You can’t swing a dead cat in Washington, D.C. without hitting a trade association or someone who works for one. With nearly 8,000 national trade associations in the United States—2,000 of which are headquartered Inside the Beltway—nearly every industry and business in America has someone looking out for their best policy interests with lawmakers and influencers.

There is a fair amount of debate over what makes an effective and powerful trade association—how do different attributes work for or against them?

Size—Trade groups come in every shape and size. Some of the smaller trades have a half-dozen members, while larger trades have hundreds. There are even a handful of behemoth associations that average members in the hundreds of thousands, which translates to a healthy balance sheet and a lot constituents knocking on a lot of Capitol Hill doors. However, while “big” can often mean “powerful,” large trades have to juggle competing views from a myriad of members, which can lead to watered down priorities and messaging, or a lack of general consensus on even significant issues. On the flip side, while one would assume that it’s easier to reach a consensus in the smallest trades, members may believe this structure affords them more opportunity to dig in their heels in support of their own positions.

Scope—Trade groups that represent various factions of industries also have to deal with splintering issues. U.S. vs global, big vs little, manufacturer vs supplier—while these groups may fall under the same “industry”, they likely have opposing policy objectives and competing interests. Yet, when these groups reach a consensus, their vast footprint carries serious clout.

Member Engagement—The jury is still out on what “level” of membership engagement is the most effective for trade groups. The trades that engage almost solely at the CEO-level, for example, are usually well-positioned to move quickly by going straight to the top for decisions. However, in many cases, engagement from non-C-Suite employees can increase the effectiveness of the trade. Just a few levels down from the top, employees often have a more granular scope, and those details can greatly impact message, ability or outcome.

Representation—Some trades, by virtue of their membership, have a built-in advantage. Representing a popular political constituency, such as small business, vs. a less popular constituency often allows them to start off on friendlier footing; however, no organization can take any advantage for granted. They have to deliver for their members and maintain their clout on Capitol Hill.

Regardless of the trade group attributes, one thing is certain: those who are working hard to be effective and relevant don’t have an easy task.

Advocating on behalf of an industry—particularly a highly-regulated industry—can be extremely technical and constantly demanding. Trade group employees are part negotiators and part policy experts, trying to zero in on the path of least resistance and make their members happy, all while moving the legislative or regulatory needle and keeping the media headlines positive—or, let’s be honest, even neutral. They receive calls at all hours of the day and night, have hostile reporters shuffled their way, and often have to defend business decisions or practices they didn’t create. Case in point—when an industry is in hot water, who appears on 60 Minutes? The trade association. All the while, they may get flack from their members or be held to impossibly high standards. And did I mention that trade groups with overlapping membership are in stiff and constant competition with each other?

So, after painting this challenging picture—is there an upside to industry trade groups?

Absolutely.

By representing an entire industry, trade groups are seen as reasonable (albeit biased) experts. Influencers trust them because they aren’t carrying the water for any one person or company, but are advocating for the greater industrial good. Moreover, trades are able to see the forest through the trees and tell a positive, collective story, whereas individual companies can get tripped up by day-to-day news or minutia.

The most effective trade groups go after top-notch D.C. talent, employing experts with tremendous reach into the halls of Congress, the regulatory agencies or with influential media. Highly-effective trade associations have significant resources and understand how to deploy that influence in Washington, taking on legislative challenges—not to mention actual lawmakers—that individual companies could never do alone.

Some trades are considered so influential, that some organizations—even some on the Fortune 500 list—have decided to forego establishing their own offices in Washington, and rely solely on trades to represent their views with policymakers.

Finally, trades have an opportunity to build goodwill and strengthen an industry’s status across-the-board, something that is invaluable if—ok, when—that industry is facing strong regulatory, legislative or reputational headwinds.

So, whether you’re represented by the American Petroleum Institute or the American Pyrotechnic Association, the role of trades as effective advocates for almost any interest should not and cannot be discounted.

Most major corporations have well-developed brands—both corporate and product—that are the result of deliberate strategy, thoughtful research and a significant investment.

However, most companies have a blind spot when it comes to how policymakers think about their corporate brand and reputation. They often think of policymakers as consumers, assuming what piques the interests of other brand audiences will do the same for them. Of course, to some degree, this is true; policymakers are also consumers, and the attributes that matter to consumers will matter to them as well.

However, the questions that policymakers ask of companies are different than those of consumers, and frankly so are the results they seek. What most companies are seeking from policymakers is permission to operate their businesses efficiently without unduly burdensome or irrational regulation. On this playing field, the issue is less brand and more reputation.

Brand and reputation are often used interchangeably, but they are distinctly different ideas. Your brand is the sum total of who you are and what you stand for; it is reflected in your customer service, your product quality, your corporate culture and your visual identity. It helps consumers view you as relevant and differentiated from your competitors. Reputation, by contrast, is more temporal, more cognitive and more audience-specific. Let’s unpack those elements one at a time.

Reputation reflects a snapshot in time; it can be moved substantially by events or crises. If those events are significant enough or poorly addressed, they can bleed over and have long-term effects on your brand. Reputation is more cognitive than brand; it reflects more thinking than feeling, and often discounts attributes that may be highly relevant to the brand. Reputation is a timely assessment of the company’s words and deeds against a set of factors that are relevant to the particular audience.

Reputation is varied among audiences because different audiences have different cognitive expectations. Policymakers need to evaluate companies and industries against a set of societal expectations for behavior and contribution. They may find a company’s products highly desirable—and that can help—but it doesn’t address the key questions they are required to ask. The more important your company is to the economy and to the social good, the more rigorous those questions are likely to be.

This dichotomy between brand and reputation can also play out with industry associations. Industry associations have their own brands as organizations; however, when it comes to representing their industry with policymakers, what they are really representing is the reputation of the industry. They are charged with changing the cognitive assessment of the industry; they need to convince policymakers—and those who influence policymakers—that their industry meets the key expectations society holds for them.

So, what is a company or industry to do about managing its reputation among policymakers? The first step is to be clear about what you are really trying to achieve: define your business aspirations and the legislative and regulatory environment you seek. This means aligning your long range business plan with a legislative and regulatory outlook, and then identifying the kind of political and policy environment you could realistically shape to achieve those objectives.

Next, understand your strengths and weaknesses, understand the perceptions of your company or industry, and understand the expectations of policymakers and the stakeholders who influence them. You need to realistically assess where you have unique or highly desirable assets as a company or industry; how those assets are currently understood by your audiences; and, most importantly, what your audiences expect of you. In short, what is the story you can tell convincingly and authentically that is of greatest value and relevance to policymakers?

Finally, design a program that connects the dots between current perceptions, stakeholder needs, and your desired outcomes. The tactics will vary, but they should start with a laser focus on your audience, designing tactics in a way that will most convincingly reach and, most importantly, engage these audiences with you over an extended period of time.

Reputation can be built proactively; you don’t have to wait for a crisis. By engaging with the right ideas, partnering with relevant stakeholders, and demonstrating your unique contributions, you can move the needle.

It is worth remembering that building reputation is not only a communications exercise, it is a strategic exercise that forces organizations to clearly articulate their value proposition to a variety of stakeholders and to confront areas of misalignment before those areas become problematic.

Warren Buffett famously said that reputation takes “twenty years to build and five minutes to ruin.” However, the time spent building that reputation, even in the face of a crisis, doesn’t go to waste. That investment of time builds strategic focus, good will for the organization, and relationships that can help organization weather crises and gain the benefit of the doubt.

Was 2015 the year of the Millennial? It may be hard to argue otherwise. We heard the voices of Millennials reflected throughout consumer pitches, news stories, brand campaigns and political battles. Think tanks studied them, corporate America tried to woo them, and political candidates did their best to understand them. And since they don’t seem to be going away, perhaps 2015 was merely a platform Millennials used to grab our attention, making 2016 the year they consume it.

Companies are chomping at the bit to engage Millennials, but many are still trying to grasp what the generation stands for and how exactly to deal with them. “Are TV ads a waste of money when they don’t watch traditional TV? Can we convey our message using only emojis? Holy $&!* our app crashed!!!!”

There is a lot of speculation around the Millennial platform that we want to delve into deeper. For starters, they’re older than you think.

The Age of Millennials – For the most part, the public perceives Millennials as being in college or recently graduated. Members of this generation, however, are recognized as being born between the early 1980s and 2000s, meaning they could currently be aged anywhere from 16 to 36. So while some Millennials can barely drive a car, others have been in the workforce for more than a decade, pay taxes, own a home and even have a couple school-aged offspring. Therefore, marketing to Millennials is tricky and has to be multidimensional, as the same product or service will be desirable – or not – in different ways.

Adapting to the Disrupters – Millennials are the drivers of disruption, plain and simple. Yes, industries and technologies are being disrupted through advancements forged by all generations, but largely in an attempt to keep up with what the 20-somethings started. A handful of pioneering Millennials’ desire for something faster, easier, cheaper and ultimately better is driving the entire disruptive movement, and their co-Millennials are leading the charge.

Granted, they have an advantage: they don’t and won’t operate under the “business as usual” or “because this is how it’s always been done” mantras that have often defined the mindset of Generation Y’ers and Baby Boomers. Millennials are restless in their pursuit to disrupt everything from highly complex and life-changing technologies to something as monotonous as booking a hotel room. We have to adapt to this disruptive mindset if we want to truly embrace and understand Millennials.

Social On Demand – To again state the obvious, Millennials are socially connected. This lifestyle goes well beyond Facebook to include almost every aspect of their lives: how they grocery shop, bank, career network or make doctor’s appointments. And when you pair Millennials’ disruptive mindset with their tether to social, you get an insatiable desire for 1) on-demand goods and services; 2) easily obtained; 3) through an exceptional customer experience. You need milk and laundry detergent? Order Instacart. Left your laptop at a friend’s house? TaskRabbit is on the case. Parking too hard to find in the city? One click of the Zirx app will take care of that and get your wheels washed to boot. Will a brick and mortar store be dead to Millennials? No. But don’t expect them to be caught dead in one if they can use their phone to order someone to go for them.

Moreover, Millennials seek out social affirmation and use online channels to swap information – good and bad – about companies and services. A less than desirable customer experience, a finicky app, or a delayed delivery can translate to more bad publicity than an above the fold hit piece in The New York Times.

Transparency, Please – Perhaps it was growing up in a time of war or experiencing the horror of 9-11 through younger eyes. Maybe it was the inherent blame and distrust following the financial crisis and recession. Whatever the cause, Millennials have a watchful and critical eye, particularly for anything deemed part of the establishment. From government to corporations, Millennials are suspicious of the wool being pulled over their eyes and use their purchasing power as a form of social action. Your company doesn’t top an index of sustainable businesses? No, thank you. Your industry has been likened to big, bad tobacco? Next, please. Your PAC contributed to a candidate with differing social positions? I’ll take my business somewhere else.

Whether through a click of the thumb or a loud, far-reaching tweet, Millennials are raising the social bar and companies must be able to show how their mission contributes to a better world. These ideals (or demands) by Millennials can be ill-informed and frustrating, but – similar to their disruptive mindset – this inherent mistrust is seen as a driver for the greater good. The good news is companies are also embracing their role in helping to advance change. Now they must ensure they are advocating this mission to audiences across the board…particularly Millennials.

Generation Z – Just beginning to get your arms around Millennials? Don’t get too comfortable because the next generation of consumers is nipping at their heels. While the actual name is still being debated, Generation Z or iGen refers to the post-Millennials born in the early 2000s until 2025. Yes: you need to start thinking about how to handle these whippersnappers before they are even born. This next generation will never experience life without the internet, a smart phone, or have to see a commercial. If Millennials are driving an on-demand economy, Gen Z’ers will know that and that alone. Anything less will be antique…old…useless. How you ready your product or service for that reality may just be keeping you up at night…or will now!

So while 2015 may have been the dress rehearsal for Millennials, they will take center stage in 2016 in their role as generation and game changers. Remember, this is the generation that brought us crowd-funding ideas they thought were cool – anything is possible. If you are looking to engage Millennials around your organization’s reputation, your products, or your advocacy agenda you need to focus on three things:

1. Compelling user-experience. This generation wants information delivered in easy to digest bites.
2. Social affirmation. Millennials are going to share information and seek information from others.
3. Connect to the greater good. Find ways to connect your mission to the greater good. Millennials are particularly comfortable using the marketplace to effect social change.

In my experience, senior executives can be skeptical of corporate reputation campaigns because they are often unlike any other initiative within the company. However, the tough questions asked by the C-suite can be used to the advantage of corporate communications practitioners, helping to frame their thinking about such campaigns and the possible outcomes.

Here are some common and very rational objections:

For those who come from marketing backgrounds, the budget associated with a corporate reputation campaign appears miniscule, a mere “drop in the ocean,” unlikely to have any measurable impact.
The financial markets value results, not spin. Analysts aren’t likely to be persuaded by a campaign, they are persuaded by numbers. How will this campaign improve our perception among financial audiences?
It is customer service, sound governance, product quality and innovation that determine reputation. That’s where we should focus. Everything else is “fluff.”
Because all of these assertions are true in their own way they can be difficult to overcome. The issue is really one of perspective and ensuring that you are framing your campaign in a way that answers these issues up-front.

Let’s take a look at each issue.

Insufficient budget to move the needle. Marketing differs substantially in a number of respects. The total audience is typically vastly larger than the audience for a reputation campaign. Being highly specific around target audience may help executives understand that the cost-per-target numbers are more realistic. There are also differences in the nature of the “ask” in a reputation campaign vs. a marketing campaign that vary by campaign.

The financial markets value results. Absolutely true. There are two potential answers to this objection. First, financial audiences may not be primary targets. Second, it is true that financial audiences value numbers, but they also value a “story.” After all, analysts have to look into the future and make decisions about which company is best positioned for success in a given industry. This determination will, at least in part, factor in their perceptions of a company’s goodwill among customers, policymakers, and other stakeholders.

Customer service, sound governance, product quality and innovation determine reputation. Again, absolutely correct. That’s why the organization spends 99.9% of its resources in these areas. However, some very important audiences may not be customers or may have interests in your company that go beyond the purchasing experience. Even consumers may be interested in factors that are not strictly “consumer” in nature, such as your environmental record or employee practices. How will they acquire that knowledge of your company in the absence of communications?

The goal of reputation campaigns is to inform/reinforce with those (e.g., policymakers) who may have little or no direct experience with your business, but still need a way to assess its reputation. Said another way: to assess whether or not they should trust the institution to deliver useful services and trusted information. They are informed indirectly through your campaign about your value, motives, performance, etc.

The Million-Dollar Question

I’m often asked if there is “proof” that reputation campaigns make a difference. There is ample research – both from private sector and academic researchers to suggest that it does. The challenge is defining the endpoint: “What ‘difference’ would you like it to make?” Unlike a marketing campaign with a singular concrete endpoint (increase sales of product X), a reputation campaign has multiple outcomes. In many ways the end point of a reputation campaign is…reputation which influences a variety of more concrete outcomes. What senior executives are often asking is a more philosophical question: does reputation matter and can we really influence our reputation through communications?

Does Reputation Matter?

Research has consistently demonstrated that stakeholder audiences inform their actions based on reputation. Below are a few recent studies/surveys that demonstrate the importance of reputation.

54% of U.S. opinion elites have decided not to engage with/do business with a company because of something they learned about how it conducts itself. 37% of opinion elites said they proactively tried to influence their friends’ and family’s perceptions about a company based on what they’ve learned about the company. (Nielsen, 2014)

87% of executives surveyed rate reputation risk as more important or much more important than other strategic risks their companies are facing. In addition, 88% say their companies are explicitly focusing on managing reputation risk. 41% of executives who experienced a reputation risk event say loss of revenue was the biggest impact. 37% percent of the surveyed executives say regulatory investigations were a major consequence of a reputation risk event. (Deloitte, 2014)

Many industries—banking, telecom, transport, and energy, to name a few—face an increasing level of regulation that often puts 30 to 50 percent of EBITDA at stake. Companies that proactively engage with regulators are significantly more likely to achieve their preferred outcomes. (McKinsey, 2015)

Can we change reputation with communications?

It is true that our reputation is built on what we do. However, since reputation is perception, our reputation will suffer if too few people know what we do or hold an opinion about us that is contrary to what we believe to be a true representation of our organization.

Reputation campaigns are simply a vehicle for informing important audiences about your motives, your intentions, and your contributions so that they can better understand your organization and make an informed choice about how to engage with you. Reputation can take many forms, but every organization should be concerned with ensuring that its most important stakeholders are well informed.

The King v. Burwell Supreme Court decision – announced Thursday 6 to 3 in favor of Burwell and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies – ends the long waiting, wondering and scenario-planning period for health advocates representing patients nationwide.

The outcome of the case, which had the potential to destroy the centerpiece of the ACA and impact approximately six million Americans, ultimately means that individuals who secure health insurance through an exchange established by the federal government will be eligible for the tax subsidy created through the law. And it has many advocates saying, simply, ‘phew.’

Before media even published the Supreme Court decision online, the National Health Council (NHC) issued a statement applauding the decision. “The Affordable Care Act has proven to be an effective way of ensuring people with chronic diseases and disabilities have access to meaningful insurance coverage,” said NHC Chief Executive Officer Marc Boutin. “The Supreme Court made the right decision – a decision that will enhance coverage and improve patient access to quality health care.”

In the end, it was the easiest possible decision to which advocates could react. But the months leading up to it left them in a constant state of scenario planning. The previous Supreme Court decision relating to Obamacare – NFIB v. Sibelius – threw advocates, policy experts and just about everyone else for a loop, when the Supreme Court upheld by a vote of 5 to 4 the constitutionality of the individual health insurance mandate, however, a majority of the justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, also agreed the mandate was not a proper use of Congress’s Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause powers.

The rather complicated middle-ground outcome initially led CNN and Fox News to announce the Court had struck down the mandate and it left advocates skittish about carrying out pre-education on King v. Burwell. Advocates said in pre-King v. Burwell decision interviews that, while there were a multitude of pre-decision efforts underway with NFIB v. Sibelius, really no one was out there talking with patients about the possible impact of different King v. Burwell outcome scenarios on their current healthcare coverage and future options.

According to NHC, WomenHeart and Men’s Health Network, they were preparing or were ready with messages and statements that covered various scenarios, but going beyond that felt academic. “We will carefully consider the decision and let our constituents know how it could affect them,” said WomenHeart Vice President, Public Policy Susan Campbell.

“Trying to handicap the Supreme Court decision didn’t really make sense, since the [NFIB v. Sibelius] decision was so unexpected,” said Sal Giorgianni, advisor to the Men’s Health Network and Chair-Emeritus of the Men’s Health Caucus of the American Public Health Association. “And this decision wasn’t going to dramatically impact our constituents one way or another. We pressed under ACA for more favorable treatment of men, but the preventative coverage is really aimed at women.”

Caitlin Donovan, Director of Outreach and Public Affairs for the National Patient Advocate Foundation (NPAF) said they had to try to prepare for anywhere between nothing changing and everything changing. “Depending on how the decision was written, we ultimately might have had to communicate different changes to people in different states.”

Donovan said she came to realize in talking with patients over the past few months, that a lot of people still don’t understand what kind of coverage they have, so NPAF was preparing to simultaneously educate people about their current coverage they and get them information about the King v. Burwell decision that would be specifically useful to them.

But in the end, advocates are almost unanimously declaring the decision a victory for patients, and the vote was decisive enough that the scenario plans can probably stay filed away for years to come.

Trading in my nice-sized office, complete with furniture, two desks, and…well…privacy, for a shared workspace didn’t exactly make in it onto my “must have” list in my new job negotiations. But after just days at my new office digs, I have to admit that I’m a convert.

When hearing of companies that moved to a bull pen or trading floor setup, I was shocked. How can they hear themselves think? What happens when they need to return a call from their doctor? I’m distracted enough by people just walking by my office door…how much work would actually get done if coworkers were all piled in there together?

The answer? A lot.

In today’s 24/7 work environment, we are all just…so…busy. Employees opt for sending emails to their co-workers rather than walking two doors down to their office. They avoid in-person meetings because it’s too tough to get away from their desks. And they schedule brainstorming sessions via conference call, where admittedly half the attendees are on mute and working on other projects. Full disclosure: I’m guilty of all three.

But what my new, shared workspace has quickly shown is that collaboration is a dying art in need of reviving. I’m fortunate enough to sit with three super-smart individuals, all who bring a different skill set and expertise to the table. By simply turning my chair around, I have access to some great PR minds who are ready to offer their thoughts. We talk through issues, bounce ideas off the wall, and dig a little deeper into our creative selves. In some instances, they look at problems in ways I don’t, and therefore bring unique solutions or angles I may have otherwise overlooked. In others, they serve as validators of my gut instinct on how to tackle a client ask.

In addition to increased collaboration and having more meaningful access to the company’s expertise, sharing a work space is more efficient. I don’t waste time drafting long emails and then having to reexplain the issue when something gets lost in translation. It cuts down on the amount of time we spend sifting through our inboxes and drafting responses that are good, but not necessarily great, because we’re so busy trying to get through our inbox. I also check off those personal “to-do” items during my lunch and before or after my day in the office, making my time at my desk more productive.

So in summary: Creativity + Efficiency + Productivity = Happy Clients.

That said, the key to a collaborative workplace is giving employees a quiet place to escape to, whether they need a little space to get some writing done, make a personal phone call, or enjoy their chicken tikka masala without offending their co-workers.

And when all else fails…invest in a good set of earphones!

What do you get when you put representatives from more than 30 of the nation’s leading patient-focused health organizations, companies and government agencies in a room, amidst a sea of sometimes-competing priorities that are specific to each of those organizations? Cacophony? Stalemate? Not at all, at least not during the National Consumers League’s (NCL) inaugural Health Advisory Council meeting.

I had the pleasure of being a part of this meeting last week and while I have worked with nearly all of these organizations — individually and through coalitions – at one time or another, it is somewhat of a rare thing to engage with all of them during a coming together that may lead to solutions to seemingly insurmountable issues.

NCL has a history of NOT shying away from tough issues. Whether the issue is protecting the rights of child workers, improving treatment adherence, tackling consumer fraud, or improving consumer literacy, I’ve always thought their motto should read, Bring It On.

Through NCL’s new Health Advisory Council, they are looking to leading consumer, patient, health care professional, industry and government voices to help them determine what major health-focused issues need to be better addressed and could be addressed collaboratively.

The Health Advisory Council is very much at the beginning, but at the start, members and participants advised that the following were major issue areas that aligned with their own organizations’ interests:

1. Medications — both Rx and OTC — were top of mind: Adherence, management and general safe use of medications, as well as safe use of antibiotics

2. Coverage policies and impact on access to care and medications was also an area for collaborative opportunity

3. Defining and optimizing the respective roles of health care providers especially those of nurses and pharmacists —was a shared area of interest

4. Improving both patient and HCP communication skills was also of common interest

As a communicator, I found it interesting how virtually every one of these top issue areas has communications at the center. Whichever topics NCL and its Health Advisory Council members choose to collaboratively pursue — whether it be safe use of medications, enhancing access to care and treatment for diverse populations or people suffering from chronic conditions, fully recognizing the potential role nurses and pharmacists could play to improve value across the system, or tackling the need to improve communications between patients and HCPs in order to raise the overall level of coordinated care — communications, if successfully applied, will be a major part of the solution.

Some of the problems discussed seem larger than life. But many of the organizations in the room have a history of trying to tackle that which seems impossible:

· The Society for Women’s Health Research and WomenHeart have made incredible strides in overcoming sex-based differences in care, treatment, outcomes and clinical trial representation;

· The National Community Pharmacists Association and American Pharmacists Association have made significant progress in increasing awareness of the importance of community and all pharmacists in the patient care continuum;

· Caregiver Action Network and the National Alliance for Caregiving have made the entire health community and many individuals and families across the U.S. understand that involving and empowering family caregivers is key to patients getting the best possible care;

· And the government agencies represented on the Council — CDC, FDA’s Center for Drug Research and Evaluation and Office of Women’s Health and NHLBI — obviously have the trust of the American public and a treasure trove of knowledge about which best practices might be worth considering as part of a solution.

A number of state-based organizations — such as the North Carolina Alliance for Healthy Communities and Ohio Pharmacists Association and researchers from Duke University and the University of Minnesota — are also involved and can help ensure that any possible approach is also localized in nature.

It’s too early to tell in which direction the NCL Health Advisory Council will head, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. More to come as the Council shares perspectives and concerns with one another and advises the NCL on what areas are worth pursuing — and solving — on behalf of America’s consumers.

Gordon Butte

Recently, there have been news reports of a new genetically-modified potato known as the “Innate” potato – so named because it borrows genes that occur naturally in the potato and uses them to modify traits of the potato. In this case the modification produces a potato more resistant to bruising and with less acrylamide – a substance known to cause cancer in rats, though not in people, when it is ingested.

Predictably, this GMO potato has met with strong opposition from anti-GMO campaigners though generating what might be considered surprising support from Michael Jacobson, a persistent critic of the food industry.

However, this blog post is not about the merits or demerits of GMO potatoes or GMOs generally. This post is about the way we humans perceive and judge risks and process information about risks and why the GMO debate seems to be stuck in the mud.

Whenever I see an issue where one side says, “If only they understood what we understand,” it’s a good sign that they are getting the approach wrong. In the case of GMOs, just because people can’t or don’t understand the facts or the science doesn’t mean they are acting irrationally. In fact, they are acting completely rationally on the basis of their own beliefs and experience. From behavioral psychology, we know that for all of us, beliefs are rational for those who believe them. From risk communication science, we know that the key to effective communication on risks is to understand people’s key beliefs and their underlying rationale and, and with that insight, provide the information people do not already have that is relevant and useful for their decision making and action on the risks.

Let’s accept for a moment that it is true that most people don’t accurately or fully understand the technology that goes into genetic modification. I think that’s a fair assessment. Many of us may not understand the technology that makes our cars work, but most of us are comfortable driving to work each day in something that is creating hundreds of tiny explosions per minute and hurtling us down the road at a speed that would likely cause us grave injury if something were to go wrong. Why? One important reason is that we tend to believe we are in control of the car and over the risks associated with its operation and use.

However, there are several factors that make GMOs more troubling to some people than other kinds of risks we confront each day:

1. A Relatively Easy Choice. Today, the debate around GMOs is asking people to take sides before there is really a meaningful choice to be made. For most people right now it would be relatively easy to reject GMOs if they believe doing so would have little or no consequence to their daily lives. That makes it difficult to affirmatively choose something where the immediate benefits (or risks) are unknown or not apparent. It is easier to accept current risk, or risk where we believe we have personal experience and insight, than unknown or perceived irrelevant future risks.
2. Distrust of Science. We read “studies” every day that are refuted by new studies the next day, week, or month. While this can be part of the scientific process (when studies are legitimate) it can create confusion and distrust of study results and “answers.”
3. Lack of Personal Context/Distrust of Intermediaries. Because GMOs can only be evaluated on a systemic rather than individual basis we are forced to rely on larger entities to make those choices, removing the individual choice that we value, particularly on something so personal as food. For various reasons, people may not have full confidence in intermediaries, including those who are pro and those who are con. People may believe they’ve been misled in the past, and that it could happen again.

If we are going to have productive dialogue about any kind of new technology, including GMOs, it has to start with a recognition that shouting about the validity of the science from the rooftops won’t get there. Rather, it should build on where people are at today in their thinking on the technology and its risks and benefits. Communications must be tailored to meet people where they stand – keeping pace with their evolving understanding of the issue.

Robert Schooling is President of Reservoir Communications Group

Gordon Butte is President of Decision Partners

Recently, in advising a client, I realized that the client had perfectly good arguments and perfectly logical communications about why what they were doing was valuable, ethical, useful, etc.; however, after talking it through we realized that the problem was that while all their arguments may be true, nobody really cared.

It’s a stunning realization for many organizations that their brand (company, organization, etc.) simply isn’t understood to be relevant by key stakeholders. “Understood to be” is really the key idea. If your brand isn’t “actually” relevant that’s a bigger problem. Many times though the problem is one of perceived relevance.

So what constitutes perceived relevance?

Relevance means that your brand speaks to needs, wants, interests, etc. that fit into the way in which your stakeholders see the world. Different brands have different tests of relevance.

Much of the work we do at Reservoir involves influential audiences and their tests for relevance are often different (though rooted in the same principles) as those of consumer audiences. For these influential audiences relevance can be thought of simply as your brand’s ability to help solve a well-understood problem, shed light on complicated issues, or advance dialogue on topics of interest.

Too many brands skip the relevance question and jump straight to persuasion, something they would rarely do on the marketing side of their business. No one advertises snow shovels in the Caribbean – they don’t address a need that is relevant. That doesn’t mean they aren’t perfectly good snow shovels that could be very well received in Boston.

GE (not a client) is a good example of a company that has embraced relevance. As an industrial giant they are no doubt highly relevant to policymakers, but they went further and embraced the environment with “ecomagination,” health care costs with “healthy imagination,” and their “GE Works” campaign speaks directly to their relevance to economic growth.

The temptation to skip over the question of relevance is often a reflection of the assumption that relevance exists. After all, your brand is valued by other constituencies and may even be immensely popular with those who use your product. However, that doesn’t guarantee relevance with all audiences.

Brands seeking to shape perception of any audience need to start by asking three very basic questions:

1. What topics are of primary concern to my audience?
2. What particular attributes does my brand possess that might be relevant to those concerns?
3. In what way can I align my expertise/resources to help address those concerns?

Most brands can find ways to be relevant, it just may require approaching the problem a little differently.