First up, we talk to Barry Lynham, who left FH in 2003 and went on to run an art gallery before joining Knauf insulation as Head of Public Affairs for Europe. In this podcast, he enthusiastically tells us how in-house and agency differ, how PA has become a more complex discipline over the years, and how the PA model needs to move on from Brussels-centricity to be truly effective.

Click here to listen to this edition of the podcast.*

Click here to subscribe to the FH Europe podcast on iTunes.

* If using Internet Explorer, you may have to right-click on the link and save target as, then play the saved file by double clicking it.

Steffen

However, last week an event – or non-event – occurred that probably serve to underscore the need for advocates (grassroots or otherwise).  The outcome of that committees deliberations put all stakeholders on notice.  First, the importance of having in place no the tools for e-advocacy takes on new urgency:  Second, those tools must be highly developed – you can’t build them when you need them:  Third, you have to do more than check of the box, you need to have in place a strategy behind their use.

When the so-called “Super-Committee” in Congress failed to reach an agreement on an approach to cutting the federal budget, as everyone knows there is provision in the law to mandate cuts of $1.2 trillion.  A big chunk of that has been well publicized as occurring in the military, but a large portion of the domestic spending will involve healthcare.

Healthcare advocacy is often involved in issues associated with the rights of their affected constituencies, but is also heavily invested in advocating for more money for research and support.  In normal funding cycles, the advocacy effort has to be strong and well-organized. But with the failure of the members of the Congressional “Super-Committee” to reach a plan, the environment for advocacy in general, and for healthcare advocacy in particular, will likely go into overdrive.

In today’s rapidly changing communications world, much of that overdrive effort in advocacy will be through e-advocacy.  Expressing opinion through blog platforms that have respectable followings that can, in turn, carry that message via twitter and mobilize large grassroots efforts aimed at achieving policy goals.

Certainly in this new and rapidly developing environment, those who have built their e-advocacy capacity and developed it will bring more immediacy and relevance to their efforts than those who have not.  The FDA, its allies, healthcare providers, researchers, – all sectors of healthcare have to assess their capacity today and assess where it needs to be.  And that is true not only of healthcare stakeholders individually as well as the industry sector, which will have to compete in this new environment with other sectors for a rapidly shrinking pool of resources.

Dan Baxter

My colleague Dan Baxter, who toils away in Brussels for Fleishman Hillard, agreed to a quick interview on the issues confronting the delegates at the Climate Conference in Durban.  Typically pithy and insightful.

Q: How will Durban be different from previous UN Climate Change Summits?

Baxter: After Copenhagen, the world’s political elite really backed away from the COP summits – it seems they felt they had over-promised, or at least failed to manage expectations – and since that time, there has been little appetite for bold political statements in this area. COP conferences have now been handed back to the ‘environmental elite’ – and as such, this conference is likely to be as technical as it is political.

It is also special timing vis-à-vis the end of the Kyoto Protocol, which in effect ends in 2012. There will be quite a lot of talk in Durban about what, if anything, replaces it; while it is generally viewed as an outdated tool for managing global climate change, there seems to be little consensus about how to update and replace it. So this will undoubtedly be a focus, and that will, I suspect, only add to the political nature of the talks.

Q: What are the two greatest obstacles to progress in addressing climate change?

Baxter: I would say that the first obstacle, broadly, is ideological agreement. Put crudely, there are many different versions of climate change – whether it exists, what its impacts are/will be, and the extent to which it is controllable – and history has shown that it is very difficult to get international agreement in the absence of a common definition of the problem. Added to that, the ‘who pays for what’ card, which pits developed against developing countries and climate change ‘winners’ against those who will bear the harshest effects, is something that may need to be resolved before we can move on.

Secondly, I have always said that the key to global climate negotiations is a deal between the US and China. The two biggest polluters in the world need to agree politically that this is a problem and that they need to take steps to address it. Without these two countries, no initiative will have credibility, regardless of its intentions. But it is far from clear to me that either country has the ambition or political will to come to such an agreement. At least we’ll know quite soon…

Two and a half years ago, the FDA stated that “it was not the medium, it was the message” to sum up its approach to regulating the use of social media in healthcare.  While tidy, that approach did not take into account the many nuanced aspects and open questions wrought by social media that are not present when it comes to print and broadcast regulation.

Social media has fundamentally changed communications – so much so that when speaking of communications, we are talking about an entirely different animal than we were just five years ago.  The Pew Internet & American Life Project has provided a framework of characteristics that are the hallmarks of this new communications era – today communications must be personal, it must be portable and it must be participatory.  The days of being broadcast at and talked to have yielded to days when the masses prefer to get the news they want, in the form they want it, from sources they trust, when they want it and to be able to comment on it and pass it along.  Anyone not communicating without taking that into account is operating from a time warp that was five years ago.

Also thanks to observers of the internet such as Pew, we also know that healthcare is one of the primary reasons people use the Web.  Some internet sources are third party generated content that talk about medical treatments.  Most of it is accurate, some of it is not.  But a medical product manufacturer who might be aware of such mistaken content has not guidance as to whether or not they can or should correct such content.

In short, the lack of guidance from the FDA on social media doesn’t just affect the marketing and education by medical product manufacturers but rather, has the potential to cause harm when patients or caregivers rely on third party generated material such as a Wiki, that might be incorrect.  It’s not about marketing, it’s about public health.

FDA has struggled for years in attempting to regulate aspects of the Internet, having held its first public meeting in 1996 on the topic, yet not producing any guidance.  In late 2009 the agency again held such a meeting with public assurances that production of a guidance was a priority and that the agency was aiming to produce a draft by the end of 2010.

When that deadline was missed, it was slated to come out by the end of the first quarter. When that deadline was missed, the agency produced a bland statement that has become its stock response that only offers an open-ended commitment and restatement that the issue is a “priority”. Lacking is any insight as to the internal process by which such guidance is being developed nor understanding of what the roadblocks have been to timely completion.

Also in 2009, the FDA launched a new and heightened effort at transparency and there has been some success in broadening the concept, though in this case, it has been selectively applied.  There is no good reason why we should not have greater transparency in the development of guidances, particularly in cases such as this where the product has been delayed for unknown reasons.  And as called for here in the past, the agency should streamline its process and get the support of outside experts through an advisory process that would help it anticipate and understand how the changes in communication affect the consumption of healthcare information by patients and caregivers.

Which brings us to the final concern: America appears to be sleep-walking into an impoverished debate. Next year is gearing up to be a tussle over who will bear more of the fiscal burden in the era of austerity. Should the rich pay higher taxes? Or should the middle class accept deeper spending cuts? The stage is set for two bald men to fight over a comb. Consider this: 2012 could be the first presidential contest in a century that does not produce the most powerful figure in the world. Whether it would qualify as good or hard, America needs a much richer debate than the one that appears to be in store.

Nick Andrews

My Fleishman Hillard colleague in Brussels, Nick Andrews, has a nice rumination on the desire for many companies to be left alone.  He notes that companies in the throws of some public affairs crisis pine for the indifference of government for what they do.  He brilliantly describes the mindset:

Broadly, this depends on a line of argument which goes something like this. “We’re really important to the (normally global) economy. You don’t really understand what we do because you’re not technical like us. We’re quite capable of self-regulating. We’re really very responsible (no, really). Best to leave us alone.” Whilst I totally understand the attraction of this approach, I have one small issue with it. I’ve never seen it work. Ever.

I am very familiar with this attitude and I agree with Nick that it is utterly self-defeating.  But I do think he underestimates the path from this attitude to ultimate success in the way a company conducts its public affairs program.

The challenge is always to look beyond the immediate crisis, to the positioning opportunity. A positive, solution-oriented, industry-leading point of view, stated passionately, widely and consistently, can only stand organisations in good stead. It puts their opponents on the back foot and shapes the debate. It raises morale internally and galvanizes the sector. After all, they might as well. The one thing we can say with certainty is that they won’t be left alone.

As usual, Nick’s guidance is spot on and companies would be wise to take it.  But I’m reminded of the scene from beginning of Peter Pan when Peter is trying to help the children to fly.  As long as they were simply following Peter’s instructions, they were unsuccessful.  It was only when the “truly believed” that they were lifted off the ground.

So it is with a successful corporate public affairs program.  If it is done because it is something “you have to do” to keep the government at bay or even if it is done because Nick Andrews said so, it will fail in the end.  It is only when a company appreciates the fact that, in the current policy and political environment, companies have responsibilities greater than to provide jobs for their employees, ROI for investors or even good value for customers.  In fact, the broader public now holds companies accountable for larger social goals, like sustainability or humane treatment of their stakeholders, very broadly defined.  It is only when companies embrace these values will they achieve their proper role in society.   Like it or not, corporate leaders are put in the same pot as government leaders.  The general public believes all such elites have failed them in their obsessive search for power or money.  The burden falls on all societal leaders to demonstrate their commitment to the greater good.

And, if they do it right, they might even, in the end, be left alone by government.  Thank so?

Nah!

Financial Times, 1:27pm Thursday November 24th, 2011
Germany is the real winner in a transfer union
–
By Sebastian Mallaby
–
Ireland and Spain suffered property and banking busts at least partly because monetary policy was too German, writes Sebastian Mallaby.

Unfortunately, we’re heading into an election year and its deja vu all over again.  Whoever is out criticizes whoever is in as being soft of China.  It’s happened in every election since the ’90s, irrespective of parties.  Unsurprisingly, Mitt Romney is the worst panderer this time around, bashing Obama over China policy.

I have actually come to admire China in a number of ways, though I think their oppressive policies toward expression is abominable and, frankly, self-defeating. 

But here’s what passes for support for China in the current debate. William Reinsch, a real thought leader in foreign trade, had this to say in a recent Politico article:

“The unsuccessful policy is to try to hold these guys back,” said William Reinsch, chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. “If we don’t sell it or they can’t steal it from us, they’ll get it from someone else.”

In many cases it’s all tremendously unfair, and certainly they think so, but as we know this is not really the point. They are, as the saying goes, being tried in the court of public opinion and are generally looking at a pretty stiff sentence.

What always surprises me is the continued desire by companies or organizations to adopt what  might best be described as the “leave us alone” strategy. Broadly, this depends on a line of argument which goes something like this. “We’re really important to the (normally global) economy. You don’t really understand what we do because you’re not technical like us. We’re quite capable of self-regulating. We’re really very responsible (no, really). Best to leave us alone.” Whilst I totally understand the attraction of this approach, I have one small issue with it. I’ve never seen it work. Ever.

Sometimes, one has to bow to the inevitable and even to see the opportunity in said bowing. Do we have a vision for a different and better world? Do we have a solution which everyone can embrace, or at least a suggestion of one? So many companies want to be thought leaders and this can be very hard to do (not least because you need leading thoughts). But in sectors under attack, genuine leadership is often difficult to find as everyone runs for cover, and people are genuinely interested in informed opinion. This is powerful stuff for the company prepared to stick its neck out.

The challenge is always to look beyond the immediate crisis, to the positioning opportunity. A positive, solution-oriented, industry-leading point of view, stated passionately, widely and consistently, can only stand organisations in good stead. It puts their opponents on the back foot and shapes the debate. It raises morale internally and galvanizes the sector. After all, they might as well. The one thing we can say with certainty is that they won’t be left alone.

Nick Andrews

Taking both of these events into account, now seems like a great time to expose the true thoughts of an overly keen intern entering the manic world of public affairs. In the hope that I still have an internship after this, here goes…

The day before I arrived in Brussels two distant months ago, I left bewildered and highly confused friends behind asking the same questions that they have always asked me; something along the lines of ‘What is wrong with you’?  They justify this accusation, this time at least, with three core reasons: I am coming to Brussels to undertake a full time job in public affairs. Although I’m 100% sure that most of them don’t know what public affairs (or the EU for that matter) is. As they packed their sombreros, beach towels and a bottle of ‘England’s finest Spanish Sangria’ (I mean really?) for a year of Erasmus in Valencia, I packed my suits, a pair of high heels (or two) and a pink pencil case. I got on a plane that morning, the small business jet type where you are surrounded by highly important looking people and therefore try not to even breathe too loudly, and not once have I looked back.

So the question is, how do I explain to my sun soaking friends on a beach in Valencia just how fantastic this decision was, and that actually, my judgment of the ‘year abroad’ in my opinion, was without a doubt the best. This is where my 21^st Birthday would fall into my explanation; I genuinely felt that there was nowhere else I’d rather be on this day than doing a job that I’ve fallen in love with and working in a truly unique office that I feel privileged to be a part of.

So how has this happened so quickly?

Yes, I have a very small tendency to be over enthusiastic about everything but my diagnosis of this situation is, I believe, justified.

Something that a job advertisement could never tell you about is the truly exceptional atmosphere of the office. I am surrounded by people who are clearly experts and completely dedicated to what they do yet this is magnificently combined with good humour and a great spirit and this hits you as soon as you walk through the office door. Additionally, I am fortunate enough to work amongst an impressive range of nationalities which I am informed is particularly unique to the Brussels office. It would be hard not to enjoy working in this office.

In the past two months I have learnt more than I ever did in my past two years at University. I have been involved in organizing and attending events (Christmas party included), I’ve discovered that things such as ‘logistics’ are actually relatively interesting topics and I’ve even had the opportunity to visit the Paris Office for a day. I now tweet about everything (within reason) and I am genuinely committed to Renovating Europe and the 3% pledge. I am even going to have a go at being on the FH football team. The pace is fast and every day is different and it actually keeps me occupied; being someone with an uncontrollable amount of energy, this has always been a particularly difficult task.

So all in all, I would recommend this internship at Fleishman to anyone that would ask me about it. I would probably tell them that yes the job is hard work and yes sometimes it can get a little difficult, but I would also tell them that it is beyond rewarding and that this opportunity is absolutely incomparable. The job is exciting, the people are fabulous, there is an office band, the coffee machine isn’t half bad, there always seems to be cake in the kitchen and for me, it is a great position to be in when you really care about what you do.

I had a 21^st Birthday that I will never forget and my fingers are crossed that I enjoy the next eight months just as much as I have enjoyed the previous two. Perhaps I’ll write a sum up article at the end of my internship year in June and compare the two…!

Emma Cracknell