Picture this: You’re in a staff meeting, and a colleague serves up the great idea you expressed during an earlier brainstorm as her own. You want so desperately to raise your hand and say, “Um, excuse me? That was MY idea.”

Perhaps this is because, of all the ideas we generate during say, a [...]]]>

Picture this: You’re in a staff meeting, and a colleague serves up the great idea you expressed during an earlier brainstorm as her own. You want so desperately to raise your hand and say, “Um, excuse me? That was MY idea.”

Think of inventors. Songwriters. Visual artists. WRITERS. Don’t you wish you would have thought of Post-Its®? Wrote “Jingle Bells?” Developed the storyline for the “Twilight” series? (That would be 3M, James Lord Pierpont, and Stephenie Meyer, respectively.) The medium for idea sharing may vary, but it all comes back to the creative process. When the result of that process generates a masterpiece, creators naturally want (and deserve) credit.

On Jan. 18, several major Internet sites blacked out their content for users in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and predictions were flying that another major blackout was planned for Jan. 23. The latter blackout didn’t pan out as predicted, but the Jan. 18 blackout made people pay attention to the issue. Seems a good time to revisit what’s both appropriate and required in giving credit in PR communications.

As you draft that brochure or conceive a campaign tagline, keep in mind that Plagiarism.org lists the following as conditions for committing plagiarism:

1)      Turning in someone else’s work as your own

2)      Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit

3)      Failing to put a quotation in quotation marks

4)      Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation

5)      Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit

6)      Copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not

Similarly, citing your work — and doing so completely — is the responsibility of all communicators. If your heart is where it should be (directing readers to the original source for more information), then there’s really no excuse for sloppy citations. Dig deep, look up the exact page online, do whatever is required so that you can feel good about what you’ve contributed to the process.

Photo courtesy of acf_windy on Flickr

When we first posted about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) blackout protest scheduled for January 23, we had no idea that Wikipedia and Reddit (which had planned a January 18 blackout protest) would persuade other sites to join their effort yesterday. According to the Los Angeles Times, more [...]]]>

Photo courtesy of acf_windy on Flickr

When we first posted about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) blackout protest scheduled for January 23, we had no idea that Wikipedia and Reddit (which had planned a January 18 blackout protest) would persuade other sites to join their effort yesterday. According to the Los Angeles Times, more than 10,000 sites participated in the SOPA protest by either making their sites inaccessible, or “blacked out”, on Wednesday or posting messages to encourage visitors to contact Congress about SOPA.

It appears their bold effort worked.

By the end of Wednesday, at least three lawmakers withdrew their support for the legislation – Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) withdrew as a co-sponsor of the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and Reps. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.) withdrew from SOPA, which is the House version of the bill. A few more may be added to that list this morning.

Google reports that at least 4.5 million people signed their online anti-SOPA petition during the protest. Even the White House received nearly 104,000 signatures on a We the People petition calling for President Obama to block passage of bills like SOPA and PIPA.

It is still too early for SOPA protesters to get excited, as support remains for PIPA and SOPA in the Senate and House, respectively. However, the success of the SOPA blackout protest thus far demonstrates how understanding your audience and using what they value to make them take action can spur policy change.

Internet users are constituents, and removing their access to content or interrupting their Web routines with SOPA and PIPA protest notices compelled them to get involved in the protest in their own way. It just goes to show that reaching your audiences where they are is an effective way for communicators to raise awareness and encourage action on an issue. Plus, it doesn’t hurt your cause if you get support from an opinion leader like Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

While time will tell if signatures to online petitions and increased calls and emails to Capitol Hill on Wednesday changed the outcome of the January 24 vote in favor of SOPA and PIPA protesters, it is already evident that the reach and response to yesterday’s Internet blackout will definitely impact it.

While I may not be able to foresee  the future, my media savvy crystal ball is suggesting that Monday, January 23, 2012, will be a dark day for communicators.

If you haven’t heard the troubling news already, Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Paypal and other major Internet mainstays will be staging a “blackout” on January [...]]]>

While I may not be able to foresee  the future, my media savvy crystal ball is suggesting that Monday, January 23, 2012, will be a dark day for communicators.

If you haven’t heard the troubling news already, Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Paypal and other major Internet mainstays will be staging a “blackout” on January 23 to protest proposed federal legislation that will make them liable for lawsuits for content posted on their websites.

Congress is considering a new bill – called the Protect IP Act or Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) – which would allow companies to sue websites for posting protected content without permission and force them to go dark. For example, if I posted a video on YouTube of my friend dancing at a party with our favorite Adele song playing in the background, the record company could sue YouTube and force them to close their whole website for my infraction. There will be a hearing on Tuesday, January 24, to consider this legislation, hence the January 23 protest that could endure for a few hours or an entire day.

For communicators, the uncertainty of the blackout compels us to find and plan for alternative ways to do our online-heavy tasks on January 23. It is rare for a public relations activity to have less than one Internet-related tactic, so, word to the wise: Avoid scheduling events or releases for January 23. It is likely to be a day when our world is narrowed to those we can communicate with in traditional ways so that protesters can enlighten us about our dependence on the World Wide Web and social media.

UPDATE 1/17/12 12:15 P.M. – Wikipedia and Reddit announced that they will blackout their sites on Wednesday, January 18 to protest SOPA. Be prepared as other websites may follow suit. However, it may be unnecessary now. Due to White House pressure over the weekend, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa announced this morning (on his website, ironically) that his committee is postponing a hearing on SOPA, essentially shelving the legislation and postponing a vote on the House floor on the bill. Time will tell if communicators need to be concerned about Internet blackout protests actually occurring since the bill seems to be old news now.

UPDATE 1/18/12 9:20 A.M. – Wikipedia and Reddit kept to their threat to go dark for 24 hours today in protest of SOPA, but other big Internet sites, such as Facebook, Twitter and AOL, have declined to participate. Google is just placing copy on their homepage today asking users to contact Congress about the bill. Looks like a widespread Internet blackout as predicted earlier this week will not materialize after all. However, the potential blackout did raise a lot of  interesting questions for communicators and Internet users.

Photo Credit: MCS@flickr

How many times have those of us with children been asked, “Tell me the story about the day I was born” (or if they were adopted, “Tell me the story about the day you brought me home.”)? Children never get tired of hearing stories about themselves, because those stories help them [...]]]>

Photo Credit: MCS@flickr

How many times have those of us with children been asked, “Tell me the story about the day I was born” (or if they were adopted, “Tell me the story about the day you brought me home.”)? Children never get tired of hearing stories about themselves, because those stories help them define who they are. As a nation, we listen every year to the story the President tells us about our country in the State of the Union because it defines who we are, and who we hope to be.

The great speeches of our time are those that tell a story that unites us and that captures an emotion we all are feeling. Think about Ronald Reagan (or actually, the great speechwriter, Peggy Noonan) who captured the nation’s grief after the Challenger tragedy:

We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for the journey and waved goodbye and “slipped the surly bonds of earth” to “touch the face of God.”

Each year, I like to watch the State of the Union to see the story the President will tell. As communicators, we work to craft stories in a way that will compel and convince, and each year, it is fascinating to see how every President tells the story of the United States. We know that, whether we’re giving a speech or relaunching a brand, we need to know our audience, to control our own message, and to be prepared to defend our brand in a crisis. To accomplish all this, President Obama’s State of the Union speech needed to capture the somber mood of a nation still remembering the Tucson shooting, reframe the mid-term election which handed his party solid defeats, and convince the nation that “the state of the union is strong.” He also wanted to move the country away from “business as usual” in the ways it governed and invested. From a communicator’s perspective, how did President Obama do?

Know Your Audience
The Congressional cliques were broken up when Democrats and Republicans comingled in the audience, instead of sitting along party lines, for the State of the Union. But Congress still looked to their party leaders — embodied by Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker John Boehner sitting behind the President — for how to react to the speech. President Obama began by praising and welcoming Boehner and by mentioning the empty chair where Representative Gabrielle Giffords should be sitting. We often counsel clients giving speeches to include “shout-outs” to people so that the audience is immediately engaged. While President Obama went on to do the traditional shout-outs to people who were brought in because their stories proved a point, these first two acknowledgments were clever because every member of Congress was likely to applaud either Boehner or Giffords, if not both.

Control Your Story
You might never have known that the Democrats suffered bitter defeat at the hands of Republicans in the last election if you listened to President Obama’s speech. In his speech, the American people had voted to ensure that government ruled with strong voices from both parties, and the divisiveness was really just the “contentious and frustrating and messy” process of democracy. Obama went a step further, making the party differences seem trivial compared to the big picture:

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything’s possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

Defend Your Brand
Anyone who has fundamental policy differences with the President represents a dissenting story from the one the President wanted to tell during the State of the Union. Obama preempted much of the dissent by painting disagreement as a welcome part of the democratic process and by making the villain of the story — because every good story must have a villain — not the Republicans, but the other countries who are poised to take advantage of any competitive weakness we show:

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there yet. NASA didn’t even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.

Some criticized the President for a lackluster delivery, especially after the rousing speech he gave in Tucson.

But, from a communicator’s perspective, I think he did what he needed to do, which was to turn down the heated rhetoric. He acknowledged that he knew his audience, he reframed his “story” and he preempted some — although certainly not all — criticism from Conservatives. And how did he communicate about innovation? Interestingly, if you look only at the words that Obama used, you will see the hot-button issues he emphasized, despite the tone. “Americans,” “jobs” and “work” — all key issues. But also one other word, which has not played a large role since Johnson and Kennedy State of the Unions: “new.”

Read more.

What is a congressional caucus? Is it that piece of road kill you had to avoid when driving to work this morning? No — that’s a carcass. Some people might think that it’s the capital of Venezuela. No — that would be Caracas. If you’re thinking that it’s that town in Jersey that you’re [...]]]>

What is a congressional caucus? Is it that piece of road kill you had to avoid when driving to work this morning? No — that’s a carcass. Some people might think that it’s the capital of Venezuela. No — that would be Caracas. If you’re thinking that it’s that town in Jersey that you’re not quite sure how to pronounce, you’d be wrong again. That’s Secaucus.

So what is a congressional caucus? We’ve all heard of it before, but if you ask most people outside of Capitol Hill to define what a congressional caucus is, they likely don’t know the answer.

U.S. Capitol Building at Night 2 by Kevin Burkett, on Flickr

So let’s clear all of that up. A congressional caucus is a coalition of House of Representatives and Senate members that meet to discuss specific legislative priorities and policy issues.

Our nation’s largest caucuses belong to the two major political parties. These are the House Democratic Caucus and House Republican Conference, along with the Senate Democratic Caucus and the Senate Republican Conference. Issue-related or race- or ethnicity-related caucuses also play a large role in defining policy issues by uniting Congressional members of the same ethnicity, such as what is known as the tri-caucuses: Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Staff at Vanguard Communications had the pleasure of speaking with Joseph P. Mais, legislative assistant to Rep. Raul Grijalva, about congressional caucuses. Mais discussed their various elements and dynamics. He mentioned that due to their small size, the vast majority of caucuses do not meet. He also noted that advocacy and non-profit organizations can influence agendas for active caucuses by:

• Working with members to bring forth issues
• Working with caucus chairs or task force chairs to bring forth issues
• Highlighting connections with current issues that are of importance to Congress

These Congressionally-exclusive, closed-door caucus sessions are critical to our nation’s legislative agenda, as caucuses can influence Congressional members’ stance on our nation’s most critical issues. Caucuses allow members to discuss issues frankly with one another, to determine their positions and make sure their votes are both informed and strategic. They can also give advocates a chance for a body of legislators to champion their issue on the Hill.

All eyes in Washington were glued to a House subcommittee hearing last Friday. Members noted as the proceedings began that it was probably the most attention paid to the body by the public and the media since Bill Clinton’s impeachment. They owed it all to Comedy Central funny-man, Stephen Colbert, who was invited by [...]]]>

All eyes in Washington were glued to a House subcommittee hearing last Friday. Members noted as the proceedings began that it was probably the most attention paid to the body by the public and the media since Bill Clinton’s impeachment. They owed it all to Comedy Central funny-man, Stephen Colbert, who was invited by Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren to share his experiences with the United Farm Workers “Take Our Jobs” effort. Lofgren praised Colbert’s ability to bring public attention to an important issue as a media celebrity.

You don’t have to look much further than a Google search on “Colbert” and “Congress” to realize this wasn’t the attention Lofgren intended. Stories about Colbert dominate the coverage, while discussions of immigration and agriculture are buried, despite being the focus of the hearing. Regardless of whether you believe Colbert was in line by cracking jokes during a Congressional hearing, his testimony is a perfect reminder of some of the potential pitfalls of enlisting celebrities to support a cause.

Celebrities do have the ability to shine a light on important issues. But how that celebrity represents the issue—and how the public and media respond to the celebrity’s involvement—is key in their ability to help. If it is believed that the support is disingenuous or inappropriate, their participation can distract from your core message. It is a danger that House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers clearly recognized: He thanked Colbert for drawing attention to the hearing, and asked Colbert to withdraw himself from the proceedings before testifying. Conyers anticipated that the testimony would do the issue a disservice.

Before inviting a celebrity to represent your cause, consider the most appropriate way to engage them and a target audience. It made sense for the United Farm Workers to engage Stephen Colbert for the “Take Our Jobs” initiative. Colbert could—and did—use his show on Comedy Central to highlight the issue in his own way to an audience that loves him. Inviting him before the United States Congress, however, places him in front of an audience that doubts his sincerity and qualifications from the start. As a result, any mistake or questionable decision is amplified.

It is important to choose a celebrity that will represent your cause well and help deliver the message you intend. As Scott LaLonde recommended in his tips for celebrity recruitment a few weeks ago, providing talking points and preparation is key. Had Colbert delivered testimony that was an earnest, honest and straightforward perspective on the issue, the tone of the coverage could have been much different. It would have been a newsworthy departure from Colbert’s well-known persona.

Instead, Colbert advanced his own comedic agenda. Lofgren either didn’t anticipate that Colbert would testify in character or didn’t consider the reaction that could have resulted if he delivered a comedy routine in a Congressional hearing. Either way, the focus was on Colbert instead of on immigration and farming.

Celebrity involvement can provide a big boost to a cause. But like any other communications tool, you must consider your goal, audience and message before extending an invitation. Be sure to prepare your celebrity and make sure he or she will represent you well. Otherwise, the celebrity might be the story and leave your message behind.

The struggling economy. War on terrorism. Energy challenges. Supreme Court nominations. Midterm elections. There’s a lot on the policy plate for the White House, Congress and federal agencies. With so much happening in the District and the constantly churning political news cycle, it can be pretty difficult for policy communicators to stay up-to-date and [...]]]>

The struggling economy. War on terrorism. Energy challenges. Supreme Court nominations. Midterm elections. There’s a lot on the policy plate for the White House, Congress and federal agencies. With so much happening in the District and the constantly churning political news cycle, it can be pretty difficult for policy communicators to stay up-to-date and informed about Washington’s policy agenda.

Whether your organization’s focus is on local or state policy issues, debates and decisions occurring in Washington, D.C. have impacts on your local- and state-level policymakers’ positions back home. Monitoring the political news coming out of Washington is an essential part of crafting an effective policy communications strategy and tactics. Luckily, The Washington Post has just made keeping up with the policy moods and positions of Beltway politics a little easier.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wyntuition/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

This week, The Washington Post launched their new politics news portal, PostPolitics. In this redesigned section, politics news editors gather and organize the latest news from the White House, Congress, campaigns, polling data and the federal government in one location. As the hometown newspaper of the federal government, The Post has a long history of covering national politics, as well as breaking political news and analysis.  At PostPolitics, visitors can read the most popular political news stories, review the President’s daily agenda, explore the debates and hearings scheduled in Congress and research the backgrounds of key policy players in the current news cycle. Reporter Chris Cillizza’s The Fix column is a must read for inside tips about what Washington is talking about right now and what they will be talking about tomorrow.

Besides PostPolitics, there are several other political news websites to keep on your radar for news about policy developments in Washington:

• Politico news stories often drive the morning political news cycle and is gaining a reputation as a breaking news source.
• The Daily Beast is a newer online politics outlet, where news stories and features often illustrate the connection between the happenings in Washington and its impact on the country’s culture and dialogue.
• RealClearPolitics aggregates political news from top news outlets from across the country and groups them by leading story topics. This site gives you the big picture view about how top political stories are being discussed outside of Washington.
• The Digg politics section can provide guidance on what the public views as important political news and issues by looking at which political stories Digg readers are promoting.
• Stateline provides political news from outside the federal government and gives readers state level political news. Organized by policy area, you can explore discussions and how policies have a local impact.
• Townhall offers a conservative perspective on the political news cycle.
• Daily Kos provides its readers the more liberal take on the day’s political news.

Instead of visiting each of these news websites daily, just add their RSS feeds to your RSS news reader.   Just like tracking legislation online, this can deliver key stories, analysis and breaking news directly to you as it is published.

Staying on top of the political news cycle can help your organization use its insights to develop stronger responses to policy issues in Washington, D.C. and at home. Monitoring what national policymakers and policy news reporters are talking about will help you identify and capitalize on digital media or policy action opportunities to get your organization’s policy message and position out to the public and policymakers.

I love watching TED videos.  They always feature interesting guest speakers from different industries and professions who share innovative ideas and discuss unusual topics.  Recently, TED released a video from CD Baby founder and entrepreneur Derek Sivers‘ talk in February.  His brief lecture centered on the leadership lessons we could learn from the video [...]]]>

I love watching TED videos.  They always feature interesting guest speakers from different industries and professions who share innovative ideas and discuss unusual topics.  Recently, TED released a video from CD Baby founder and entrepreneur Derek Sivers‘ talk in February.  His brief lecture centered on the leadership lessons we could learn from the video of a random guy dancing on the lawn during a concert.  Watch his brief presentation here:

Derek’s insights got me wondering if a policy revolution could follow the same road map.  Even blogger Rohit Bhargava of Influential Marketing Blog suggests that Sivers formula is similar to the process he used to turn his Social Media Optimization concept into a revolution within the social media community.  We can use the same lessons as we design our policy change revolutions.

As Sivers highlights in his TED presentation, it’s the first follower that really starts the movement.  Until the first person joins the lone dancer, he looks inconsequential and no one takes him seriously.  Alone, observers might notice him, but then they lose interest and pay attention to something else.

Policy revolutions work the same way.  While every revolution needs a leader to sound the alarm, leading organizations need to recruit “followers” through partnerships with like-minded, diverse organizations to build effective policy change movements.  Without additional organizations rallying with you and behind your issue, policy calls to action can fall on deaf ears, eventually losing volume and credibility.  As a result, policy reform campaigns also lose impact among policymakers.

After one organization joins the leading group to create social change, it will become easier to build alliances with other organizations.  The crowd of supporters will follow, extending the size, reach and significance of a policy movement.

Earlier this month, a group of energy-concerned companies and advocacy organizations joined together to sign and submit a letter to President Obama requesting that consumer access to energy information, such as real-time electricity pricing information in their homes and business, become a national priority. The letter got the attention of and praise from Carol Browner, assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change — an unlikely result if only one of these organizations had petitioned the White House for action.

Working together, anything is possible — even for the guy or organization dancing to the beat of their own drummer.  So the lesson learned from the shirtless dancing guy?  Starting a policy change revolution is more than just demonstrating the willingness to be in front, but the commitment to find that first follower to build a coalition and start a real movement.

This month, Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham will be releasing a new version of the climate change bill. This will be the third iteration of the climate change legislation – the most reviewed version being the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA) – to enter committee review in the U.S. Senate in [...]]]>

This month, Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham will be releasing a new version of the climate change bill. This will be the third iteration of the climate change legislation – the most reviewed version being the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA) – to enter committee review in the U.S. Senate in the past six months. The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed its version of the carbon cap-and-trade bill last year – the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) – which also had several drafts before the final, approved version.

Thus, it is clear: before a climate bill reaches the President’s desk for signature, there have been multiple additions, deletions or complete rewrites of the legislation, as well as changes in policymakers’ positions and stakes on the proposed legislation.

With so many game changes and changers, how does an organization keep up? While companies like CapitolAdvantage provide software platforms to follow developments on the Hill, these options may be too pricey for non-profits. However, there are inexpensive ways to use existing Internet tools to help follow the action (or lack there of) in Congress on your target issues.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jordanconway/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Organizations may already be using Internet news alerts, such as Google Alerts or Yahoo! Alerts, to follow media coverage of  areas of interest, and utilizing RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feed readers, like Google Reader, to organize and track news alerts and updates from key outlets, blogs and Web sites. You can use these same tools to track federal and state legislation.

Creating news alerts with search terms related to a specific bill – such as the bill number, title, acronym, or even names of key legislators involved in the bill – will help organizations follow any updates about the legislation.  Registering for RSS news feeds from Congressional or state committee Web sites and key policymakers publicly connected to the bill will keep organizations informed of developments prior to resulting media reports. Ultimately, you’re using these tools to track legislation online the same way you would track a news story online.

THOMAS - the Library of Congress legislation database – is a great resource for identifying search terms to use to track a specific federal bill. There are also wiki databases maintained by non-profit government watchdog groups, like OpenCongress, which can provide similar information, but may be less authoritative and should be used with caution.

Using alerts and RSS feed readers to keep your organization abreast of  the ebbs and flows of policy issues or bills will make it easier to determine your positions, calls to action and when and how to best communicate them to key audiences.

Despite the myths, 501(c)3 organizations can lobby without losing their tax-exempt status. Visit the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest for more information about IRS lobbying rules for non-profit organizations. You’ll be surprised at how much your organization is allowed to do to impact policy.

In the meantime – while you wait for your bill updates to arrive – here’s a refresher course on how bills become laws and the role we can play, with policymakers, to make them happen.

Personally, one of my least favorite school activities as a student was report card day. While I often knew in advance what the report card would say, I was always anxious about my parents’ reaction. Knowledge may be power, but I think we can all admit that sometimes there are things we wish our [...]]]>

Personally, one of my least favorite school activities as a student was report card day. While I often knew in advance what the report card would say, I was always anxious about my parents’ reaction. Knowledge may be power, but I think we can all admit that sometimes there are things we wish our parents didn’t know about our academic achievements – or lack thereof.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/amboo213/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Like our younger selves, policymakers don’t like report cards, but the tactic can definitely get an organization noticed in the media and the public. More advocacy organizations are using report cards — or scorecards — to draw attention to the performance (i.e. voting record) of Congressional and state legislators on a variety of policy issues.

Recently Environment America — a nonprofit, nonpartisan environmental advocacy organization — issued their annual Congressional scorecard. It identified members of Congress who are “Washington’s environmental champs” – policymakers who voted for the environment 100% of the time in the past 18 months on major environmental issues. The scorecard also called out policymakers who are “natural disasters” and did not support environmental legislation and/or issues. State affiliates of Environment America also replicate this approach and release scorecards focusing on their state’s representatives, as Environment Washington did in December.

Outside of the environmental movement, other advocacy groups also use the scorecard as a tool to bring awareness to and action on their issue. For example, the Human Rights Campaign issues a Congressional Scorecard each year to show how members of Congress have voted on equality issues. The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law has an interactive Web site dedicated to their annual scorecards on how Representatives and Senators voted  on anti-poverty legislation. The Web site even allows visitors to compare legislators’ grades.

Federal and state policymakers don’t like their voting records publicized and publicly evaluated. Their constituents (policymakers’ “parents” in this metaphor) are often unaware of the voting behavior and legislative actions of their representatives, and a scorecard can provide them a new, easy to understand viewpoint to evaluate their representative’s performance.

Issuing scorecards can also open doors for organizations looking to build relationships and alliances with key policymakers. Media coverage resulting from a scorecard release draws attention from Capitol Hill and state legislative staffers to your organization and may inspire — or force in an election year like this one — legislators to change their viewpoint and voting record on an issue.  In addition, scorecards provide valuable, concise information and data to reporters covering that policy issue and will help position your organization as an expert and resource for future insights.

In spite of the discomfort it causes lawmakers, the scorecard/report card approach is an effective tool in the policy communications arsenal to expand an organization’s message exposure. Hopefully, it will reinforce supportive policymakers to continue championing the issue or pressure failing legislators to improve their grade and make the honor roll on their next report card.