Meetings, stakeholder lists, position papers, events, media relations, and now AI as well: In public affairs, there’s rarely a shortage of activities. But professional advocacy isn’t measured by how much is done. What matters is whether the right things are done at the right time with the right people—and whether they have a political impact.
In public affairs, there’s rarely a shortage of activities.
Meetings are scheduled, stakeholder lists are compiled, newsletters are sent out, events are attended, position papers are written, and media relations work is carried out. Today, AI tools have been added to the mix, allowing us to produce all of this faster and in greater volume.
But the crucial question is a different one:
Which of these efforts actually make an impact?
That’s exactly what I’ve been thinking about time and again over the past few months in my LinkedIn series #TheLobbyDoc.
And after 35 years in public affairs and lobbying, I’ve come to a pretty simple conclusion:
Professional public affairs isn’t measured by how much is done. It’s measured by whether the right thing is done at the right time with the right people.
This is all the more important because political advocacy today takes place through significantly more channels than in the past. The OECD also describes lobbying and political influence as an increasingly complex field in which, in addition to direct discussions, associations, NGOs, think tanks, digital communication, and public campaigns have long played a role.
However, more options do not automatically mean greater impact.
Output is not impact
“What else could we do?” is a question I hear often.
My counterquestion is usually:
What do we actually want to achieve?
Anyone who doesn’t have a precise answer to that question shouldn’t be discussing additional measures.
More meetings, more events, more communication, and more stakeholder contacts do not necessarily add up to a successful public affairs strategy.
In the worst-case scenario, this leads to what I would call “output frenzy”:
A lot done. A lot reported. Many KPIs met. And little political progress made.
Professional public affairs therefore starts with the goal:
- What specifically needs to change?
- What political or regulatory decision do we need?
- What do we need to prevent?
- Who can make this decision or influence it?
- What political process are we currently in?
- And how will we ultimately know if we were successful?
Only then do strategy and tactics come into play.
Strategy first. Tactics later.
That sounds obvious. In practice, however, this order is reversed surprisingly often.
Access is important. Influence is something else entirely.
The same applies to political networks.
Of course, successful advocacy requires access to decision-makers. But the fact that someone knows a minister, can call a state secretary, or is regularly invited to political events says little about their actual influence.
“We spoke with the minister, but nothing is happening.”
I hear this phrase often, too.
The problem is often not a lack of access.
Perhaps the person you spoke with simply wasn’t the one who can make or prepare the relevant decision in that specific political process.
Perhaps the timing was off.
Perhaps there wasn’t a clear request.
Or perhaps a concern was raised without sufficiently understanding what the other person needs in order to turn it into political action.
That is precisely why an understanding of the process is one of the most important resources in professional public affairs.
Who decides what and when? Who prepares the decision? Who can block it? What formal and informal steps are necessary? And which argument works with which stakeholder?
The legislative process at the EU level, for example, illustrates just how important it is to understand the process early on. The European Commission involves stakeholders even before presenting concrete legislative proposals through calls for evidence, consultations, workshops, and other formats. The Commission explicitly describes these opportunities for participation in the legislative process as part of its Better Regulation agenda.
Those who only become active once a finalized legislative proposal is on the table may therefore have already missed important political windows of opportunity.
Access opens the door. Nothing more.
Professional networking is not a calendar of events.
This goes hand in hand with another misconception: attendance is often confused with networking.
Just because someone shows up at five events every week doesn’t mean they have five times as many political working relationships.
Public affairs remains a people’s business.
What matters isn’t the number of contacts or the quantity of business cards collected, but the quality, trust, and resilience of relationships.
A good political network isn’t built by simply being seen everywhere. It’s built through consistent effort:
Relevante Personen identifizieren. Beziehungen aufbauen. Zuhören. Informationen austauschen. Interessen verstehen. Expertise anbieten. Kontakte auch dann pflegen, wenn gerade nichts unmittelbar gebraucht wird.
Events can be helpful in this regard.
However, they are a means to an end—not the end itself.
Communication is not the same as stakeholder management.
The same applies to communication.
Many companies keep their stakeholders well informed: newsletters, emails, position papers, messenger groups, events, social media.
Nevertheless, politically speaking, things often don’t turn out the way they’d like.
Why?
Because stakeholder communication is not the same as stakeholder management.
Information can change perceptions, convey knowledge, and generate attention.
Professional stakeholder management goes one step further.
It asks:
What legitimate behavior on the part of a stakeholder is necessary to achieve our public affairs goal—and what does this stakeholder need in order to act accordingly?
- Should a political actor support a particular issue?
- Should they persuade another stakeholder?
- Should a change be introduced into a piece of legislation?
- Should a problem be given higher priority within an organization?
- Or should a particularly critical actor at least refrain from actively mobilizing against a proposal?
The more precisely the desired outcome is defined, the more effectively the appropriate tools can be selected.
The idea that stakeholders should not merely be “engaged with through communication” but should be understood as sources of knowledge and evidence has long been institutionally established. The European Commission describes stakeholder engagement as a central component of its Better Regulation agenda. The experiences, data, and evidence of those affected are to be explicitly incorporated into the development and evaluation of regulations.
There is an important lesson here for companies:
Those who only communicate demands forfeit part of their political value.
Effective advocacy also brings knowledge, data, implementation experience, and potential solutions into the political process.
Media relations is not lobbying
Media relations is also frequently overestimated in public affairs.
Of course, the media can play an enormous role in achieving political goals.
A well-placed story at the right time in the right medium can generate attention, legitimize an issue, create public pressure, and influence the political climate.
But:
A headline does not equal a political decision.
Anyone who tries to convey their demands to a political counterpart primarily through a press conference or a press release should not be surprised if the door to the next direct conversation is a little harder to open.
Medienarbeit und Lobbying folgen unterschiedlichen Logiken.
Gute Public Affairs versteht deshalb, wann welches Instrument eingesetzt wird und wie verschiedene Instrumente strategisch zusammenspielen.
Die zunehmende Bedeutung indirekter Einflusskanäle ist übrigens keine bloße Branchenbeobachtung. Die OECD verweist ausdrücklich darauf, dass sich politische Einflussnahme durch Digitalisierung und Social Media verändert hat. Politische Interessen werden längst nicht mehr ausschließlich im direkten Gespräch vertreten, sondern auch über öffentliche Kommunikation und gesellschaftliche Debatten.
Das macht strategische Abstimmung umso wichtiger.
Denn das schöne Medienclipping misst Reichweite.
Nicht automatisch Einfluss.
AI verändert Public Affairs – aber nicht ihre Grundlogik
Und dann ist da natürlich AI.
Künstliche Intelligenz verändert bereits heute Monitoring, Recherche, Stakeholder-Analysen, Szenarioentwicklung und Textproduktion.
Das Potenzial ist enorm.
Und wir sollten es nutzen.
Aber auch hier gilt:
Mehr und schneller ist nicht automatisch besser.
Auch die OECD sieht AI als Technologie, die politische Einflussnahme verändert – unter anderem durch effizientere Policy-Analyse und zielgerichtetere Aktivitäten. Gleichzeitig entstehen neue Anforderungen an Transparenz und Integrität. Der OECD Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook beschäftigt sich ausdrücklich mit diesen Veränderungen.
Für Public-Affairs-Teams bedeutet das:
Ein perfekt klingendes AI-generiertes Positionspapier ist wenig wert, wenn jene Person, die es im politischen Gespräch vertreten soll, seine Argumentationslogik selbst nicht vollständig beherrscht.
Eine AI-generierte Stakeholder-Liste ersetzt nicht das Verständnis dafür, wer in einem konkreten Prozess tatsächlich relevant ist.
Und ein automatisiertes Monitoring ersetzt nicht die politische Einschätzung, welches Signal wichtig ist und welches nur Noise produziert.
Am Ende sitzen weiterhin Menschen gegenüber.
Politische Interessenvertretung braucht Fachwissen und Daten, aber ebenso Empathie, situative Argumentation, Verständnis für Interessen und die Fähigkeit, auf das Gegenüber einzugehen.
AI kann uns Arbeit abnehmen.
Die gewonnene Zeit sollten wir dazu verwenden, Public Affairs menschlich besser zu machen.
Professionelle Public Affairs ist Management von Wirkung
Vielleicht verbindet genau das all diese Punkte.
Public Affairs ist keine Sammlung möglichst vieler Kommunikationsmaßnahmen.
Sie ist das strategische Management legitimer Interessen im politischen Raum.
Auch die OECD betont, dass Lobbying und Interessenvertretung legitime Formen politischer Partizipation sind und Expertise, Daten und praktische Erfahrungen zu besseren politischen Entscheidungen beitragen können – vorausgesetzt, Interessenvertretung findet transparent und integer statt. Mehr dazu in „Lobbying in the 21st Century“ der OECD.
Professionelle Public Affairs verlangt deshalb:
- Klare Ziele.
- Präzise politische Analyse.
- Verständnis für Entscheidungsprozesse.
- Belastbare Stakeholder-Beziehungen.
- Gutes Timing.
- Und eine bewusste Auswahl der richtigen Instrumente.
Manchmal verlangt sie sogar, etwas nicht zu tun.
- Keine zusätzliche Aussendung.
- Kein weiteres Event.
- Kein Gespräch mit der falschen Person.
- Kein Positionspapier, solange noch nicht klar ist, was eigentlich gefordert wird.
Denn am Ende sollte Public Affairs nicht daran gemessen werden, wie beschäftigt wir waren.
Sondern daran,
was wir bewegt haben.
Think about it.
Die fünf Fragen vor jeder Public-Affairs-Maßnahme
Bevor die nächste Maßnahme beschlossen wird, lohnt sich deshalb ein kurzer Reality Check:
1. Was wollen wir konkret erreichen?
Nicht „Awareness schaffen“, sondern ein überprüfbares politisches Ergebnis.
2. Wer kann dieses Ergebnis tatsächlich beeinflussen?
Nicht zwingend die ranghöchste Person, sondern der im konkreten Prozess relevante Stakeholder.
3. In welcher Phase befindet sich die Entscheidung?
Agenda Setting, Vorbereitung, Verhandlung, Beschluss oder Umsetzung?
4. Was braucht der Stakeholder von uns?
Eine Forderung? Daten? Evidenz? Eine Lösung? Politische Rückendeckung? Umsetzungserfahrung?
5. Warum setzen wir genau dieses Instrument ein?
Meeting, Positionspapier, Medienarbeit, Event oder digitale Kommunikation müssen einem strategischen Zweck dienen.
Wer diese fünf Fragen beantworten kann, braucht häufig weniger Aktivitäten.
Aber bessere.
#LobbyDoc – Gedanken aus der Praxis von Public Affairs und Lobbying.
Folgen Sie mir auf LinkedIn und versäumen Sie keine neue #LobbyDoc-Folge.
Haben Sie Fragen oder Anregungen zum Beitrag? Schreiben Sie mir gerne unter peter.koeppl@mastermind.cc.
