The shareholder confidence vote regarding JPMorgan Chase (JPMC) Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon shows how advocacy is evolving from the campaign trail to the corporate boardroom.  Critical elements of issue management, messaging, and emerging media are no longer confined to the political marketplace—they are now commonly-used tools throughout a broad range of industries.

Many of those in the political world are apt to make comparisons between what is described as a tightening corporate management bout and the bloody partisan battles typically found in the world of campaigns and elections.  The tone, tactics, and communication strategy employed by players on both sides of the Dimon debacle seem torn from the pages of Political Campaigns 101.

But, it’s much bigger than that.  Advocacy, and the tactics that define it, is coming of age.  What’s unfolding on Wall Street is much more than what Bloomberg’s Jeffrey Hayzlett calls “schoolyard politics” when describing the tense showdown between Dimon supporters and detractors.  Wall Street investor votes are among the most secretive elections in the global marketplace.  Yet, the Dimon vote now looms large beyond shareholder newsletters and insider market publications, plastered in a number of mainstream headlines.  Advocacy has a lot to do with that.

Why?  Much of the public saber rattling is precipitated in large part by the very public face of Dimon himself, the one-man rapid response team to citizen rage over the banking industry’s role in the financial crisis.  But, it is largely by design, as advocacy shapes the sparring over whether or not to strip Dimon of his Chairman’s title.  Fundamental elements of campaign tactics come into focus: from coalition development to the creation “third-party” supporters; from talking points to populist messaging; from media blitzes and hard pitching to strategically placed announcements and forums.

T. Rowe Price, JPMC’s sixth largest shareholder, announced its support of Dimon only days ahead of the Tampa, Florida, annual meeting in a way reminiscent of a pre-Election Day candidate endorsement.  Dimon himself is reportedly stumping along the shareholder trail, recently holding his own internal “town hall” to rally the troops around carefully crafted messaging about his tenure.  Meanwhile, opposition parties in the form of institutional stalwarts like Glass Lewis & Co., the New York State Retirement Fund, and the California Public Employees Retirement System are busily whipping votes in anxious anticipation of a showdown in Cigar City.

The mechanics of the match are unfolding in ways strikingly similar to our political process.  The Dimon vote is no different from fiery primaries or party convention delegates wrangling over nominees and their running mates.  While the late House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s famous “all politics is local” maxim comes to mind, novelist Thomas Mann may have said it best: “everything is politics.”  In reality, that’s advocacy at work.

In an era of sequestration, partisan bickering, and Washington gridlock, Michael Shue finds quite a few reasons to be optimistic.

“There is some level of return to normal order here in Washington,” says Shue, DDC Advocacy’s Senior Vice President of Campaign Services.  “It gives us an opportunity in the campaigns and association space to leverage our constituencies back home in order to get our jobs done more effectively.”

Shue’s assessment of the climate in Capitol City served as opening remarks for an event hosted by CEO Update and DDC Advocacy on May 8.  Dubbed “Advocacy in a Time of Gridlock,” the event assembled a panel of veteran association lobbyists and experts who offered their take on where advocacy is headed, especially as the government relations field experiences dramatic shifts.

As the opening speaker, Shue set the tone by providing a broad overview of the advocacy universe and outlining “key principles” that are the foundation of any campaign effort.  With Washington in flux—and many pundits and commentators lamenting the state of politics today—Shue argued that there are now multiple opportunities for organizations.

“Members of Congress are now telling us what they need—in order for us to do what we need to get our legislation or issues in front of them,” observed Shue.

The key to effective issue advocacy in the age of gridlock is in grassroots, said Shue, who referenced recent debates in Congress over gun control and immigration as examples.  In each instance, longtime Capitol Hill watchers and seasoned lawmakers commented that policymaking in Washington ultimately hinges on what they hear or see from their constituents back home.

“We really can’t rely only on inside-the-Beltway strategies to educate and ensure lawmakers do what’s in our best interests,” Shue argued.  “What we can do here in D.C. is leverage our resources back in the district.”

The CEO Update panel following Shue’s remarks consisted of lobbyists and former congressional aides with years of expertise in the political arena: Ivan Adler of the McCormick Group; Scott DeFife of the National Restaurant Association; and Scott Talbott of the Financial Services Roundtable.

There is considerable talk about the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” Senate proposal on immigration reform.  On surface, it’s fairly cut and dried: over 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. may find themselves with a “pathway to citizenship”—with the condition that security on the border with Mexico is significantly enhanced.

Closer examination reveals a more complex pathway, which provides political cover for both sides.  In order to attain citizenship, undocumented individuals will be put on a 13-year track of so-called “triggers,” entailing legal status registration, background checks, English immersion, taxes, and a series of fines.

Advocates for immigrants suggest these measures will discourage participation.  Business lobbyists are wary of more bureaucracy, including concerns over the implementation of E-Verify for migrant agricultural workers and provisions allowing the filing of excessive workplace complaints as an anti-deportation technique.

In these triggers, however, observers are finding three critical calculi at work: politics, policy, and geo-politics.

Politics

Legislators—particularly Republicans—need the appearance of a rigid “pathway” as cover against accusations of acquiescence from conservatives. The electoral stakes are high as GOP “Gang of Eight” Senators spread across the airwaves to sell the legislation.  Messaging is critical, since the GOP will need an energized base in 2014 to keep their House majority and win the Senate.

Congress as a whole must appear to be making it as difficult as possible to obtain citizenship, particularly given the economic climate.  The onus is on Democrats—who are hoping to retake the House majority and retain the Senate in 2014—just as much as it is on Republicans.   As with gun control, some Democrats, particularly from purple and red states, need to tread lightly through the immigration minefield.

Policy

Everyone is worried about security, especially in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings.  Imposing tight restrictions is a way of managing entry into the world’s largest economy without compromising security.  But, this is also about the flow of intellectual property and ensuring many highly-educated immigrants stay in the United States.

Geo-politics

The bill is also very much about the U.S. relationship with Mexico.  The White House and Congress are wondering: How do you force our neighbor to the south to also make immigration reform and border security a priority?  In addition, how do you do that in such a way that does not negatively impact the $500 billion in growing bi-lateral trade between the two countries?

The triggers are perceived by some as a negotiating tactic to force Mexico to the table on these issues.  Mexico has a lot at stake in this debate, too.  Their economy relies heavily on billions in U.S. dollars being sent back home to families, not to mention its trade with the U.S. The U.S. economy also benefits from strengthened trade and business ties, as well. In addition, how immigration reform is shaped could determine the outcome of Mexico’s “narco wars” and its relationship with the U.S. for decades to come.

We are saddened by the news out of Boston that at least two explosions occurred near the finish line of the Boston Marathon Monday afternoon.  In times like these, people turn to their social networks—especially Twitter—for information, assurances, and resources.  Those of us not near the scene of the incident especially want to know what’s going on and how to be helpful.

Below are the three most important ways—from afar—to use Twitter during a crisis or emergency.

1) Listen First – In a crisis, things happen quickly.  But it pays off to pause for just a few minutes to set up your own “listening platform.”  Whether you’re an active Twitter user or not, it’s worth creating or updating a quick Twitter list so that you can keep track of whose Twitter feeds you want to be paying especially close attention to.  This list could have as few as 10 Twitter handles on it, but choose wisely.  The point is to have a single list where you can read unfiltered information without being overwhelmed.  Depending on the type of crisis it is, government accounts and emergency services should be included—some examples include @CDCEmergency, @RedCross, @FEMA, and @NOAA. You may also want to include your favorite news anchors or handles, such as @CNNBrk or @NBCNews.

2. Share the Right Information – During a crisis, both good and bad information spread quickly.  Be sure you are on the right side of the information-sharing.  Stick to validated news reports, government officials, or respected organizations.  Be careful about jumping to conclusions or rushing to offer aid without getting the facts first. For example, during a tragedy like the one Boston experienced on Monday, the tendency is to immediately RT users calling for blood donations to the Red Cross nearest the scene.  However, a quick glance at the official Red Cross Twitter account (@RedCross) would tell any well-meaning supporters that blood isn’t needed (in Massachusetts anyway).

Everybody wants to be helpful during and after a crisis, but you may inadvertently send people to the wrong places, which can overwhelm services and end up causing more harm than good.  Additionally, be on the lookout for anything that looks suspicious.  An example here is the @_BostonMarathon Twitter account, which was set up Monday morning (first flag) and immediately Tweeted out requests for RTs, which it promised would lead to donations.

It should be noted that Twitter shut down the account shortly after it was created.  Remember to be especially wary of unverified Twitter accounts that ask you for money.

3) Contribute to the Conversation – Taking information in and sending it back out to a wider audience is helpful for sure, but if you’re not at the scene, you may have something even better to offer.  With the luxury of both time and Internet access, see if you can’t curate content or compile lists of resources.  For example, did you just create a Twitter list of the people/accounts with the most up-to-date and accurate information about a local crisis?  Make it public and tweet about it so others can follow it as well.  Maybe gather content you see on the Web so that it’s easily accessible to journalists or others, the way @RebelMouse did in this Storify recap of the tragedy.  Maybe tweet to your followers to let you know if they have supplies or housing they can offer, and you’ll collect the information in a Google doc to crowd source with friends.

The most important thing to remember about tweeting from afar is to be helpful and to be truthful.  Twitter is known for its facilitation of information and conversation between not just friends, but strangers as well.  In times like these—times of insecurity and fear, chaos and doubt—we shouldn’t hesitate to use every tool and every resource at our disposal to aid one another.

It all begins with waking up in the morning and moving forward.  Commit to do it, make a plan, and execute.  Sounds pretty simplistic in describing the preparation and training to compete in one of the most challenging endurance events, but really it’s not.

As an avid distance runner, I struggled with overuse injuries and found myself cross-training to balance out the pounding of my beloved running.  I started to swim and bike.  A friend lent me a wetsuit and road bike.  And so I began triathlons.  In the back of my mind, I knew I wanted to do an Ironman even though it scared me.  I wanted a big challenge.  After a year of shorter distance races, I signed up for an Ironman, got a coach, and trained for nine months.  Race day brought a bundle of nerves.  I pulled myself together and swam, biked, and ran with 1500 other athletes of all shapes and sizes.

We were all there to finish 140.6!

Challenges: Often you never know what is going on with the other athletes competing.  Injured? Having a bad day? Sometimes it is obvious, such as a taped knee or hobbled run.  Sometimes there are athletes who compete with guides or in wheelchairs.  However, I have a blind friend who has raced Ironman and never once heard her talk about blindness as a challenge.  She shares the same race stories discussing nutrition and splits.  Everyone is racing on the same course, just moving forward to the finish; breaking it down in strokes and steps.  We share the mission of completing a goal that seemed impossible at one time.

Sometimes a campaign is similar to taking on a seemingly impossible goal.  Just commit to do it, make a plan, and execute.

If you don’t already know what a meme is, check out some of the articles linked at the end of this post.  For our purposes, “meme” specifically refers to those images that circulate around Facebook.  You know the ones: Angry Cat, Success Boy, the many, many variants on Churchill’s “Keep Calm and Carry On” slogan.  Who hasn’t seen at least one version of the “What they think I do…What I really do” meme?

Think of them as billboards for your Facebook page.  There’s a meme for just about everything you can think of.  Many are snarky.  Some are inspirational or educational.  Some are just, well, strange or terrible.

Memes weren’t born on Facebook and they don’t live solely in social media, but they have become a powerful tool for driving virality on the world’s largest social network.  Love them or hate them, if you’re an advocacy professional trying to garner a social media following, memes are your friend…or at least your frenemy.

Successful memes work because they hit the sweet spot for social media—they are visual, memorable, communicate a lot in a very small package, evoke a strong, often visceral response, and are highly shareable.  They connect with people on multiple levels and provide a common experience—from laughter to anger to inspiration—for people in a medium that is, after all, about social interaction.

We all know that social media has tremendous power, but tapping into that power can be challenging simply because there is so much competition.  That’s another reason you should be using memes if you are running advocacy campaigns on Facebook: they can help you cut through noise and clutter in reaching your target audience.  They force you to distill your message down to its simplest form or its most powerful hook.  They require you to focus on the “elevator pitch” version of your issue that too often gets lost in more prose-driven communication mediums.

From an advocacy perspective, memes are also a valuable engagement tool, a great low-level advocacy action.  They can help motivate people who otherwise simply watch the conversation to do something—share.  It’s a simple gateway action that can lead to other actions if you cultivate your audience correctly.  As a bonus, memes increase the visibility of your issue and help condition the environment in which debate is taking place.

How can you use memes effectively for your advocacy program?  Be funny.  Be factual.  Be edgy.  Marry statistics to images that move people.  Use animation.  Simplify a complicated process or relationship into just a few frames.  Get back to the essentials of your message and shed the extraneous details that can get between you and your audience when you are trying to connect them to your issue.  Most of all, make sure your memes speak to what matters to your audience, because when someone sees a meme and laughs, or thinks, “Yes!,” or is moved—that’s when they click “share.”

Meme Articles:

BlueGlass Meme Marketing
10 Popular Memes Masquerading as Marketing Campaigns
7 Things Marketers Should Know About Memes

In their recent whitepaper, McKinsey & Company was spot-on in their assessment of social media intelligence and the way that intelligence is changing the process by which companies gather information and make decisions.  Here’s why:

Social media intelligence is knowledge obtained through quantitative and qualitative insights derived from monitoring content consumption and user behavior on social media channels.  When applied to campaigns, social media intelligence becomes a valuable information source, guiding decision making and strategic insight via real audience data.

From predicting stock prices to modeling voter and consumer patterns, mining social intelligence provides actionable insights into trends in how people think and behave in relation to companies, brands, products, issues, and specific subject matter.  Like a living, breathing focus group, social intelligence gathering captures overall public sentiment, trending discussion topics, qualitative insights, and valuable information shared by people with expert knowledge who have the ability to influence others.

By distilling these insights and placing them into the hands of the people in leadership roles who need them, companies will develop strategies that make them more connected and relevant with their consumers in a global capacity.  As social intelligence gathering techniques become more advanced, so will the ability for companies to leverage digital intelligence to inform competitive strategies.

In the fast-paced public affairs space, using social media intelligence allows for greater speed, proficiency, and precision in strategic planning and ultimately decision making.  Using key insights to inform messaging strategies, pinpoint alpha users, and gauge overall sentiment and favorability can provide a strong campaign foundation if applied well.  Moreover, applying research as the basis for any public affairs or advocacy campaign ensures greater message receptivity, efficiency in media placement, and overall campaign effectiveness.

Last Tuesday, President Obama delivered a State of the Union address that clearly sought to provide details and context to the inaugural speech he delivered just a few weeks ago. The address contained neither the move to the center of his 2011 version after historic Republican midterm gains, nor the message tested, voter appealing rhetoric we saw in 2012 as the president geared up to run for his second term. It was clearly center-left, unrestrained, and concisely laid out the aggressive policy agenda that the administration intends to pursue. It was exactly the type of address one would expect from a president who had just convincingly won a second term.

There was a clear focus on technology and entrepreneurship in the address, with the president speaking at length and citing numerous examples of how he intends to invest in not just skills and training through education, but also clean energy technology in the form of wind and solar. He talked of incubating technology hubs specifically focused on manufacturing, and went on to cite the promise of 3D printing companies in revolutionizing that industry. He also gave kudos to Siemens, Apple, Caterpillar and Ford for seeking to bring jobs back from overseas, and challenged Congress to seek a policy platform that insures “the next revolution in manufacturing is Made in America”.

After a campaign cycle spent repeatedly pitting Wall Street against Main Street and attacking Mitt Romney as an out of touch billionaire who made his fortune in private equity, the president eschewed the opportunity to continue to vilify the investment banking industry. There was no mention of taxes on carried interest or Wall Street’s high-priced executive pay structures. And this may ultimately be a precursor to where the president will seek to find allies in a tax reform battle.

The president also continued to speak at length about elevating the middle class. Families with young children will note the introduction of a policy shift expanding public education to include a year of pre-school. With working parents stretching incomes and billions of dollars devoted to day care and private pre-schools, allowing children to enter the public school system at four years old would serve to not only jump start their education, but also alleviate the financial burden on many working families. This move, coupled with a focus on easing the restrictions on first time home buyers, served to reinforce an agenda firmly focused on benefiting middle class families.

The president made yet another appeal for stricter gun laws, calling for background checks and the regulation of high-capacity magazines. What can ultimately pass through Congress remains to be seen, but clearly the president is willing to expend at least some political capital on this issue, inviting those who oppose him to record their “no” vote. The other hot button issue of the last few months has been immigration reform. Wisely, and unlike with health care reform, the president didn’t put a timeline on getting a bill through Congress. What he did do was challenge Congress to put a comprehensive immigration reform bill on his desk sometime “in the next few months.” There are serious long-term political implications for both sides here, and the president clearly wants to lead on this issue.

Managed care providers and pharmaceutical companies undoubtedly took notice of the president’s continued interest in modifying growing healthcare costs through reforming reimbursement practices for treatments, tests and hospital stays, as well as revisiting the way Medicare Part D is administered (potentially even implementing means testing for wealthier seniors.) All were framed as vehicles to reduce government spending.

Also included was a desire to increase exploration for oil and natural gas, even going so far as to say that the administration would expedite the issuing of new oil and gas permits. Wind energy also figured into the speech, and the dwindling cost of providing solar energy was highlighted as well. Just three short months ago the president referenced clean coal technology in numerous campaign stops throughout Ohio and Pennsylvania. On Tuesday night coal was conspicuously absent from his energy remarks. Also absent from the president’s speech was any mention of nuclear or biofuel as energy sources of the future. Both industries had previously been highlighted by President Obama in subsequent State of the Union addresses.

While the president spoke broadly about the necessity for comprehensive tax reform, pointing to simplifying the tax code that governs small business, he also put forth a proposal to increase the minimum wage. Unfortunately, many small businesses rely on both full and part-time hourly minimum wage employees to keep their business running. And though this proposal would adversely impact big box retailers and fast food restaurants to name a few, many small businesses are already citing the negative impact of the Affordable Care Act on their companies and can’t help but see this as another attack.

Starting with the call on Republicans to work together and avoid sequestration, it was clear that the president is playing offense. While the address itself was tempered, the underlying message was clear-the president will look to paint Republicans as obstructionists and call on them to answer for sequestration cuts as well as the failure to produce any real action on immigration, tax reform or gun control. Historically, two-term presidents watch their political capital dwindle less than two years into their second term. At present, the administration seems firmly in control of the media narrative and the fact that President Obama intends to use his bully pulpit was on full display during Tuesday night’s address.

Long time observers agree that Virginia’s gubernatorial contest will be one of the hottest races to watch.  The race will surely dominate the political news cycle in the weeks running up to November 5.  Analysts, pundits, bloggers, and social media influencers will watch returns that night to read the tea leaves for 2014 and 2016.

We now have a clear picture of the contenders for this one-term-limited seat.  On the Republican side stands Attorney General Ken Cucinelli; former Democratic National Committee Chair and longtime Clinton confidante, Terry McAuliffe, will oppose him.  Adding a peculiar dynamic to it all is Lt. Governor Bill Bolling, a Republican who is considering an independent bid.

Classic partisan, ideological, and geographic divides are what make this race compelling.  Winning will boil down to several key factors:

• Who dominates the ground game and/or media markets?
• Who energizes their base the most?
• Who raises the most cash?

These candidates could serve as early barometers of GOP and Democratic messaging over the next several years.  For this reason, each should receive sizable financial and strategic support from the parties, setting up a perfect proxy war for 2014 and 2016.

The sudden entrance of Bolling concerns both Democratic and Republican strategists.  His campaign could siphon voters from either side and create an unpredictable electoral map.

Averaging several recent statewide polls show Bolling performing at 12 percent compared to 30 percent for McAuliffe and 29.5 percent for Cucinelli—a virtual tie between the two major-party nominees.  Without Bolling in the race, both McAuliffe and Cucinelli tie at 35.8 percent.

Democrats will worry about turnout, as their base is typically not energized during off-year elections.  Republicans will enjoy greater enthusiasm from their base and the added value of a nominee who has become a fixture in statewide politics and created a national reputation for himself.  Because of that, Cucinelli finds himself with a stronger field advantage—a natural grassroots canvasser against the party- boss management style of McAuliffe.  Conservatives will happily provide financial and field support for Cucinelli.  Democrats, lacking in base enthusiasm, will predictably deploy political celebrities such as President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Geography, however, could ultimately decide the race.  It will boil down to the very urban Northern Virginia and the very rural Southern Virginia.  McAuliffe will dominate the former while Cucinelli is certain to dominate the latter.  The battle lines are already being drawn in this year’s noticeably caustic state legislative session.

I’ll never forget my first strategy meeting in my first job in Washington.  Someone said, “We’ll need an action alert.”  I thought, “A what?”

Advocacy has its own vernacular; no news there.  Speaking in shorthand can save time, but we get comfortable with what we’ve always done.  There’s more noise on Capitol Hill—and everywhere—than ever.  You have to be creative to cut through that noise.  So here are five advocacy “keywords” you may want to rethink in 2013 to find new and better ways to achieve your goals.

1.  Action Alert.  If mobilization had a staple food group, it would be the action alert.  It’s an efficient way to mobilize people, easy for them to take action, and shows support in numbers.  But are there better ways to mobilize your advocates?  Do you use mobile?  What about virtual events?  How can you make the people behind your issue more visible?  You can and should use action alerts, but for most issues and audiences, you should explore other options as well.

2.  Letters (or emails) to legislators.  Communication keeps expanding into more channels, and that can work to your advantage.  Thinking beyond letters to Capitol Hill can allow you to make use of Facebook memes; advocate comments on Facebook, news stories, and blogs; and @messaging on Twitter.  More opportunities exist for testimonials in broadcast media and in your own blogs and advertising.  And don’t forget local events.  The digital and traditional can be integrated more efficiently with today’s tools.  Delivering your message to legislators multiple ways will heighten your impact.

3.  Fly-in.  A fly-in—or similar Washington event—is a powerful tactic for advocates and decision-makers.  But advocate feedback confirms that time, travel, and cost are significant limiting factors.  Are there creative ways you can accomplish (almost) the same thing and involve more of your people?  A day of visits to legislators’ district offices?  Staging a virtual fly-in via web chat?  Thinking “What’s possible?” could lead to a new kind of event—one that allows more of your advocates to participate and also catches legislators’ attention by going outside the routine.

4.  Metrics.  Measurement is essential.  But too many advocacy efforts measure success primarily in numbers: letters, Facebook fans, click-throughs, website visits.  These numbers don’t tell a complete story.  You should also measure things less tangible but just as important: Do advocates understand your issues better?  Are they communicating effectively in their own words?  Evangelizing your issues?  Building relationships with elected officials?  Even more: Are you seeing shifts in the debate?  Is political will building?  Keep looking at the numbers, but make sure you see past them.

5.  We want.  Okay, not really an advocacy keyword.  But “we want” our advocates to do a lot: send emails, attend town halls, use our website… But what do they want?  The more you understand and honor what your advocates want, the more you’ll create committed, empowered allies—who are more likely to do what you want them to do, and do it better.

A key part of my job is trying to see things from the advocates’ perspective.  Going back to that story I shared at the beginning—I had just relocated from the West, where I had not worked in advocacy previously.  That moment was just one of many when I had to swallow my pride and say, “I don’t know what you mean.”  It was part of my learning curve as an employee.  But anything that confuses your advocates works against you.  Think about how well you explain what you want your advocates to do, and why it matters, to people who may not know what “advocacy” is.  Simply doing a better job of that will increase your advocates’ responsiveness and loyalty.