prairie, MN, in connection with a proposed shopping center in Mundelein, IL.
In dismissing the claims brought by Rubloff Development Group of Rockford, IL, U. S. District Judge Harry B. Leinenweber said the activities of Saint and SuperValu, which sought to help neighbors block Rubloff’s proposed development in city council and court proceedings starting in 2007, are protected by their First Amendment right to petition government and by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Noerr-Pennington Doctrine.
In June 2010, the Wall Street Journal had reported that Saint had worked for numerous grocery chains opposing government permits for new Walmart stores. The story was sourced by an ex-employee of Saint, who was paid $10,000 by Rubloff to engineer the Journal story in hopes it would help with its claims against Saint and SuperValu. Rubloff brought suit shortly after the story appeared.
The decision dismissing the allegations cites protections that guarantee citizens and businesses the right to petition government for relief without fear of antitrust liability.
Judge Leinenweber said the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine extends “absolute immunity” from antitrust laws to businesses and other associations when they join together to petition legislative bodies, agencies or courts for action that may have anti-competitive effect.
The decision upholds the right of businesses to defend their market share.
The ruling allows claims by Saint against Rubloff Development Group to continue to trial.
The Saint Consulting Group specializes in getting citizens to participate in the public approval process for controversial land use projects.
“While this ruling comes as no surprise, we are very happy to see the court so strongly reaffirm our right to petition government on behalf of our clients,” said P. Michael Saint, CEO and founder of The Saint Consulting Group.
“It is clear from this decision and others that advocacy to get government to turn down projects is protected even where competitors are involved and third parties are brought into the battle to organize the campaign,” Saint said.
Strategic Comms Pt 37: Evaluating the Ethics of Your Message
(This is the 37th in a continuing series on strategic communications. Click here for earlier segments)
By Owen Eagan, The Saint Consulting Group
Along with ensuring that your message is effective, how do you determine whether it’s ethical as well? For instance, according to the Narrative Paradigm Theory, our interpretation of communication is based more on values and emotion than logic. That is, this theory argues that the narratives that people develop as part of the culture that they share shape our beliefs and behaviors.[1]
However, as Bush and Bush discuss in their analysis of the ethics of advertising using the narrative paradigm, evaluating the ethics of messages is problematic for two reasons. First is the pluralistic nature of moral philosophy, meaning that each individual has his or her own ideas about what is ethical and unethical. And, second is the challenge of measuring ethics because there appears to be no single standard of evaluation. As a result, these researchers used a framework based on the narrative paradigm. They evaluated ads based on their narrative probability – whether they were consistent with the audience’s common knowledge in terms of myth, metaphor or convention – and their narrative fidelity – whether they were consistent with the moral character of the audience.[2]
To illustrate the importance of this type of assessment, the researchers state that a number of advertisements have been pulled after criticism from various publics. For example, an ad by Nissan Motor Corporation for a Nissan 300SX Turbo was pulled after just one showing in the wake of criticism from numerous safety groups due to its promotion of excessive speed. As a framework for advertisers to assess these types of ethical considerations, Bush and Bush recommend posing three general questions. First, does the story/ad possess narrative probability? Second, does the story/ad possess narrative fidelity? And, third, what are the potential consequences of the story/ad based on its narrative evaluation?
By using a narrative paradigm together with the more traditional measures of a rational paradigm, you’ll be able to pretest your messages. This will enable you to ascertain whether your messages will be consistent with the shared knowledge and moral character of the groups you hope to influence.
Owen Eagan is a Senior Consultant for Saint Consulting, an international management consulting firm specializing in land use politics. He is also an adjunct faculty member at Emerson College, the nation’s only four-year institution dedicated exclusively to communications and the performing arts. Email Eagan@tscg.biz
[1] Richard West and Lynn H. Turner, Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2010), 343-358.
[2] Alan J. Bush and Victoria Davies Bush, “The Narrative Paradigm as a Perspective for Improving Ethical Evaluations of Advertisements,” Journal of Advertising, Volume XXIII, Number 3, September 1994.
Strategic Comms #36: A Framework for Assessing Communications Motives
(This is the 36th in a continuing series on strategic communications. Click here for earlier segments)
By Owen Eagan, The Saint Consulting Group
How would you assess the motives of a speaker or, for that matter, any act of communication? For example, how would you evaluate the motives of politicians caught in scandals or even celebrities who testify before Congressional hearings?
Kenneth Burke, the noted theorist who developed the theory of Dramatism, created a framework for analyzing communication motives. Burke’s theory compares life to a play and, like a theatrical piece, requires an act, scene, agent, agency and purpose. The act is defined as what is done by a person or persons. The scene is the context surrounding the act. The agent is the person or persons performing the act. Agency is the means used to accomplish the act, including message strategies, etc. And purpose refers to the goal of the act. Burke used a pentad to graphically represent each of these points. He later added attitude as a sixth point to refer to how an actor positions himself or herself relative to others. The pentad is depicted in Exhibit 1 below.
After identifying and defining all of the elements for a given interaction, an analyst can use dramatistic ratios to determine the relative dominance of each element. For instance, professors Christopher R. Darr and Harry C. Strine IV used pentadic analysis to evaluate the motive of celebrities who testified before Congressional hearings. Contrary to the existing literature which suggested that celebrities were simply the pawns of publicity-seeking politicians, the authors found that the celebrities were primarily motivated by “giving voice to the voiceless.” That is, by analyzing the rhetoric of the celebrities and using agent-act and scene-act ratios, they found that celebrities’ actions were motivated by their personal experience, rather than their celebrity status, and the circumstances surrounding the issue, such as giving a voice to others.
Burke’s theory is incredibly complex and argues that guilt and variations thereof are the primary motives for all communication. As a result, the theory has been criticized for its broad reach and perhaps cultural limitations due to its decidedly Western Christian orientation.
Nonetheless, pentadic analysis offers a useful framework for assessing communication motives in any situation. For instance, in regard to land use, it could be a useful tool in evaluating the motives of your project’s detractors. That is, do they represent narrow self-interests or the broader community? Are they pawns for politicians or are their concerns legitimate? Moreover, Dramatism has been widely embraced and utilized, and Burke is considered a giant in the field of communication.
Owen Eagan is a Senior Consultant for Saint Consulting, an international management consulting firm specializing in land use politics. He is also an adjunct faculty member at Emerson College, the nation’s only four-year institution dedicated exclusively to communications and the performing arts. Email Eagan@tscg.biz
The Perception is the Reality, Public’s View of Politicians and Developers
(This is the 35th in a continuing series on strategic communications. Click here for earlier segments)
What do corrupt politicians and the TV crime series CSI have in common? Their presence in the media helps shape our reality.
That is, you’ve likely heard the expression, “Perception is reality.” But how is that perception typically formed? More often than not, people’s perceptions are formed by mass communication. Cultivation Analysis, developed by George Gerbner, is a theory which explains the shaping of perceptions, understandings and beliefs about the world through the consumption of media messages.
In the 1960s there was increasing concern about the media’s effects on society, especially its possible contributions to rising levels of violence. In fact, President Lyndon Johnson established the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence in 1967, which was followed by surgeon general’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior in 1972. Gerbner played a role in both of these initiatives and one of his tasks was to create an annual Violence Index to analyze the amount of violence presented on television. In 1982, for example, the index found that crime in prime time was at least 10 times as rampant as in the real world.
Gerbner subsequently developed Cultivation Analysis, which argues that all media contribute to a mediated reality. However, the theory was and remains largely focused on the impact of television. For instance, most research compared the perceptions of heavy viewers with light viewers and found very different perceptions of reality. Among their findings were that heavy viewers tend to believe that the world is a more dangerous place than it really is and that all politicians are corrupt.
This mediated reality has even spilled over into the courtrooms through the so-called “CSI Effect.” That is, as a result of shows like CSI, many believe juries now expect every case to have the same levels of scientific evidence presented, making it harder for prosecutors to convict suspects.
So, what does all of this mean for developers? Given the public’s perception of politicians, it simply sheds further light on why your project begins behind the 8-ball. (See “Strategic Communications Part 29: Three Reasons Your Project Begins Behind 8-Ball”: http://bit.ly/w6BzGS).
Owen Eagan is a Senior Consultant for Saint Consulting, an international management consulting firm specializing in land use politics. He is also an adjunct faculty member at Emerson College, the nation’s only four-year institution dedicated exclusively to communications and the performing arts. Email Eagan@tscg.biz