The Fine Line Between Advocacy Comms and Social Media Trolling

Trade associations are the dominant vehicles for political action by members and private sector interests; they gather and track beliefs, attitudes and policy initiatives that individual entities wouldn’t otherwise act on alone. 

While companies have ratcheted up their own individual political action – political giving, advocacy communications – in recent years, trade associations serve a fundamental purpose in establishing strength in numbers. What’s more, they dilute political risk among their members by existing as separate entities.

The construct of a trade association and its role in the special interest landscape affords it the opportunity to be more aggressive in messaging and communications. Yet many trade groups operate timidly when contrasting policy goals with groups that are unaligned or adversarial with their objectives. There is a prevailing code whereby trade groups rarely engage in direct confrontation against other trade groups; they may dance around contrasts and passively challenge policy objectives, but rarely do you see one group attacking another.

Direct contrast supported by data, facts and information in the trade association space should be a norm rather than an anomaly. Political campaigns and issue advocacy groups are already deploying these tactics, and the general public is accustomed to the tone and tenor of debate. 

Of course, civility and respect should be maintained, but circumnavigating key points of contention to purposely dilute messaging diminishes effectiveness, clarity and reach. A code of ethical behavior can be maintained in robust debate and contentious dialogue when there are interest groups on both sides of an issue.

Trade group members want an aggressive voice in Washington or in state capitols fighting on their behalf, not a timid, distant entity that recycles generic talking points. Utilizing data visualization, infographics and social media content with pointed differentiations between the arguments of other trade groups can bolster messaging, create advocacy brand loyalty within membership and lead to members sharing this content at a greater rate than your average grassroots content. 

Packaging an “attack ad” should be direct, but can still be a little more playful or lighthearted. In other words, think social media trolling. Find something that your group fundamentally disagrees with and directly challenge those points. Your primary audience is your membership, but if the information gets out to the general public or policymakers, you’re still comfortable with the merits of the information. 

Lists, fact-checks, seasonal content like “trick or treats” around Halloween or connections to the latest digital trend or a pop culture reference can keep this style of messaging from being too much of a break from your organization’s traditional tone or communications approach. 

In the age of content overload, disruptive tactics like this can keep your communications fresh and visible, but also cause your opponents to think twice about their own messaging. 

Of course, if you deploy tactics like this within your organization, be prepared to respond to a counterpunch every once in a while. But at the end of the day, communications in this arena are a contact sport. 

Rob Burgess is a veteran campaign strategist and government relations executive with extensive experience across political campaigns, public affairs, and issue advocacy. He currently serves as CEO of Connector, Inc.

Joshua Habursky is a veteran lobbyist with extensive trade association experience. He currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Premium Cigar Association and is an adjunct professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.