Karrin Vasby Anderson, Colorado State University

In an authoritarian state, the leader engages in unconstitutional or undemocratic practices for the purpose of consolidating power.

Key components of authoritarianism include rejecting democratic rules; denying the legitimacy of opponents; tolerating or encouraging political violence; and curtailing the civil liberties of opponents.

Since he took office for a second time, President Donald Trump has sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles and Washington, named other cities run by Democrats as targets for military intervention, deployed masked and unidentifiable agents in immigration raids, explicitly threatened the city of Chicago with a military invasion and used government power to persecute his perceived political enemies.

Many news outlets have yet to call Trump an authoritarian.

As a political communication scholar, I study how media framing shapes people’s understanding of the world.

Because authoritarianism is most visible in hindsight, people often don’t recognize it until it’s too late. Erica Chenoweth, a Harvard political scientist, notes that when it comes to democratic backsliding, “there are no bright lines … people often find out the world they’re in after the fact.”

That’s why it’s particularly important for journalists to label authoritarians as such when the evidence warrants. In Trump’s case, I believe the U.S. is well past that point.

Trump’s Authoritarianism

Scholars with expertise in authoritarianism have been sounding the alarm about Trump for years.

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s book “How Democracies Die” describes how, during the 2016 campaign and his first presidential term, Trump exhibited the key indicators of authoritarian behavior. He undermined the legitimacy of elections Republicans lost, baselessly described his rivals as criminals, refused to unambiguously condemn violence committed by his supporters, and threatened to punish critics and members of the media.

Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that “no other major presidential candidate in modern U.S. history, including Richard Nixon, has demonstrated such a weak public commitment to constitutional rights and democratic norms.”

That intensified when Trump returned to office in 2025.

Levitsky and Lucan A. Way documented Trump’s “path to American authoritarianism” for the journal Foreign Affairs in early 2025. In March, Levitsky told New York magazine that things were going worse than even he expected, asserting, “We’re pretty screwed.”

Levitsky is not alone in that view. In a February 2025 survey of political scientists conducted by Bright Line Watch – an academic organization that researches democratic health – the percentage of scholars plummeted who said that the U.S. “mostly or fully” meets the standard for democratic health.

That was before Trump, via social media, promised to go to war in Chicago. When asked about his post, Trump said, “We’re not going to war. We’re going to clean up our cities,” but he did not back away from the intent to deploy troops against the wishes of Illinois Governor JB Pritzker.

Pritzker responded to Trump’s post by noting, “This is not a joke. This is not normal.”

On Sept. 7, 2025, New York Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein itemized some of Trump’s authoritarian actions, concluding, “This is not just how authoritarianism happens. This is authoritarianism happening.”

What Journalists Have Been Saying

Although other opinion journalists like Jamelle Bouie, M. Gessen, Jonathan Chait and nearly every MSNBC anchor have been labeling Trump an authoritarian for some time, much hard news coverage of the Trump administration has not.

When Trump deployed troops to Washington, The Atlantic’s Quinta Jurecic dismissed it as “farcical” and “not a likely prelude to full authoritarian takeover.”

A CNN analysis similarly minimized the action as a “gambit,” a “distraction” and a “neat political trick.” CNN characterized concerns about authoritarianism as “hyperbolic warnings of looming tyranny that circulate all day on liberal media programs — whatever Trump does” and asserted that such reports “don’t really help voters understand what is going on.”

The New York Times’ Aug. 3 story by Peter Baker on Trump’s “tendency to suppress facts he doesn’t like and promote his own version of reality” bore a headline that read “Trump’s Efforts to Control Information Echo an Authoritarian Playbook,” suggesting that his actions were authoritarian without applying the label to Trump directly.

During the April 14, 2025, broadcast of CNN News Central, anchor Jessica Dean spoke with Nikolas Bowie, a Harvard Law School professor participating in a lawsuit against the Trump administration.

Bowie repeatedly called Trump an authoritarian for illegally freezing federal research funding awarded to Harvard.

When Dean noted that the “Trump administration says it’s doing all of this in an effort to combat antisemitism on campus,” Bowie responded that “antisemitism is really just a pretext for what is really an authoritarian attack on higher education.” Federal Judge Allison Burroughs later agreed with that interpretation in her ruling against the Trump administration.

Dean, however, sidestepped that interpretation, saying, “What I’m hearing is you think that enough was done to combat antisemitism, that this is about something else.”

Competitive Authoritarianism

There are reasons why journalistic outlets may hesitate to identify the “something else” as authoritarianism, or portray it as a looming threat rather than a current danger.

Trump’s propensity to sue journalists, and large media corporations’ decisions to settle even when the law was on their side, have likely made journalists and editors hesitant to describe Trump as an authoritarian.

And the imperative for balance sometimes results in a “both sides-ism” that misrepresents what authoritarianism actually looks like.

When California Gov. Gavin Newsom gave a speech asserting Trump’s military response to immigration protests in California was an assault on democracy, the New York Times covered it, quoting Newsom at length about the danger Trump presented. The article also quoted Republicans who alleged that Newsom’s public health directives during the COVID-19 pandemic made him “the ultimate authoritarian.”

But the particular nature of the authoritarianism the U.S is facing in the 21st century also plays a role.

Levitsky and Way have written about “competitive authoritarianism,” a new version of authoritarianism that doesn’t look like 20th-century fascism.

Many laypeople associate the word authoritarianism with military dictatorships and totalitarian rule. In competitive authoritarian regimes, however, there’s a constant push and pull between democratic and autocratic impulses. Levitsky and Way write that elections are held, but they may not be fair. The authoritarian regime uses power gained democratically to break democratic norms, undermine democratic institutions and tilt the playing field in its own favor.

Constraining Free Speech

Journalistic norms of independence can pressure even ethical journalists into acquiescence to competitive authoritarianism because they want to avoid looking partisan when all coverage that falls outside the authoritarian’s approved message gets characterized as resistance.

Paramount settled what one free speech advocate described as a “widely derided lawsuit brought by Donald Trump against ’60 Minutes,’” and CBS recently pledged to stop editing recorded interviews on “Face the Nation” after complaints lodged by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

The Paramount and CBS cases suggest that, left unchallenged, a competitive authoritarian leader will use their leverage to influence what should be independent journalism.

Words matter. And how a democratic society responds to its leaders can make the difference between a free society and one in which a leader increasingly suppresses the voices, rights and will of the governed.

Karrin Vasby Anderson, Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Crossbow Communications is an award-winning public affairs and government affairs firm. We specialize in public health and environmental issues. We serve the world.

The post Journalists Reluctant To Call Trump An Authoritarian appeared first on Crossbow Communications.

According to the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr., the United States is the sickest nation on earth. If the dysfunction on Capitol Hill and within the White House are any indication, he might be right.

The Senate Healthcare Committee grilled Kennedy for more than three hours last week about the health of the nation and the future of vaccine policy. The conversation again demonstrated that our government is protecting special interests, including their own, more than the American people. Kennedy promises to remove politics from the process.

“That’s my job,” Kennedy told the committee.  

Despite the drama, grandstanding and rhetoric at the Senate meeting, health outcomes for people of all ages in the United States are poor compared to other high-income nations. Despite spending the most on healthcare, the U.S. ranked last overall in a 2024 Commonwealth Fund report on healthcare system performance.

According to reports from The Commonwealth Fund and the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. lags behind other wealthy nations in several critical health areas: 

• Life expectancy: The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth among high-income countries, with Americans dying younger and experiencing higher rates of disease.
• Avoidable deaths: The U.S. has the highest rates of preventable and treatable deaths. Causes of death that are unusually high in the U.S. include drug overdoses and gun violence.
• Infant and maternal mortality: The U.S. has the highest rates of infant and maternal mortality among its peer nations.
• Autism: After decades of surging autism rates in the U.S., there still is no state or national screening programs to track incidence rates in hopes of turning the tide. In 2015, the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) reported that 1 in 45 children in the United States had autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which includes Asperger’s Syndrome (a milder version of the disease). Despite the lack of any formal testing program, the CDC just updated those statistics to 1 in 31 children. Boys are five times more likely to be autistic than girls. It’s clearly driven largely by neurotoxins in food, water, air and soil. Some states are worse than others. Some countries are worse than others. Are we really supposed to believe that the ongoing surge in autism is related to pregnant mothers taking Tylenol? To Kennedy’s credit, he also points to unnamed environmental factors. Let’s hope that he looks at the undeniable exposure to neurotoxins in our food and water supplies. 
• Chronic disease: Americans have the highest burden of chronic disease and the highest obesity rate among high-income countries. Americans also report higher rates of conditions such as diabetes and heart disease compared to their counterparts.
• COVID-19 deaths: The U.S. experienced a higher rate of excess deaths related to the COVID-19 pandemic than other wealthy nations.

Unfortunately, Kennedy and every other politician has an agenda that they are trying to promote, while posturing, exaggerating and outright lying about the problems and the solutions. Right now, we need MAHA to stand for honesty, integrity and consistency in government. The truth matters. Science matters. Democracy matters. Conflicts of interest matter.

Several factors within the U.S. healthcare system and society contribute to poor health:

• No universal coverage: The U.S. is the only high-income nation without universal health coverage, leaving a significant portion of the population uninsured or underinsured. This creates financial barriers that prevent people from seeking timely and adequate care.
• Health equity issues: The U.S. has deep-seated inequities in healthcare, with significant disparities in access and treatment based on income, race, and ethnicity. Racial discrimination and an inadequate social safety net lead to poorer health outcomes for Black, Indigenous, and Latino populations, as well as low-income and rural communities. The U.S. ranks lowest in health equity.
• High costs: The U.S. spends far more per capita on healthcare than any other high-income country, but these high costs do not translate into better health. High out-of-pocket costs, expensive procedures, and administrative burdens deter many Americans from getting care. Americans have the worst access to care, particularly due to costs, according to the report.
• Inadequate primary care: The U.S. has an insufficient supply of primary care providers and a less-developed primary care system compared to other countries. This leads to less frequent check-ups and less effective chronic disease management.
• Societal factors: Beyond the healthcare system, social factors like gun violence, the opioid crisis, and unhealthy diets characterized by processed foods contribute significantly to the U.S. health disadvantage.

Meanwhile, The Make America Healthy Again Commission yesterday released the Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy, a plan that lacked details, goals or timelines. The report listed more than 120 initiatives to reverse policies that it blames for America’s childhood chronic disease epidemic. 

The assessment identified four potential drivers behind the rise in childhood chronic disease that present the best opportunities for progress: 

Poor Diet: The American diet has shifted dramatically toward highly processed foods, leading to nutrient depletion, increased caloric intake, and exposure to potentially harmful or unhealthy additives. Over 60 percent of children’s calories now come from highly processed foods, contributing to obesity, diabetes, and other chronic conditions. 

Chemical Exposure: Children are exposed to an increasing number of synthetic chemicals, including PFAS, which have been linked to developmental issues, chronic disease and terminal disease. The current regulatory framework should be continually evaluated to ensure that chemicals and other exposures do not interact to pose a threat to the health of our children.

Lack of Physical Activity and Chronic Stress: American children are experiencing unprecedented levels of inactivity, screen use, sleep deprivation, and chronic stress. These factors significantly contribute to the rise in chronic diseases and mental health challenges. 

Overmedicalization: There is a concerning trend of overprescribing medications to children, often driven by conflicts of interest in medical research, regulation, and practice. This has led to unnecessary treatments and long-term health risks.

Unfortunately, I didn’t see any specific references to the following threats to American citizens, including our children:

• Neurodegenerative Disease. Neurodegenerative disease is the fastest-growing cause of death in the world. Despite no national screening program, and the suppression of thousands of diagnoses, we know that prion disease is escalating around the world. Misinformation and disinformation are fueling the flames. The medical term for prion disease is transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE). TSEs are always fatal. There is no cure. As the name implies, TSEs are transmissible. We know TSEs by the clinical terms of Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, mad cow disease and chronic wasting disease. Why is government and industry suppressing the truth and failing to protect pathways?
• Mental Health: According to a new report, the United States has an all-time high depression rate. With adequate screening and access to care, I’m sure that we would find that the rate is even higher. How about anxiety and paranoia. Deep cuts to Medicaid will only exacerbate the problem.
• Soldier Suicides: Veterans are at 58 percent higher risk of suicide than those who haven’t served. We lost 6,407 veterans to suicide in 2022. More than 6,000 soldiers have taken their lives every year since the year 2000.
• PFAS: Thanks to lies, collusion and corruption, 99 percent of the people in the world have harmful forever chemicals (PFAS, PFOAS and many more) in their bodies. The chemicals are still in production and widespread use today.

Although the Senate Committee meeting gave the illusion of bipartisan support for Making America Healthy Again, a heated conversation about vaccines just scratches the surface. Unfortunately, we need a more comprehensive vision and agenda to really promote the health of all citizens and not just industries and corporations.

It should have been a session about sanity and insanity. Yes, there is a mental health crisis in America and it seems to be trickling down from the top.

Senator Bernie Sanders summed it up quite well. 

“Republicans and Democrats alike – everyone in this room – have received money from pharmaceutical PACs. Does that mean that we all are corrupt?”

The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) annual budget is a multi-trillion dollar federal outlay, with the FY2025 President’s Budget Request proposing outlays of approximately $1.802 trillion, an increase of $132 billion from the FY2024 estimate.

HHS is the largest category of all federal spending. It consumes at least 20 percent of all federal spending. 

I need to spend more time reviewing the details of the plan to Make Our Children Healthy Again, but I see potential for good. I also see a platform that can be interpreted and twisted, as usual, to serve special interests instead of American citizens. Let’s hope for the best and brace ourselves for the worst as the fine print becomes available in this plan and the one ahead for the entire American population, not just children. Let’s hope that Kennedy can steer the HHS ship in the right direction fast. As usual, the devil is in the details. Failure isn’t an option.

Crossbow Communications is an award-winning public affairs and government affairs firm. We specialize in public health and environmental issues. We serve the world.

The post Can Politicians Make America Healthy Again appeared first on Crossbow Communications.

If we hope to have a planet that will sustain our children, grandchildren and beyond, corporations have to be part of the solution. Political and regulatory solutions are a myth.

Many of the largest companies in the world are gaining a competitive edge by optimizing operational efficiency, including their supply chains. In many cases, board members are leading the charge by demanding more productivity and less waste to build their bottom lines. Fortunately, efficiency and sustainability can be part of the same business strategy.

According to the 2025 State of Sustainability Survey, conducted by Forbes Research, there are several areas where revenue is linked to a company’s commitment to sustainability. In fact, sustainability ranks as a top-three priority in 89 percent of the companies that generate more than $15 billion annually. As revenue decreases, so does the percentage of executives who place sustainability in their top three.

This level of commitment extends to procurement as larger companies are also more likely to work with their partners on making supply chains more sustainable. Approximately three-quarters of those in the $15 billion-plus bracket want a sustainable supply chain versus a third of companies in the $500 million to $1 billion range.

It appears that corporate boards at large companies have a more prominent role in setting the sustainability agenda than boards at smaller organizations. Seventy percent of executives at $15 billion-plus companies say the board is ultimately responsible for sustainability decisions.

A survey by EY found that 82 percent of CEOs embrace sustainability as a strategic opportunity. For example, ESG strategies can help a company build customer loyalty, attract and retain loyal employees, attract capital and more.

Meanwhile, the market itself continues to prefer companies that embrace sustainability as part of their mission and vision.

Despite all of the headwinds in Washington, DC, consumers across demographics still care about sustainability and climate change, but Gen Z and Millennials are particularly vocal, willing to change their purchasing habits and pay more for sustainable products and practices, according to a new survey by global professional services firm Deloitte.

For the report, the 2025 Gen Z and Millennial Survey, Deloitte surveyed more than 23,400 Gen Z (those born between 1995 – 2005) and millennial (born 1983 – 1994) respondents across North America, Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. Deloitte noted that Gen Zs and Millennials are anticipated to make up 74 percent of the global workforce by 2030.

Both Millennials and Gen Z are feeling the impacts of global warming and climate change now. Approximately 70 percent of global respondents in these age groups have experienced an extreme weather event in the past 30 days.

Gen Z is the largest and most influential consumer segment. It is emerging as the sustainable generation.

Gen Z (20-30ish) is the first consumer group to grow up in an all-digital world—digital natives. Just like the cutting-edge technology that is their second nature, members of Gen-Z are breaking rules and charting new lifestyles, a challenge for consumer-facing companies to target.

Gen-Z represents only 5 percent of U.S. consumer spending today, in five or so years, it will be closer to 20 percent, as they start to enter their peak earning years and become about a third of the workforce.

A recent report reveals that 62 percent of Gen Z shoppers prefer to buy from sustainable brands, and 73 percent are willing to pay more for sustainable products.

Gen Z and Millennials are the most likely to make purchase decisions based on personal, social, and environmental values. Brands must prioritize sustainability to remain competitive.

Millennials, alongside Gen Z, prioritize environmental sustainability and are a driving force for change through their actions, purchases, and career choices. They expect employers and businesses to be accountable and they expect governments to facilitate sustainable practices.

Nearly half of respondents in each group (48 percent of Gen Z and 47 percent of Millennials) reported that they and their colleagues have put pressure on their employers to take action on protecting the environment.

While younger demographics are more vocal, older generations (like me) also demonstrate concern for sustainability.

Generation X includes those born primarily between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s. It is the generation between the Baby Boomers and the Millennials.

Gen X feels a strong sense of responsibility towards future generations and is compelled to make sustainable choices for a better world. Generation X also cares about sustainability and climate change, showing significant concern and a willingness to make sustainable choices, though their level of engagement may differ from younger generations. Gen Xers often make lifestyle changes to reduce their environmental footprint. Like younger generations, they also are willing to pay more for sustainable products, while increasingly considering sustainability factors in their investment decisions.

Despite the challenges, many Gen Xers remain optimistic about the possibility of addressing climate change and environmental damage.

Baby Boomers (born between 1946- 1964) also care about climate change and sustainability, with surveys showing that they are environmentally conscious and willing to make changes to protect the environment. Baby Boomers (28 percent of the general population) are often over-represented in the environmentally-minded consumer group. A 2024 survey found that nearly 2 in 5 environmentally-minded consumers are Baby Boomers. Research indicates that more than 90 percent of Baby Boomers are willing to make future lifestyle changes to help protect the environment. 

Boomers also are becoming a new force in the climate action movement. They are concerned about the long-term health of the environment, extreme weather impacts, and are increasingly motivated to take action. They are increasingly concerned about toxins in food and water.

Boomers are environmentally-minded consumers who pay more attention to the news, particularly through left-leaning networks, and are more likely to lean left politically. They’re more duty-bound to the needs of their communities and society as a whole. Brands that claim to be environmentally responsible in their marketing must back it up.

Overall, consumers are assessing producers’ sustainability practices, including production methods and recycling, eco-friendly packaging, and making a positive impact on nature and water conservation. Some consumers are willing to pay 10 percent or more for goods that meet their environmental concerns.

“Who wants to buy products and services that harm people and the planet,” said Gary Chandler, CEO of Crossbow Communications. “Who wants to insure companies that are creating unknown liabilities regarding public health and natural resources? There are still penalties for dirty businesses, despite the unstable regulatory environment.”

Sustainability is core to business strategy and operations. Companies are redesigning processes, procurement, and marketing. Sustainability teams are collaborating with finance and risk teams to assess impacts and opportunities. 

It’s good to see that common sense continues to link sustainability and profitability on Main Street and Wall Street. Hopefully, the White House will get out of the way and let free-market capitalism drive innovation, efficiency, sustainability and profitability around the world.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump spent much of his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday disparaging renewable energy sources and challenging the scientific consensus on climate change. He called climate change “the greatest con job perpetrated by the world.” Sad.

Among the president’s remarks were unsubstantiated claims about climate change, renewable energy sources and the environment.

Trump claimed that clean energy sources, such as solar and wind, don’t work and are more expensive than fossil fuel options. He also said the U.N. was incorrect in its predictions about the consequences of climate change. And the president repeatedly warned that the economics of renewable energy are harming the economy and resulting in higher energy costs.

In 2024, 80 percent of the growth in global electricity generation was from renewable and nuclear sources, contributing 40 percent of the world’s total electricity generation for the first time, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Solar and wind accounted for 16% of the United States’ electricity, surpassing coal.

More than 90 percent of new renewable projects are now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). In 2024, solar photovoltaics (PV) were, on average, 41 percent cheaper than the lowest-cost fossil fuel alternatives, while onshore wind projects were 53 percent cheaper. Answers begin with the truth.

Donald Trump has the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years, with public pushback on many of his policies and extensive economic discontent, including broad fears of a recession, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.

Yet Trump still beats the Democrats in Congress in terms of trust to handle the nation’s main problems. That is a sad statement about the state of democrats and democracy.

Thirty-nine percent of respondents in this ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll said they approve of how Trump is handling his job as president, down 6 percentage points from February, while 55 percent said they disapprove.

The previous low in approval for a president at or near 100 days in office, in polls dating to 1945, was Trump’s 42 percent in 2017.

Crossbow Communications is an award-winning public affairs and government affairs firm. We specialize in public health and environmental issues. We serve the world.

The post Sustainability Matters To Consumers appeared first on Crossbow Communications.

In an increasingly complex and rapidly evolving government affairs landscape, where legislation and regulations are expanding globally and public perception is ever-present, government affairs teams are facing the challenge of achieving more with fewer resources. To address this, organizations are adopting strategic best practices to enhance their efficiency and effectiveness, including:

1. Media Research and Relations: The media can be friend or foe in the public affairs arena. The best strategists have relationships with the top influencers in all relevant markets. Be proactive by offering resources, insights and interesting story angles. Set news alerts so that you are notified when someone covers relevant, if not related, subject matter. Offer letters to the editor in response to related coverage that reinforces key points, while adding points that were missed. Of course, be responsive to all media inquiries. 

2. Social Media Research & Relations: Social media is one of the X factors in the world of public affairs. First, follow key influencers and even competitors. Follow key hashtag conversations to stay abreast of key developments and key influencers. Post and repost positive coverage for added exposure. Reply to allies and fellow advocates to expand the conversation. Monitor your posts and related posts for trolls. It is rarely wise to respond to trolls, but we should know who they are and neutralize them when strategic. Post videos, photos, studies, statistics, etc. that can promote your position and your message. Determine which social media platforms are the best fit for your mission and target audience and encourage your allies to join you there.

3. Leverage Big Data for Analysis: Big data is getting bigger by the day. Conduct an internal audit of the data that you have and the data that you need for optimal performance. Fill the data gaps with third-party data when possible and create new data capturing methods to garner even more ammunition. Enlist artificial intelligence to find issues, opportunities and allies that can help you turn the tide.

By utilizing legislative and regulatory analytics, government affairs teams can embrace data-driven decisions and move beyond qualitative insights from relationships, external consultants, or news reports, which can be inefficient and risky. Reliable analytics platforms provide data-driven insights to inform decision-making, enabling teams to:

• Identify strategic lawmakers for engagement.
• Predict the probability of a bill’s passage.
• Analyze legislator effectiveness in moving legislation.
• Gain insights into trends to develop effective strategies. 

This data-driven approach allows government affairs teams to quantify relationships, leverage data, and operate with greater effectiveness and efficiency.

4. Stakeholder Research, Relations & Recruitment: Policy teams need to measure and quantify their impact to demonstrate their value to executives, who prioritize metrics and ROI (Return on Investment). Since advocacy efforts don’t always directly impact the bottom line, it’s essential to look for ways to measure performance that resonate with the C-suite. 

Government affairs teams can demonstrate their value by tying results to actions through stakeholder management:

• Quantify financial impact:
  • Estimate the financial impact or cost savings of legislative efforts by tracking bills influenced or blocked.
  • Show potential financial consequences of policies through economic impact analyses.
  • Quantify savings achieved through technology use.
• Track political contributions and relationship development: Grassroots and PAC managers can track political contributions and the development of strategic relationships.
• Record granular details: Advocates should record detailed interactions with legislators.
• Use data to chart effectiveness: These data points help evaluate the effectiveness of strategies, performance, and relationships.
• Leverage technology: Use technology for legislative tracking and policy monitoring to streamline workflows and improve advocacy. Technology platforms can help log actions and connect them to relevant bills, regulations, and legislators.
• Report effectively: Create a reporting framework aligned with organizational goals and use data to demonstrate impact to stakeholders. Develop professional reports that resonate with decision-makers. 
• Recruit members and allies who share your vision and agenda.

By focusing on these strategies, government affairs teams can effectively communicate their impact and demonstrate their value to secure additional resources and support. 

5. Invest in State and Local Politics: The passage of a surging number of state bills recently emphasizes the growing importance of engaging with state and local governments for organizations, especially with slower federal legislative activity. State legislatures introduce and pass significantly more bills than Congress, directly impacting organizations at the state and local levels. 

Instead of solely focusing on potentially ineffective federal lobbying, organizations can gain more traction by engaging with state and local legislators, who are often more accessible and directly impact issues relevant to their constituents. Successful policies enacted at the state or local level can then serve as models for nationwide adoption.

Leveraging technology is crucial for managing the high volume of legislative activity and tracking relationships with numerous legislators across different jurisdictions. Modern advocacy teams need a central platform to store notes, track communications, and manage relationships with key decision-makers on a state-by-state basis. This allows teams to: 

• Track and prioritize issues effectively.
• Receive timely alerts and updates on legislative activity.
• Maintain strong ties with decision-makers by tracking interactions.
• Improve efficiency and effectiveness in their government affairs efforts. 

In summary, organizations should prioritize a state and local government affairs strategy, leverage technology for efficient issue tracking and relationship management, and recognize the significant impact of legislation at these levels.

6. The X Factors: As hard as we work on the strategies and tactics above, there are several factors that we can’t control. Bribery and blackmail are nothing new in politics and denying their persistence today is naive. We can have common sense and logic in our corner. We can have influencers and decision-makers behind us. Even the media is singing the praise of solution A. But corruption can derail even the best of visions.

There are many who believe that Jeffrey Epstein ran a blackmail enterprise on his fantasy island. They claim that he nailed the rich, famous and powerful with compromising photos, videos and more. Others claim that the Russians have compromising photos of Donald Trump, which is why he is so cozy with Putin again during his second term. The threat is real. There isn’t much that can be done, but be vigilant to the possibility.

“Government affairs today is more of an art than a science,” said Gary Chandler, CEO of Crossbow Communications. “Access to many government officials is getting more restricted, so the more that we can reach the masses through the media the better. Activating the stakeholder base is more important than ever.”

Public affairs today is more complex than ever. We have to be visionaries who can strategize and execute simultaneously on many levels, in many markets and often in many countries. Resourcefulness and results are essential. Harnessing big data and AI are now critical success factors for most consulting firms and their clients.

Crossbow Communications is an award-winning public affairs and government affairs firm. We specialize in public health and environmental issues. We serve the world.

The post Best Practices In Government Affairs appeared first on Crossbow Communications.

LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional networking platform. With more than 1 billion members worldwide, LinkedIn is a powerful platform for B2B marketing and lead generation. LinkedIn’s user base primarily consists of professionals, making it ideal for reaching decision-makers and influencers. By leveraging its features and following best practices, you can effectively reach your target audience. LinkedIn’s advertising platform allows you to target specific demographics, job titles, company size, and industry:

• LinkedIn users are typically decision-makers and professionals.
• Approximately 80 percent of B2B leads come from LinkedIn. 
• Effective Lead Generation: 89 percent of B2B marketers use LinkedIn for lead generation.
• Strong Content Marketing Platform: 97 percent of B2B marketers use LinkedIn for content marketing.
• High-Quality Leads: LinkedIn drives high-quality leads for B2B marketers.
• Effective Advertising Platform: LinkedIn ads can reach over 14 percent of the global population.
• High Conversion Rates: LinkedIn ads have twice the conversion rate of other channels.
• Increased Purchase Intent: LinkedIn ads can increase purchase intent by 33 percent.

Optimize Your Profile and Company Page On LinkedIn

• Complete Your Profile: Fill out all sections, including your headline, summary, experience, education, and skills.
• Use a Professional Profile Picture: A clear headshot is essential.
• Write a Compelling Headline: Clearly state your role and what you do.
• Craft a Strong Summary: Highlight your expertise and value proposition.
• Optimize Your Company Page: Ensure your company page is complete, including logo, banner image, description, and contact information.
• Add a Call-to-Action (CTA): Encourage visitors to follow your page, sign up for your newsletter, or visit your website.

Create High-Quality Content

• Engaging Content: Content with images see twice the engagement.
• Live Video Power: Live streams see more engagement than regular videos.
• Weekly Posting: Weekly posts lead to 5.6x more follower growth.
• InMail Effectiveness: InMail has a 300 percent higher response rate than email.
• Share Valuable Content: Post articles, infographics, and videos that provide value to your audience.
• Use Visuals: Images and videos can increase engagement.
• Share Industry News: Stay updated on the latest trends and share relevant news.
• Post Regularly: Consistency is key. Aim to post at least a few times per week.
• Engage with Your Audience: Respond to comments and messages promptly.

Optimize Reach

• LinkedIn Groups: Join relevant groups to network with professionals in your industry.
• LinkedIn Ads: Target specific audiences with paid advertising.
• LinkedIn Analytics: Track your performance and identify areas for improvement.
• LinkedIn Live: Host live video streams to engage with your audience.
• Encourage your employees to share company content on their personal LinkedIn profiles to amplify your reach.
• Sales Navigator is a premium tool that helps you identify and connect with decision-makers, track their activity, and send personalized outreach messages.

Build Relationships

• Connect with Your Target Audience: Send personalized connection requests.
• Engage with Other Users: Like, comment, and share their content.
• Join LinkedIn Groups: Participate in discussions and share your insights.
• Build Relationships with Influencers: Collaborate with industry leaders.

Additional Tips:

• Use Relevant Hashtags: Increase your visibility and reach.
• Share Employee-Generated Content: Encourage your employees to share company news and insights.
• Run LinkedIn Polls: Generate engagement and gather valuable insights.
• Use LinkedIn’s Publishing Platform: Share longer-form content.

Measure Your Results

• Track Key Metrics: Monitor metrics like impressions, clicks, and engagement.
• Analyze Your Data: Use analytics to identify what’s working and what’s not.
• Adjust Your Strategy: Make data-driven decisions to optimize your efforts.

Common LinkedIn Mistakes

• Incomplete Profile: Not filling out all sections, especially the summary and experience.
• Lackluster Headline: A generic or vague headline that doesn’t highlight your skills or expertise.
• Poor Quality Profile Picture: A blurry, low-resolution, or unprofessional photo.
• Ignoring the About Section: Not using this space to showcase your unique value proposition.
• Overlooking the Skills Section: Failing to list relevant skills and endorse others.

Content Mistakes:

• Overposting: Flooding your feed with too many posts.
• Self-Promotion: Constantly sharing promotional content.
• Irrelevant Content: Posting content that doesn’t align with your professional brand.
• Neglecting Engagement: Not responding to comments and messages.
• Ignoring LinkedIn Groups: Missing out on valuable networking opportunities.

Networking Mistakes:

• Connecting with Strangers: Sending generic connection requests without a personalized message.
• Ignoring Your Network: Not staying connected with your contacts.
• Failing to Follow Up: Not nurturing relationships after initial connections.
• Not Endorsing Others: Being hesitant to endorse others’ skills.

General Mistakes:

• Not Using LinkedIn Regularly: Inconsistent activity can diminish your visibility.
• Ignoring Mobile Optimization: Not optimizing your profile for mobile viewing.
• Ignoring Privacy Settings: Not being mindful of your privacy and security settings.
• Not Using LinkedIn’s Advanced Search: Missing out on potential connections and opportunities.

“By avoiding these common mistakes and following best practices, you can maximize your LinkedIn presence” said Gary Chandler, CEO of Crossbow Communications. “The biggest mistake that B2B marketers can make is not making LinkedIn part of the marketing mix.”

Crossbow Communications is an award-winning public affairs and government affairs firm. We specialize in public health and environmental issues. We serve the world.

The post Best Practices For LinkedIn Marketing appeared first on Crossbow Communications.

Responsiveness – how closely public policies track public opinion – is a critical gauge of democratic accountability. A high degree of responsiveness indicates that citizens are guiding policy, which is a standard benchmark and expectation in democracy. Accountability is breached when public policy ignores public opinion. 

The democratic process spurs citizens to form opinions on a number of issues. Voters choose candidates in elections, consider constitutional amendments, and approve or reject municipal taxes and other legislative initiatives. Almost any matter on which the executive or legislature has to decide may become a public issue. Immigration and abortion are dominating the political landscape in the U.S., despite the fact that neither issue directly impacts most Americans. Both have become posterchilds for political smoke and mirrors. Because of labor shortages in the U.S. over the past few years, both Republicans and Democrats have stalled immigration reform and solutions, which has allowed thousands of illegal immigrants to enter our nation unchecked. Both parties blame each other for the insane situation.

The substantial inflow of immigrants to the United States during the last 30 years has significantly shaped the U.S. economy and society. Immigrants affect native workers’ opportunities in the labor market, their productivity, and their specialization. Immigrants can also have an impact on other aspects of the host country’s economy (for example, through fiscal effects, consumption, and contributions to scientific innovation), as well as on its culture, social norms, and sense of security. In addition, immigration can affect political outcomes.

Immigration took center stage in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and its aftermath, as Donald Trump took strong stands on illegal immigration, the construction of a border wall, refugees from Syria, and “sanctuary cities.” Meanwhile, he ignored the fact that his “wife,” Melania, was an immigrant and so are her parents – all are now citizens thanks to his hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, abortion is an issue that impacts very few Americans, but we are holding our nation hostage over extreme religious rhetoric.

Our nation ignores millions of children who are living and dying in poverty, but we whitewash our consciences by opposing abortion (even when caused by rape or incest). We defend guns more vigorously than we defend our country from fascism. 

Meanwhile, we don’t debate the national budget, military spending, corruption, and the poisoning of our air, land and water. We ignore people who are being battered by climate change and we ignore the threat.

In the early years of modern democracy, some scholars acknowledged the power of public opinion, but warned that it could be a dangerous force. In fact, public opinion is so powerful that most politicians will say and do anything to harness it.

The role of public opinion varies from issue to issue. Unfortunately, public opinion does not influence the details of most government policies but it does set limits within which policy makers must operate. Public officials usually seek to satisfy widespread opinion and they often try to avoid decisions that they believe will be widely unpopular.

Yet efforts by political leaders to shape government policies to fit public opinion are not always perceived as legitimate. Journalists and political commentators often characterize these politicians as pandering to public opinion and driven by the latest polls – now known as political responsiveness.

Today, most politicians tend to respond to public opinion in cynical ways. They merely use public opinion research to identify slogans and symbols that will make predetermined policies more appealing to their constituents.

Most public opinion research is used to manipulate the public rather than to act on its wishes.

Public opinion seems to be more effective in influencing policy-making at the local level than at the state or national levels. One reason for this is that issues of concern to local governments—such as the condition of roads, schools, and hospitals—are less complex than those dealt with by governments at higher levels.

Polls may serve a variety of purposes. Those reported in the mass media, for example, may be used to inform, to entertain, or to educate. In an election, well-run polls may constitute one of the most systematic and objective sources of political information. They are also the means by which journalists, politicians, business leaders, and other elites—whether they admit it or not—learn what the general public is thinking. Other things being equal, leaders who pay attention to public opinion will be better able to understand the groups they are trying to influence and better equipped to communicate overall.

Ideally, the people who prepare surveys and carry them out have no mission other than the objective and systematic measurement of public opinion. Unfortunately, it’s possible for bias to enter into the polling process at any point, especially when the entity commissioning the poll has a financial or political interest in the result or wishes to use the result to promote a specific agenda.

Polls have been skewed from the outset by news companies surveying public opinion on political issues, by manufacturing firms engaged in market research, by interest groups seeking to popularize their views, and even by academic scholars wishing to inform or influence public discourse about some significant social or scientific issue. The results of potentially biased surveys are frequently released to the mass media to magnify their impact. This deceptive practice is known as advocacy polling (fake news).

Opinion research evolved from market research. Early market researchers picked small samples of the population and used them to obtain information on such questions as how many people read a given magazine or listen to the radio and what the public likes and dislikes in regard to various consumer goods. 

From the 1930s on, the spread of opinion polls conducted by both commercial and academic practitioners continued at an accelerated pace in the United States. State and local polls—some sponsored by newspapers—were started in many parts of the country, and opinion research centers were organized at several universities.

Straw polls and other nonscientific surveys are based on indiscriminate collections of people’s opinions, while responsible surveys are based on scientific methods of sampling, data collection, and analysis. Yet, because they are so easy to obtain, data derived from nonscientific methods are often confused with responsible survey results. At best, they reflect only the views of those who choose to respond. But they are also used as tools of “spin” by those who wish to put forth a particular slant on popular opinion. Referred to as “voodoo polls” by some polling experts, they lack the statistical significance achieved through proven sampling methods, and they have grown increasingly prevalent. Reporters often present the results as serious and objective measures of public opinion.

This encourages interested political parties, campaign managers, or pressure groups to manipulate the outcomes to their advantage. They may attempt to skew the results or administer their own competing straw polls with the goal of contradicting the outcomes of properly conducted representative surveys. To take full advantage of this manipulation, the straw poll sponsor often issues press releases calling attention to the results. To further lend the poll an appearance of credibility, its sponsor might also describe it as having been published by a reputable news organization, even if it appeared only in a paid advertisement.

Interest groups such as the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), the European Society for Opinion Marketing and Research, and the World Association for Public Opinion Research serve a watchdog role regarding opinion polling. To assist reporters as well as the general public in their understanding of poll results, AAPOR published a list of guidelines for determining the credibility of online polls. A reliable poll should indicate, for example, whether its results were based on sampling procedures that gave each member of a population a fair chance of being selected and whether each respondent was limited to one and only one chance of participating in the poll; it should also state the response rate. According to AAPOR, outcomes that fail to meet criteria such as these should not be included in news reports.

In fact, anyone judging the overall reliability of a survey will scrutinize a number of factors. These include the exact wording of the questions used, the degree to which particular results are based on the whole sample or on small parts of it, the method of interviewing (whether by phone or e-mail, an online survey, or in person), the dates over which the interviewing was conducted (intervening events frequently make people change their opinions), and the identity of the sponsor as well as the reputation of the organization conducting the poll.

One signal that the poll may have been conducted by less-experienced researchers is the reporting of findings in decimal points, a practice that indicates questionable accuracy. A poll of at least 10,000 people would be required before statistically reliable interpretations could be carried to the first decimal point. The visual presentation of the results should also be checked. Frequently, graphics can be designed to mislead or confuse the reader or viewer into thinking that the responses to the poll differed from the raw figures the poll actually indicated.

There have been numerous criticisms of public opinion polling. Among these are the observations that people are asked to give opinions on matters about which they are not competent to judge and that polling interferes with the democratic process.

It is often pointed out that most members of the public are not familiar with the details of complex policies such as those governing tariffs or missile defense systems. Therefore, it is argued, opinion researchers should not ask questions about such subjects. The results at best could be meaningless and at worst misleading, since respondents may be reluctant to admit that they are ignorant. Critics also refer to the fact that many people hold inconsistent or conflicting opinions, as shown by the polls themselves. One person may favor larger government expenditures and simultaneously oppose higher taxes.

Critics allege that election polls create a “bandwagon effect”—that people want to be on the winning side and therefore switch their votes to the candidates whom the polls show to be ahead. They complain that surveys undermine representative democracy, since issues should be decided by elected representatives on the basis of the best judgment and expert testimony—not on the basis of popularity contests. They point out that some well-qualified candidates may decide not to run for office because the polls indicate that they have little chance of winning and that a candidate who is far behind in the polls has difficulty in raising funds for campaign expenditures since few contributors want to spend money on a lost cause. Other critics say that candidates, politicians, and corporations use polls less to gauge public opinion than to manipulate it in their favor.

Those engaged in election research usually concede that polls may discourage or derail some candidates and also may inhibit campaign contributions. But they also point out that candidates and contributors would have to make their decisions on some basis anyway. If there were no polls, other methods that are less accurate would be used to test public sentiment, and columnists and political pundits would still make forecasts. As far as the bandwagon effect is concerned, careful studies have failed to show that it exists.

An abuse that is recognized by both critics and poll takers is the practice of leaking to the press partial or distorted results from private polls. Politicians may exploit polls by contracting privately with a research organization and then releasing only those results for areas in which they are ahead, releasing old results without stating the time when the poll was taken, or concealing the fact that a very small sample was used and that the results may have a large margin of error.

“The real question is why would a legitimate democracy tolerate such abusive behavior,” said Gary Chandler, CEO of Crossbow Communications. “We clearly have liars and cheaters among us in American politics. The motives are clear. The stakes are high. It isn’t about abortion, immigration and gun control.”

Crossbow Communications is an award-winning public affairs and government affairs firm. We specialize in public health and environmental issues. We serve the world.

The post Public Opinion Fading From Public Policy appeared first on Crossbow Communications.

The Supreme Court drastically cut the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should interpret ambiguous laws. The decision will impact all federal regulatory agencies.

The decision ends the “Chevron deference,” also known as the Chevron doctrine. It compelled federal courts to defer to a federal agency to interpret unclear statutes delegated to the agency by Congress. Chevron deference is the latitude federal judges give agencies over how to interpret the statutes they administer when a dispute arises. 

The principle derives its name from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. regarding a change in the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of a provision in the Clean Air Act.

Now, instead of deferring to the expertise of agencies to interpret ambiguous language in laws pertaining to their work, federal judges can interpret laws for themselves.

Federal judges are now part of the policymaking process–a move that clearly breaches the separation of powers. This policymaking role violates the intent of the Constitution.

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent from the ruling. “As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”

The decision has profound consequences, not only for the country’s rule of law but also for how agencies function. The Chevron doctrine helped courts review, approve, and reject regulations in the context of statutory intent. It also maintained a strict rule of deference to federal agencies’ interpretations of federal laws, having given regulators broad authority to make rules related to the environment, health care, immigration, and other subjects of public policy.

Initially, Chevron was a deregulatory decision that allowed the Environmental Protection Agency in the Reagan administration to interpret the Clean Air Act in favor of business. At the time, the decision was embraced by conservatives and considered a stinging loss for environmentalists. But that view has evolved. Lately, Chevron has been seen as a symbol of government excess and overreach.

For years, Chevron deference was supported by conservative-leaning legal authorities including Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Over time, the doctrine began to see a shift in ideological thinking with some individuals, such as Thomas, reversing their views. 

The Trump administration was open about its desire to nominate judicial appointees who would challenge the broad power federal agencies have to interpret laws and enforce regulations, often without being subject to judicial oversight. That philosophy secured the nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch declared Chevron to be “no less than a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.”

On June 24th, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine. Now, federal courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute, which means that the judicial system has consolidated even more power over the commercial regulatory framework. Courts could see historic backlogs over the legal interpretations of regulations.

The demise of Chevron provides new avenues for regulated industries to challenge their regulators. At the same time, the Court offered minimal guidance to lower courts in a post-Chevron world. Reversing this precedent will encourage more challenges to agency interpretations of statutes even in situations where courts have previously upheld agency positions.

“This decision is another form of constitutional warfare,” said Gary Chandler, CEO of Crossbow Communications. “Attacks on the Constitution and the truth are eroding our democracy.”

The Supreme Court’s decision will change the landscape for agencies, Congress and the federal courts. Although much depends on the details, potential implications include:

• Agencies may find it more difficult to promulgate and defend regulations that go beyond explicit statutory authority and new administrations may hesitate to alter interpretations of governing statutes, except to the extent that they can argue that previous interpretations based on Chevron deference should be altered in favor of interpretations that hew more closely to statutory text. Within agencies, we might also see an increase in the influence of the general counsel’s office over policy offices when it comes to developing regulatory programs, as agencies anticipate judicial review of their interpretations based on legal rules of statutory interpretation that will be most convincing to judges.
• Congress will face more pressure to clearly articulate agency authority and delegate fewer details to administrative agencies. Looking at the political reality, Members of Congress may no longer be able to rely on party-aligned executive and independent agencies to engage in policymaking that conforms to political priorities if those priorities have not first been passed into law, or, avoid political debate by pushing agencies to instead address certain questions.
• Courts may see an increase in their dockets as potential parties anticipate a greater chance of success from litigation challenging agency statutory interpretations. Judges may face increased scrutiny of their decisions and pressure to justify their construction of statutes as impartial interpretations of legislation rather than based on their own policy preferences.

This decision will affect future challenges to federal agencies and the development and implementation of the regulatory framework. 

“The Supreme Court says individual judges around the country should decide the best reading of a statute,” said Kym Meyer, the Litigation Director for the Southern Environmental Law Center. “That’s a recipe for chaos, as hundreds of federal judges — who lack the expertise of agency personnel — are certain to reach inconsistent results on the meaning of federal laws as applied to complex, technical issues.”

Justice Roberts rejected any suggestion that agencies, rather than courts, are better suited to determine what ambiguities in a federal law might mean. Even when those ambiguities involve technical or scientific questions that fall within an agency’s area of expertise, Roberts emphasized, “Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions” – and courts also have the benefit of briefing from the parties and “friends of the court.”

Will this ruling impact the regulatory framework around issues such as forever chemicals and biosolids? Could a judicial review have prevented these public health catastrophes? How will the reversal of the Chevron doctrine impact EPA liability, for example, for past negligence? How will it impact PRPs? Cases are moving through the courts now.

Crossbow Communications is an award-winning public affairs and government affairs firm. We specialize in public health and environmental issues. We serve the world.

The post Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Deference appeared first on Crossbow Communications.

Several years ago, I helped build the National Cattlemen’s Association into one of the most powerful trade associations in the United States (now known as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association). Actually, I motivated its membership to turn the organization around.

Trade associations are unique in the membership world. They typically work for an entire industry, not just members. Conveying membership value to all stakeholders is critical. If the members don’t perceive the benefits and the value, convincing them to renew their membership will be a challenge. Since it is easier to renew a member than to recruit a new member, let’s start our research and planning in this arena.

Engagement Improves Membership Retention

Prior to my record-breaking membership program for the cattlemen, approximately 30 percent of its members were dropping out and leaving the organization each year. Until we understood the disconnect, we suspended most recruitment campaigns and targeted the dropped members with surveys. We begged for feedback and opened the door for their return. We learned about their objections and we adjusted the messaging to members during the renewal campaigns. 

Thanks to membership research and engagement, the drop rate eased to less than 10 percent within six months. We renewed thousands of dropped members within the first 12 months.

Finally, we improved membership engagement opportunities with continuing education, certifications, leadership training, tours and more. An engaged member is more likely to serve the association and renew their membership.

Membership Recruitment Requires Market Segmentation and Targeting

Once you have a firm handle on membership retention, you will have much more success with membership recruitment. As with the membership renewal campaigns, the membership recruitment campaigns were refined for better targeting and messaging. We procured membership lists from all state affiliates and targeted those prospects since these targets were already joiners. We sent these prospects custom materials that stressed the value of membership at the state and national level. We also deployed members from these affiliates to reach out and invite their friends and neighbors to join the national association.

We also had a massive database of prospects around the world. We sorted the database to find prospects who were most likely to join, such as prospects who were on more than one source list. We also found those who were on more than two, three, four and five lists. I called these prospects joiners and we targeted them aggressively. It was a very productive list.

I also sorted the prospect database for files that contained key words to distinguish large operators from the smaller ones. Names that included “Land & Cattle Company,” for example were responsive targets who typically paid more in dues.

“We also encouraged all members to recruit a new member,” said Gary Chandler, CEO Of Crossbow Communications. “We provided them with incentives, recognition and outreach materials. This was the most cost-effective recruitment tactic in the toolbox.”

Messaging

During our outreach to dropped members, we found that the most common objection to overcome was regarding a new industry “tax” on producers that was being imposed to fund a campaign that promoted beef consumption. The funds did not go to the association, but most producers did not understand the difference, so we added that important message to the campaigns.

We encouraged non-members to sample the publications produced by the association. The publications were the only membership benefits that non-members didn’t receive (industry advocacy benefits members and nonmembers alike).

After 24 months, we set a new membership record of 41,000 members. The growing membership base provided the organization with vital financial strength and political leverage.

Membership Outreach

Before launching your next membership campaign, audit your website. Make the content resonate with search engines so that more membership prospects find you. Make sure that the membership story is complete, yet concise. Is there a call to action? Is there enough information for a current member to recruit a new member? Do you have a blog to add fresh content and targeted content that will help attract stakeholders? Invite industry experts to post a blog.

Of course, there are many avenues available to reach membership prospects and current members. There are no silver bullets, but direct mail is still important for trade associations and email is a critical part of the marketing mix. LinkedIn is a productive platform when used strategically. Facebook and X also can boost your visibility, while positioning your association as a leader. YouTube and a YouTube channel will probably make sense within your marketing plan. 

Attending and exhibiting at industry events is still important, plus these events are fuel for social media.

Most importantly, don’t forget the power of news. A Leading trade association should be a newsmaker. Plus, news is more credible than marketing and news helps fuel your social media machine.

Crossbow Communications is an award-winning public affairs and government affairs firm. We specialize in public health and environmental issues. We serve the world.

The post Best Practices In Membership Marketing appeared first on Crossbow Communications.

Strategic positioning is one of the critical success factors in the world of marketing and in the world of public affairs. Whether promoting products and services or public policy, corporations, advocates and nonprofits can improve their influence by positioning themselves as leaders, the voice of reason and the solution of choice. Branding and positioning are two concepts that are interrelated, but distinct in the world of marketing:

Branding

• The overall image, identity and perception of a company or product.
• What the target audience thinks of you and your solution/solutions.

Positioning

• Focus on how a brand is positioned relative to its competitors in the minds of the target audience.
• Carve out a unique space in the market and minds of the target audience(s). What is the value proposition? Why should a customer choose your brand/solution over others? What is your unique selling point (USP)? Is it meaningful?
• For example, a shoe brand might position itself as the provider of the most comfortable athletic shoes, while another positions itself as the most affordable brand.

Think of branding as your overall image in the minds of consumers today, while positioning is what you want them to think tomorrow.

Ideally, they should create a cohesive image that resonates, informs and motivates the target audience. It’s the foundation of an ongoing relationship with your target audience.

“It sounds counterintuitive to some, but it is important for new products and services (and advocates) to think about ideal positioning before thinking about brand strategy, said Gary Chandler, CEO of Crossbow Communications. “Find the ideal position in the market and then build a meaningful and defendable brand that can thrive in that space. Market segmentation, targeting and messaging will come much more naturally under this strategic umbrella.”

If you plan to target numerous market segments, determine if you will need multiple positioning strategies. Multiple positioning strategies set you up to properly tailor messaging and offerings to best meet the needs and overcome the objections of each market segment.

Effective positioning strategies depend on meaningful data, including market research, customer research and stakeholder research.

What do these groups think about your organization and its solutions? What don’t they know? What problems are they facing and what problems do they want you to help them with? What objections do they have to your organization and its solutions? What is their preferred solution now? Why?

If you can answer these questions and others that are even more specific to your goals and obstacles, you have a powerful pulse on your market. Now, we can map out a plan to support our brand or even rebrand within key market segments. We have the foundation of a new marketing plan that can improve our chances of success on Main Street, Wall Street or Capitol Hill.

Branding and positioning strategies can guide your overall marketing strategies and your messaging. They can build market share, brand loyalty and your bottom line.

Crossbow Communications is an award-winning public affairs and government affairs firm. We specialize in public health and environmental issues. We serve the world.

The post Positioning Drives Brand Strategy, Messaging appeared first on Crossbow Communications.

Global sales of green, social, sustainability and sustainability-linked bonds totaled $149.5 billion last month, making it the most active January since the inception of the green debt market in 2007. ESG practices can help shape a more sustainable and responsible future. The next step is to expand the ESG ratings system beyond the bond market. ESG must become a core practice in brand management.

An Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) bond, also known as a sustainable bond or green bond, is a type of debt security that is issued by a company, government, or other organization to finance projects that have positive environmental, social, and governance (ESG) impacts. In other words, the money raised from these bonds is used to fund projects that benefit the environment, society, and good corporate governance. These projects represent enormous opportunities for brand management and stakeholder management.

Key Features of ESG Bonds

ESG bonds are becoming increasingly popular with investors who are looking for ways to align their investments with their values. They can also be an attractive option for companies and governments that are looking to raise capital for impact projects.

Environmental: ESG bonds can be used to finance projects such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, pollution control, and sustainable agriculture.

Social: ESG bonds can also be used to finance projects that address social issues such as affordable housing, education, healthcare, and community development.

Governance: ESG bonds consider the governance practices of the issuing entity, such as its commitment to diversity, transparency, and accountability.

The ESG bond market continued to see strong growth in January 2024, fueled by increasing investor demand and favorable market conditions. Top underwriters BNP and BofA expect issuance to remain strong. According to bond traders, the market prefers use-of-proceeds debt now versus bonds for general uses.

A variety of issuers entered the market last month, including sovereign funds, corporations, and financial institutions from the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The EU Commission issued a €75 billion Green Bond last month, which was one of the largest sovereign green bonds ever. The Indian market issued a record $5.7 billion of green bonds issued last month, including a large offering from Adani Green Energy. Ford Motor Company issued a bond for $1 billion to finance social initiatives.

For companies and organizations considering raising capital, choosing between an ESG bond and a traditional bond involves weighing various factors.

ESG Bonds:

• Attract a broader investor base: Investors increasingly seek sustainable investments, and ESG bonds cater to this growing demand. This can broaden the issuer’s investor pool and potentially lead to lower borrowing costs.
• Enhance reputation and brand image: Issuing an ESG bond demonstrates your commitment to environmental and social responsibility, which can improve your brand image and attract positive public attention.
• Access dedicated funding for sustainable projects: The proceeds from an ESG bond can be earmarked for specific sustainable projects, aligning your financing with your sustainability goals.
• Potential for lower borrowing costs: Some studies suggest that companies with strong ESG records may be able to borrow at lower rates due to perceived lower risk and higher investor demand.
• Improved stakeholder engagement: Issuing an ESG bond can encourage dialogue and collaboration with stakeholders like environmental groups and communities, potentially leading to mutually beneficial outcomes.

Traditional Bonds:

• Greater flexibility in use of funds: Unlike ESG bonds, the proceeds from traditional bonds can be used for any purpose, offering more flexibility for the issuer.
• Potentially lower issuance costs: The issuance process for traditional bonds may be simpler and less expensive compared to ESG bonds, which require additional reporting and verification.
• Wider market reach: The market for traditional bonds is vast and established, potentially offering access to a larger pool of investors.
• No specific sustainability requirements: Companies with limited sustainability commitments may find traditional bonds more straightforward if they are not ready to meet the broader criteria of ESG issuances.

Important Considerations:

• Meeting ESG standards: Issuing an ESG bond requires adhering to specific standards and reporting requirements, which can add complexity to the process.
• Investor expectations: ESG investors expect transparency and impact reporting, requiring regular communication and data sharing from the issuer.

The choice between an ESG bond and a traditional bond depends on your specific objectives, financial situation, and commitment to sustainability. Issuing an ESG bond is primarily driven by a company’s commitment to sustainability and attracting ESG-focused investors, not necessarily seeking tax advantages or lower interest rates.

While tax incentives for specific project-related aspects might exist, they are not inherent to ESG bonds themselves. Potential for lower interest rates due to investor demand depends on multiple factors.

ESG Trends to Watch

The landscape of ESG is constantly evolving, driven by increasing awareness, regulations, and stakeholder demands. Here are some key trends to watch in 2024 and beyond:

1. Deeper Integration into Business Strategy: ESG is moving beyond compliance and risk management, becoming core to business strategy and operations. Companies are redesigning processes, procurement, and marketing based on ESG principles. ESG teams are collaborating with finance and risk teams to assess impacts and opportunities.

2. Heightened Focus on Data and Technology: Reliable data and robust analytics are crucial for informed ESG decision-making and reporting. Companies are increasingly utilizing technology solutions to track, measure, and manage ESG performance. Investors are demanding better data and transparency from companies regarding their ESG commitments.

3. Evolving Social Considerations: Social issues like diversity, equity, inclusion (DEI), human capital management, and data security are gaining prominence. Investors and consumers are holding companies accountable for social justice and responsible labor practices. Companies need to address the gap between perceived and actual progress on DEI initiatives.

4. Supply Chain Transparency and Accountability: Companies are facing pressure to ensure ethical and sustainable practices throughout their supply chains. Scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions from suppliers) are gaining greater attention. Regulatory measures and consumer demands are driving increased supply chain transparency.

5. Climate Action and Net Zero Transition: The urgency to address climate change remains a top priority. Companies are setting ambitious net-zero targets and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Regulations and carbon pricing are expected to drive further action on climate change.

6. Green Washing: Concerns about green washing (misrepresenting ESG performance) are rising among investors and regulators. Regulatory frameworks and standards for ESG reporting are evolving. Companies need to ensure their ESG claims are substantiated and verifiable.

7. Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration: Companies are increasingly engaging with stakeholders (investors, employees, communities) on ESG issues. Collaboration between governments, businesses, and civil society is crucial for addressing complex ESG challenges.

8. Evolving ESG Investing Landscape: Investor demand for ESG assets is expected to continue growing. New ESG investment products and strategies are emerging. Investors are focusing on impact alongside financial returns.

9. The Role of Technology in Sustainability Transformation: Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the Internet of Things (IoT) have the potential to accelerate sustainability initiatives. Technology can improve resource efficiency, reduce emissions, and promote circular economy principles. We must fuel it with renewable electricity not fossil fuels. Electric cars must be solar powered (charged).

10. Geopolitical Uncertainty and ESG Factors: Geopolitical and economic factors can impact the ability to achieve ESG goals. Companies need to consider the ESG implications of their global operations and supply chains.

These are just some of the major trends shaping the future of ESG. As the field continues to evolve, it is crucial for companies, investors, and other stakeholders to stay informed and adapt to the changing landscape.

Consumers are increasingly paying attention to a company’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices and corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Studies consistently show rising consumer interest in ESG and CSR. Surveys by NielsenIQ, PwC, and GlobeScan find that a majority of consumers globally consider a company’s ESG performance when making purchasing decisions. This trend is especially strong among younger generations like Millennials and Gen Z, who often prioritize sustainability and social responsibility.

Climate change, pollution, and resource scarcity are driving consumers to seek eco-friendly products and services from companies with strong environmental commitments.

Ethical labor practices, diversity and inclusion efforts, and community engagement are increasingly important to consumers who want to support companies that align with their values. Consumers value transparency in communication about ESG and CSR initiatives. They are wary of green washing practices. Concerns about green washing can erode consumer trust and limit the impact of genuine ESG efforts.

Consumers are willing to pay a premium for products and services from companies with strong ESG and CSR practices. They are also more likely to switch brands or avoid companies with poor ESG records. Consumers also are increasingly using ESG investing tools to align their financial decisions with their values.

While the overall trend is positive, not all consumers prioritize ESG and CSR equally. Factors like price, quality, and convenience still play a major role in purchasing decisions.

Consumer demand for ESG and CSR is a growing force shaping the business landscape. Companies that have a compass and a conscience can gain a competitive advantage and build stronger relationships with consumers.

Patagonia, for example, is widely recognized as a leader in integrating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles into its business model. Patagonia prioritizes organic cotton, recycled materials, and bluesign® certified fabrics that lessen environmental impact. They’ve even developed Yulex, a plant-based alternative to neoprene. Patagonia promotes fair labor practices in its factories and aims to minimize its production footprint by reducing waste and emissions. They repair and recycle used gear to extend its lifespan. Patagonia is deeply involved in environmental activism, donating 1 percent of sales to grassroots organizations protecting the planet. 

Their recent transfer of ownership to a trust dedicated to fighting climate change further exemplifies their commitment. Patagonia upholds fair labor practices throughout its supply chain, ensuring living wages and safe working conditions for all workers. They actively advocate for worker rights and transparency in the apparel industry. Patagonia supports local communities and indigenous groups affected by environmental injustices. They promote social responsibility and encourage employees to volunteer and engage in activism. Patagonia strives for diversity and inclusion within its workforce and leadership, aiming to reflect the communities they serve.

Patagonia provides detailed information about its ESG practices through annual reports and its Footprint Chronicles. They encourage dialogue and feedback from stakeholders. Patagonia sets ambitious sustainability goals and holds itself accountable for achieving them. They track progress and report transparently on their performance. Patagonia’s founder, Yvon Chouinard, is a vocal advocate for environmental protection and responsible business practices. His leadership sets a strong tone for the company’s ESG commitment.

While Patagonia is often recognized for its ESG efforts, some critics claim that the company’s marketing is green washing. They claim that there is a gap between messaging and the full environmental impact of their products. Not perfect, but Patagonia is a leader in demonstrating how strong ESG practices can be integrated into a successful business model. Its commitment inspires other companies in the apparel industry and beyond to prioritize environmental and social responsibility.

Though no company is perfect, other ESG leaders include

Ørsted (Denmark): This renewable energy company is the world’s largest developer of offshore wind farms and has pledged to be carbon-neutral by 2025.

Ørsted’s Hornsea 2 Offshore Wind Farm (UK): This massive project, operational since 2022, generates enough clean energy to power over 1.3 million homes and avoid millions of tons of CO2 emissions annually.

Panasonic Corporation (Japan): This electronics company is a leader in energy-efficient products and has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030.

Shiseido Company, Limited (Japan): This cosmetics company is committed to sourcing sustainable ingredients and reducing its environmental impact.

Itochu Corporation (Japan): This trading company is investing in renewable energy and sustainable agriculture.

Komatsu Ltd. (Japan): This construction and mining equipment manufacturer is developing more fuel-efficient products and reducing its emissions.

Ricoh Company, Ltd. (Japan): This office equipment company is committed to reducing its environmental impact and promoting sustainability in its supply chain.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Japan): This pharmaceutical company is committed to developing innovative medicines and improving access to healthcare in developing countries.

Toshiba Corporation (Japan): This electronics company is developing innovative technologies to address climate change and other environmental challenges.

These are just a few examples of ESG leaders. Many other companies are making significant strides in supporting ESG practices.

Here are some resources that can help you learn more about ESG investing:

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): https://www.globalreporting.org/

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB): https://sasb.org/

The UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI): https://www.unpri.org/

The History Of ESG

While the term “ESG” gained prominence in the mid-2000s, the principles behind it have a much longer history. Many early examples of socially responsible investing exist, with religious guidelines prohibiting investments in practices like slave labor.

19th Century: Movements promoting ethical investing begin, targeting concerns like child labor and poor working conditions.

1960s-1970s: Socially responsible investing (SRI) gains momentum, with divestments from South Africa’s apartheid regime becoming a prominent example.

1990s: The rise of global environmental and social issues like climate change and human rights violations fuels further growth in SRI.

1992: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) raises global awareness of environmental challenges.

1995: The first sustainable investment inventory in the U.S. is launched.

1997: The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is established to create a framework for corporate sustainability reporting.

1997: The Kyoto Protocol sets binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for developed countries.

2000: The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is founded to encourage large companies to disclose their climate change-related risks and opportunities.

2004: The UN Secretary-General’s report “Who Cares Wins” marks the first major mention of “ESG” in its modern context.

2005-2006: The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) are launched, a set of voluntary guidelines for incorporating ESG issues into investment decision-making.

2007-2011: Several organizations establish standards and frameworks for ESG reporting, including the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB).

2015: The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are adopted, outlining a global roadmap for addressing economic, social, and environmental challenges.

2015: The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) is established to provide recommendations for companies to disclose climate-related financial risks.

2020s: ESG investing experiences rapid growth, becoming a mainstream consideration for investors and companies alike. Governments and regulatory bodies increasingly incorporate ESG factors into their policies and frameworks.

ESG Today

Green Washing: As ESG investing grows, concerns about green washing (misrepresenting ESG performance) prompt calls for stronger regulations and standards.

Some issuers have questionable environmental or social records and misrepresent their ESG credentials to attract investors without making substantial changes to their practices. This lack of transparency undermines the integrity of ESG and reduces trust in the market.

Geopolitical Uncertainty: The impact of geopolitical events and economic factors on ESG practices is an ongoing challenge.

Technology’s Role: Emerging technologies like AI, blockchain, and IoT have the potential to accelerate progress on ESG goals. The history of ESG demonstrates its evolution from niche ethical considerations to a mainstream business and investment focus.

All-time Largest ESG Bond Sale (Corporate): Ford Motor Company

Amount: $2.5 billion

Date: November 2021

Type: Green Bond

Largest ESG Bond Sale in 2023 (Sovereign): Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government

Amount: $5.75 billion

Date: September 2023

Type: Green Bond (Triple-currency issuance)

Largest ESG Bond Sale in 2023 (Corporate): Adani Green Energy Limited (India)

Amount: ₹2,150 crore (approximately $257 million)

Date: January 2023

Type: Green Bond

Benefits Of ESG Investments

ESG bonds can offer competitive returns that are similar to traditional bonds, often with comparable yields and credit ratings. They help issuers fund important projects, while building their brands. Adding ESG bonds to an investment portfolio can help diversify your holdings and potentially reduce overall risk by including assets that may perform differently than traditional investments during market downturns. The ESG bond market is rapidly growing, with increasing demand from investors seeking sustainable investment options.

Positive impact: By investing in ESG bonds, you’re directing your capital towards projects that benefit the environment and society, such as renewable energy, green infrastructure, and social development initiatives.

Alignment with values: If you prioritize environmental and social responsibility, investing in ESG bonds allows you to align your investments with your values and make a positive difference.

Transparency and impact reporting: Many ESG bonds offer greater transparency regarding how the proceeds are used and their impact on environmental and social goals, allowing you to track the positive outcomes of your investment.

Reduced risk: Some studies suggest that ESG bonds may be less volatile than traditional bonds due to their focus on sustainable and responsible businesses and projects.

Meeting sustainability goals: Businesses and organizations issuing ESG bonds can use the funds to achieve their own sustainability goals and improve their environmental and social performance.

The ESG bond market is still relatively young, and the long-term performance of these bonds compared to traditional assets is still not fully established.

Liquidity: Some ESG bonds, especially newer or smaller issuances, may be less liquid than traditional bonds, making it more difficult to buy and sell them quickly.

Overall, ESG bonds can be a valuable addition to your investment portfolio, offering both financial and social/environmental benefits. However, it’s crucial to carefully consider the risks and limitations involved before making any investment decisions.

Criticism of ESG

Data and Measurement Issues: There are concerns about the inconsistency and lack of standardization in ESG data and metrics. Different rating agencies have varying methodologies, making it difficult to compare companies and determine their true ESG performance. This lack of standardization makes it hard for investors to make informed decisions.

Focus on Social and Governance Over Environmental: Some critics argue that the “S” and “G” aspects of ESG have grown to overshadow the “E,” leading to less focus on environmental issues like climate change and biodiversity loss. They fear that ESG is becoming more about social justice and political correctness than genuine environmental impact.

Limited Impact on Corporate Behavior: Some studies suggest that ESG investing hasn’t demonstrably changed corporate behavior on environmental and social issues. Critics argue that companies are simply paying lip service to ESG without making significant changes to their operations or reducing their negative impacts.

Political Polarization: ESG has become increasingly politicized, with some policymakers and commentators criticizing its perceived bias towards progressive social and environmental goals. This politicization creates uncertainty and division within the investment community.

High Fees and Limited Access: Some ESG investment products charge higher fees than traditional options, potentially limiting their accessibility to smaller investors. This raises concerns about equity and inclusivity in the ESG market.

Performance Concerns: While some studies suggest ESG funds can perform on par with traditional investments, others raise concerns about potential underperformance compared to broader market benchmarks. This raises questions about the trade-off between values and returns for investors.

“Despite the criticisms, ESG is a rapidly growing segment of the investment landscape,” said Gary Chandler, CEO of Crossbow Communications. “It’s also a critical part of brand management for companies. Addressing these concerns through improvements in data standardization, transparency, and impact measurement is crucial for maintaining trust and ensuring that the broader ESG concept delivers on its intended environmental and social objectives.”

Crossbow Communications is an award-winning public affairs and government affairs firm. We specialize in public health and environmental issues. We serve the world.

The post Millennials Support ESG Brands appeared first on Crossbow Communications.