7 Common Pitfalls of First-time Candidates

As first-time candidates throughout the U.S. slog towards Primary and General elections this year, it's a good time to take a look at some pitfalls these candidates often encounter.

1. Trying to self-manage a campaign. Paraphrasing Mark Twain's observation about lawyers, if you serve as your own campaign manager, you're being managed by a fool. Why? Because you cannot objectively make decisions affecting yourself. For example, you cannot objectively tell yourself that your wardrobe is inappropriate, that you must tone down your favorite diatribe, or that you're speaking too long, or on the wrong topics. This is true for your spouse and other close family members, too. They cannot be totally objective. To run a winning campaign, it takes an outsider's clear view of the campaign and its upcoming challenges to make these kinds of decisions - objectively. Sometimes it's hard to hear that you're approaching a campaign from the wrong direction, and you may even be upset, but better you hear it from someone who WANTS you to win, rather than from voters on election day. (Note: For some races for smaller offices with smaller budgets, a strong campaign advisor - or a communications consultant - may be fine as a substitute for a full-fledged, full-time manager. But the advice holds - get outside help, and LISTEN TO THEIR ADVICE.)

2. Failing to raise and spend the right amount of money. Speaking of money, if you don't have the cash, you must raise it. First-time candidates often delude themselves into thinking money doesn't matter. It does. Without money, there isn't a campaign. And it must be not only raised, but spent, wisely. Even if you think you only need a small amount of money, media and voters will be watching to see if you have the ability to raise more than you need. The truth is, candidates need professionals to help them to raise money - or force them to, if necessary, because media and opponents watch "The money race," too.

3. Focusing on the wrong issues. You have 40 issues that you want to tackle in your campaign: abortion, the IRS, Federal defense spending, social security, etc., etc. But wait a minute, you're running for a seat in the state legislature! Much of this will be irrelevant to the office you're seeking. Spending time on issues you will have no control over if you're elected is a waste of time, and can unnecessarily give voters reasons to vote against you. A campaign must focus on a select few, relevant local issues, and not deviate from them.

4. Talking about the wrong issues ... to the wrong people. You should never lie or change your views to chase poll results in order to get votes. Voters can sniff out a phony. But it simply makes sense to speak to groups and individuals about things they care about. Making wildly irrelevant speeches to influential groups is a sure way of looking foolish - and irrelevant. Relying on speech writers, your manager and/or your communications consultant to direct your campaign's focus on issues through scripted speeches is a wise move. It will likely keep you from looking completely out of touch, and will give your campaign a polished look and feel, without compromising your principles.

5. Steering out of the Mainstream. Okay, so you believe in UFOs and aliens, you  think flying cars can solve traffic jams, and that JFK was shot five times by the CIA, Castro and the Mob working together. Keep it to yourself. While some of this may seem "folksy" coming from long-time politicians, remember this: nuts don't often get elected. And if they do slip into office, they frequently don't stay elected long. Say something off-the-wall and it by very well be the only thing voters remember about you, and the only thing the media will focus on, and can easily destroy your chances of victory. In short, keep irrelevant views to yourself. A speechwriter will be able to "filter out" items that you may not notice in a first draft, and keep you from saying things that will "ALIENate" voters.

6. Running to lose. Sometimes, the better part of valor is not running at all. If you don't have the financial resources, if you don't have the support of colleagues and family members, or if you don't have the willpower, health, time or effort to run an effective campaign, don't do it. (And if you can't keep your head above water in one of these areas at any point in the campaign, consider dropping out.) If you do run, however, you must run to win, not to make a point. People don't vote to make a point, they vote for winners. And voters sense when you're just riding a hobby horse, and don't really care about winning.

6. Being Unprofessional. Failing to present your campaign as professional is a sure sign you haven't hired professionals to design your campaign. For example, you had better use *Local* professional design and printing, because if you don't, you may be viewed as not credible as a candidate. Speaking of signs, having a lot of them up, often illegally on public property, won't win the election. Get permission to put them in the right locations. Independent candidates often get carried away with their message, filling a sign, website, or brochure with trite or off-topic slogans and LOADS of text, resulting in unreadable nonsense no one will actually read. This is the sure signal you're an amateur candidate - one who will not be  taken seriously. Keep it brief and keep it professional, and the best way to do this is to have it written by a campaign professional, who will report your spending to local clerks, the state, or FEC, and also ensure you have the right legal disclaimers on all signs, stickers and mailers.

A professional campaign consultant will help you to avoid these pitfalls, and many more, in the course of your campaign. Abbott Media Group offers a wide array of reputation building and campaign consulting services for current right-of-center candidates and future candidates in Florida, Texas, and throughout the US.

Stephen Abbott is a public relations consultant and political messaging specialist, and the principal of Abbott Media Group, specializing in helping political candidates, business leaders, groups and start-ups craft effective messages. Visit Abbott Media Group for more information.

Copyright © 2000-2024 Abbott Public Relations/Abbott Media Group. All Rights Reserved

Political Campaigning In A Time Of Crisis [Abbott Media Group]

With fears of the Coronavirus sweeping the nation, there seems to be little time for political campaigning.

In fact, election dates are being pushed back by months in many local communities, and political candidates may find themselves way down on the media's list of priorities.

Candidates should definitely not continue with a "business as usual" approach. But this doesn't mean they can sit at home and wait until June (or in some cases, late Autumn) to start campaigning. Actually, this delay presents an excellent opportunity - especially for non-incumbent upstart candidates - to stay in touch with supporters and continue to introduce themselves to new voters.

Of course, the new realities of the outbreak make many traditional ways of campaigning impossible for the moment. These now-forbidden staples of campaigning include door-to-door canvassing, campaign rallies, attending party meetings, and any other kind of face-to-face meetings.

However, there are still a great number of ways to reach out and remain in contact with voters, and keep candidates' names in the public eye, including extensive (daily) use of social media, speaking frequently on major issues your voters care about in print (via news releases and press statements) and short videos with tightly worded messages that convey campaign themes.

That last point is vital. You MUST have a compelling, consistent campaign message, and repeat it often. When I start working with a candidate, we first create a strong stump speech composed of a consistent list of campaign issues their voters care about, written around a short biography that is compelling and interesting. That's the basis of all future messaging, including the stump speech. Voters crave consistency, especially in a crisis.

And speaking of the crisis, candidates must comfort voters, and speak out (in the appropriate way) about how incumbents are handling it, and should be clear about how THEY would handle it.

Let me end by saying that best way to accomplish all this is to HIRE A PROFESSIONAL! I can help candidates navigate the new realities online and off, and present a consistent, compelling message that will keep voters engaged in this time of crisis. If you are one, or know one who could benefit from my services, put them in touch with me.

Stephen Abbott
AbbottMediaGroup.com

"Newsweek" May Be Dead In The USA, But Its International Edition Keeps Political Coverage Alive [Abbott Media Group]

It's not commonly known that magazines in the US have European or international editions, often with totally different material.

While Americans get "news" magazines that are busy pandering to one side of the political spectrum, or pop culture slop about fads or TV and movie entertainers, the Europeans at least get some coverage of actual personalities and issues that are changing their political lives.

Take, for example, Newsweek, which has in recent years become a shadow of its former self, which is to say, a magazine more obsessed with attacking the political Right than reporting "news."

In their October 26th International Edition, they featured a story on Austria's young Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. While not entirely "fair" (and arguably inaccurate, at least in the description we could find, below) the eight-page cover story at least introduced readers to this fascinating political leader:

"In May 2017, when Sebastian Kurz took control of the center-right Austrian People’s Party (OVP), he remade it in his image. Lest the world underestimate the significance of this, the thirty two year-old rebranded the OVP as the Sebastian Kurz List–New People’s Party. Seven months later the conservative populist became Austria’s youngest-ever chancellor, in addition to the world’s first millennial head of state and, according to some analysts, the future of Europe. 

Like other right-wing populists ascending to power in the European Union, the ambitious Kurz has pushed a hard-line immigration agenda in response to economic stagnation and the Syrian refugee crisis. But his youthful persona and political happenstance have elevated his status and his ideas far beyond Austria’s borders."

While the truth is out about Kurz's full conversion to the "right wing" (some on the actual right wing in Europe say he's starting to cave in to European bureaucrats on a few issues, including mass migration into Europe) kudos to Newsweek's International edition for at least covering a political leader of significance. Austria's public broadcaster, ORF, took note of the coverage, as well (In German. Use Google Translate to read in English.)

Now, if only most Americans knew who he was. Or who Angela Merkel or Emmanuel Macron are, for that matter.

Don't the media elites think we can handle such meaty discussions about politics? Do they not think we DESERVE to have those discussion.

Abbott Media Group does.

To get a broader picture, be sure to read World Politics News daily. And please support Abbott Media Group's latest venture, the Abbott News Service.

Abbott Media Group can be found online at www.abbottmediagroup.com.

Boycott Of Cafe That Posted "Anti-Gun" Message Becomes Lesson In Political Rhetoric [Abbott Media Group]

Ellen's Cafe in Dallas, Texas is finding out that words have meaning - and that not using the right words, especially in political discussions, can have severe consequences.

If their recent post is accurate, they profoundly blundered when they posted a message on the bottom of their customer receipts that they wanted to advocate for, "reasonable and effective gun regulations."

Their blunder wasn't posting such a message (they have that right, as all Americans do) But because they didn't understand that there's a certain way one speaks in politics and people want to hear "key words" when discussing "hot button" issues - be it gun rights, abortion, among others. And they apparently didn't know this before wading in.

The language they used, for instance, "reasonable and effective" are viewed as 'code words' by those on the political Right and specifically by NRA members as language the Left employs to advocate for strong new laws against gun ownership.

And that's just what happened in this instance. The message was interpreted as a political call to arms to the cafe's liberal customers.

The NRA's twitter account itself posted a photo of the receipt (at left) urging members to avoid the restaurant, which was located near this year's NRA convention site.

The receipt language went viral, of course, and calls for boycotts of the cafe spread across the internet.

The problem was, the cafe owners say they SUPPORT gun rights and the Second Amendment.

They said, in a May 4 Facebook post, their wording mistake was an honest one.

"The opposite is true. We support the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, 100%. And like the NRA, we also support finding solutions to the senseless killings that happen much too frequently. We believe those two things are completely compatible."

The cafe, by all accounts, meant well. The cafe held a sympathetic "round table" interview with Dallas Police officers last October about the July, 2016 shooting that killed two Dallas officers. They don't appear to be "anti-gun" any more than they are "anti-cop."

The media, of course, is focusing now on the detestable death threats and anger the errant language provoked, and there really is no excuse for that behavior.

The best lesson that can be learned from this is to use language - in politics, especially - with political sensitivities in mind. Understanding what your audience wants to hear is key to getting your message out to them - whether you're a politician, an interest group, or a cafe owner.


__________________________________________
Stephen Abbott is principal of Abbott Media Group, a reputation agency. www.abbottmediagroup.com

Candidates: What Is Your #PoliticalVoice?

What is your "Political Voice"?

A Political Voice ^(TM) is what I call the vital component of a Message - the WAY in which that message is conveyed to relevant publics. It isn't necessarily the words that are said (though it IS that) it's also the value of the message to the group toward which it is directed, and the tone and tenor at which it is delivered. The message is composed of the policies, plans and promises a candidate or business leader has to convey. The Voice is the MANNER in which the message is conveyed, and how much of the content of that message is conveyed to them.

For instance, with Pres. Trump, his Political Voice is cluttered, but approachable and casual, often having no regard to complex policies or even core beliefs. His speeches are short, brief, and aimed at "average voters."

When in office, Pres. Obama, by contrast, always had a Political Voice that was extremely structured and uplifting, approachable, but with soaring rhetoric, filled with weighty policies but also descriptive of why those policies were relevant, from a philosophical point of view. He was long-winded at times, often losing his audience, which were often upper middle-class city-dwellers.

Pres. Reagan, the "Great Communicator," had yet another style of Political Voice, one that was at times structured and uplifting, but also approachable and casual, often with humor and kindness as his tone. His rhetoric could be uplifting, and he never failed to convey his policies and core values in what he said. His speeches were of average length, never too long, and were aimed at "average voters" without seeming to exclude anyone.

It's extremely important for candidates who intend to seek public office to work with a professional communications consultant to develop a Voice. This will enable them to approach and appeal to not only to relevant future voters, but also - and perhaps even more importantly - to early donors and thought leaders.

Failure to do this, and to develop the right messaging that will be delivered, results in a failed campaign effort. And with the cost of today's political campaigns, deciding to "wing it" means to fail to sound like a viable candidate, and to come up short on election day.

I can help you develop a message and a Voice to convey it the RIGHT way. Contact me immediately if you plan to seek higher office in 2017 or 2018.

Stephen Abbott
#AbbottPR
#AbbottMediaGroup
www.abbottmediagroup.com

Is Print #Media Dead? (Not Another Obituary) [Abbott Media Group]

Is print media dead? I just read yet another post online saying just that. It's not difficult to draw that conclusion, given the decades-long slide into oblivion by many major and minor players in the field of print journalism.

Print publications large and small have long struggled with rapidly diminishing ad revenue, fewer eyeballs, and stiff competition from online media sources.

Public Relations consultants for business and political clients have more and more utilized and relied upon online media and social media to the detriment of print publications.

In politics, especially, print media has shot itself in the foot by failing to consistently offer balanced and responsible journalism. Given the slash and burn nature of the economics of the newsroom, it's not surprising that coverage has suffered. But there's literally no reason why this must necessarily result in shoddy, unbalanced coverage of political candidates or mere "horse race" and process stories.

In business, too, pay-to-play (stories for payment) have become the norm in many cash-starved papers. I recently went to the press release submission page of a prominent Florida newspaper, only to find that it offered publication for a "subscription." Whatever that is it's not journalism. It sure isn't "earned media."

So print media, if it's not dead, exactly, may be on life support. There's actually no solution to this problem except a complete re-dedication to journalistic excellence in the print media profession.

Papers, however cash-strapped they may be, must recommit to sending out reporters to actually cover the business community, political leaders, elections, and the people and places that are committing hard news within the readership area. Fluffy feel-good stories and police blotter stories have their place, but over-reliance on these tends to cheapen journalism.

I have seen political candidates who either have gotten perfunctory coverage, or none at all, because the newspaper had a favorite candidate or party, and decided on its own to filter out all candidates who did not meet their standards or biases of its editors. If they believed this would prompt ad sales, this has actually had the opposite effect, in many cases.

Many political campaigns, for example, have simply ignored the dead tree media and have focused almost entirely on new, online media, especially social media, which is becoming increasingly popular among voters as a source of both news and political information.

Businesses and the consultants representing them are also less enamored with the negative changes in print media, and are turning to alternate ways of reaching out to present and future clients and customers. And of course, ad revenues spiral ever more downward as a result.

And instead of "pay to play," which is ethically revolting as well as defeating the idea of earned media, news releases that are sent on behalf of candidates and businesses (and are actually timely and news-worthy) should actually prompt news stories that are balanced and fair.

Does Print have a future? Sure. But it can only have one if it re-dedicates itself to the fundamentals of journalism, including fairness, balance, and equality of access by all parties involved in an issue.

Why "Winging It" Is A Bad Approach For Candidates [Abbott Media Group]

Political newcomers will make mistakes, and perhaps it's a bit unfair to judge someone like Donald Trump to harshly when it comes to his many gaffes and errors when speaking.

After all, his supporters often say, Ronald Reagan also made gaffes during his 1980 campaign. Jokes were made about his misstatements, and his advisors said it was okay for him to make the occasional mistake when speaking because, after all, he wasn’t a professional politician. "Let Reagan be Reagan," was their frequent statement.

And that’s fine. Everyone is going to say something incorrect on the campaign trail. Barack Obama famously said he had been to almost all of the 57 states, after all. George W. Bush had made his share of verbal faux pas, and so has anyone who spends seven days a week on the road campaigning for president.

In the end, however, words do, in fact, matter. And actually speaking the right words is critical for a candidate if they want to effectively convey their beliefs, principles, hopes and aspirations to voters.

"The difference between the right word and the almost right word,” opined Mark Twain, “is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."

And saying something that is inconsistent, shocking, or simply incorrect can be devastating to a candidate’s credibility.

That's why the words Donald Trump uses really do matter; and they matter in any political campaign.

They matter to those who don’t support him almost as much as to those who are inclined to do so. In fact, in the final analysis – and on Election Day in November, if he’s the Republican nominee – the words Trump has used in this election year will either convince people to either acquiesce to his candidacy and support him, even if they didn’t in the primaries, to stay home, or to vote for the Democrat or another candidate not a member of the two Major Parties.

Of course if too many voters make any of these choices other than supporting the Republican nominee, it could easily have devastating consequences for House and Senate candidates and other statewide candidates on the ballot.  And party officials are fearing just that.

In my professional career as a campaign consultant or as a manager for a political candidate, I’ve stressed repeatedly how important messaging is to a campaign’s success. 

Candidates, especially wealthy ones and first-time ones, tend to believe that whatever falls from their lips is golden. I take pains to make it clear to them that this is not the case.

In fact, based on my experience with them, many first-time candidates seem to believe they don’t need to use a script or to answer the same way each time they’re asked about a particular issue.

They believe "winging it" will help them come off as more authentic and even "folksy."

And while being universally known with near 100% name recognition, as Trump enjoys, may allow a bit of a "pass" and a cushion for errors and even a bit of deliberate low-browism, two examples from The Donald’s campaign thus far will illustrate why this is the wrong tactic, even for him.

Donald Trump’s campaign announcement speech, as written, was brilliant, to the point, and conveyed a message and a candidate that was strong and focused.

His audience at the Trump Tower in New York, and the television audience who watched it on TV and hundreds of times thereafter online never heard this speech.

Instead, he took the bones of this written speech – written perhaps by an aide but clearly expressing Trump’s own views – and ad libed. Profusely. What was written as a 20-minute speech lasted well over an hour.

This is the origin of his famous/infamous “they’re rapists” comments, along with numerous iterations of his brags noting that he’s “very rich.” These set off alarm bells, though to be fair, they also attracted many disillusioned voters who were seeking just that kind of “politically incorrect” and bold language.

Fair enough. But the problem with this is that the result of this speech was almost universal condemnation and a silent fear that, as the primaries progressed, more “straight talk” would bring harm to the Republican brand. Which of course it has, possibly irreparably.

(Note here that Ronald Reagan's announcement speech was dignified, uplifting and greatly beneficial to both his image and, ultimately, to that of the Republican Party.)

That brings us to the second example.

The March 30 interview with Chris Matthews – a liberal progressive, with whom a seasoned conservative politician would take great care answering questions – demonstrated why off-the-cuff policy-making is also a bad idea.

His seemingly off-handed remark that women who get abortions would be “punished” was not only a rash and dangerous statement, it shocked pro-life campaigners who, for decades, have said just the opposite, and have fought the stereotypes of the Left that being pro-life is somehow “anti-woman.”

Not to mention his seemingly off-the-cuff remarks that NATO should be all-but disbanded and that Japan and South Korea should be armed with nuclear weapons. Pacifist Japan, along with South Korea, reacted strongly and angrily to these comments and those suggesting they’re not paying America enough for their defense (they pay over half of all expenses for having our troops there.)

But whether you agree with Trump’s policies or not, the impression, if not the reality, was that he was making them up on the spot. He recanted the abortion position later that day – perhaps at the demand of his shocked and appalled aides – leading one to believe he did in fact make them up.

The bottom line is that any candidate, be they running for president or city council, must be clear, articulate and consistent when they speak.

Policies spoken to one group that don’t match up when said to another suggests clear pandering, and subconsciously, that the speaker is inconsistent and, by extension, untrustworthy.

And it’s worth noting that presidents must always measure their words, and express their policies, in a very cautious and mature manner. There’s a reason why presidents have spokesmen in the White House press room calmly and cautiously answering reporter’s questions each day.

It may be frustrating to reporters looking for a “gotcha” moment, but in truth, any rash or poorly thought-out statement by a president or his spokesman could send stock markets reeling and, as we’ve seen with our Asian allies, diplomatic incidents occurring. 


(And back to Reagan; he never appeared to anyone to be making up his philosophy or principles as he went along, despite occasional missteps on the campaign trail.)

Candidates should therefore view what Donald Trump is doing as a textbook case illustrating how NOT to handle political speech. To take the opposite lesson would make my job infinitely harder, not to mention the destruction and damage that could be done to individual campaigns – and to political discourse in the United States, generally.

Stephen Abbott is a public relations consultant and political messaging specialist, and the principal of Abbott Media Group, specializing in helping political candidates, business leaders, groups and start-ups craft effective messages. More at abbottmediagroup.com.