Global Deck: 2011 Capital Staffers Index
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Global Deck: 2011 Capital Staffers Index

on

  • 6,924 views

The 2011 “Capital Staffers Index” is the third annual survey of senior legislative staffers from countries around the world. This mixed-mode survey conducted online and via telephone among 542 ...

The 2011 “Capital Staffers Index” is the third annual survey of senior legislative staffers from countries around the world. This mixed-mode survey conducted online and via telephone among 542 staffers from Washington, D.C., Brussels, London, Beijing, Ottawa, Mexico City, Paris, Berlin, New Delhi, Buenos Aires and Brasilia. It tracks many baseline public affairs metrics first established in our 2009 benchmark study. The survey has an overall margin of error of +/- 4.2% at the 95% level of confidence.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
6,924
Views on SlideShare
3,896
Embed Views
3,028

Actions

Likes
6
Downloads
167
Comments
0

31 Embeds 3,028

http://influence.edelman.com 1136
http://www.edelmandigital.com 805
http://www.edelman.com 558
http://stuartbruce.biz 120
http://sylwiapresley.com 98
http://capitalgig.com 78
http://feeds.feedburner.com 54
http://calebgardner.com 46
http://sylwiapresley.squarespace.com 37
http://paper.li 18
http://conversation.cipr.co.uk 17
http://edelman.staging.auctollo.net 12
http://www.nfpvoice.com 10
http://www.globalfinance.mu 7
http://www.twylah.com 4
http://www.tweetminster.co.uk 4
https://twitter.com 4
http://feeds2.feedburner.com 3
http://localhost 3
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 2
http://kred.com 2
http://www.digg.com 1
http://tweetminster.co.uk 1
https://www.google.com 1
http://a0.twimg.com 1
http://nfpvoice.com 1
http://flavors.me 1
http://hghltd.yandex.net 1
http://strongsocialmedia.collected.info 1
http://admin.totalmarketing.com 1
http://us-w1.rockmelt.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Global Deck: 2011 Capital Staffers Index Global Deck: 2011 Capital Staffers Index Presentation Transcript

  • 2011CapitalStaffersIndexA Global Analysis ofDigital Media’s Impacton Shaping PolicyNovember 2011
  • Research methodology and objectivesStrategyOne surveyed 542 seniorstaff members from key capitals This survey tests the perceived value of various communication strategies as tools for policymakers to connect with local residents and communities; determines the credibility and trust associated witharound the world from September social media networks; and compares the Internet’s influence on26 to October 31, 2011. policymakers internationally. London, UK Parliament 91 Brussels. BE Parliament 51 Paris, FR Assembly 50 Berlin, DE Bundestag 50Washington, DC Congress 50 Ottawa, CA Parliament 25 New Delhi, IN Parliament 55Mexico City, MX Congress 50 Beijing, CN Congress 20 Buenos Aires, AR Congress 50 The overall margin of error is +4.2% in 95 Brasilia, BR Congress 50 out of 100 cases. 2
  • From Policy Issue to Policy Priority “It’s the Economy Stupid” & “All Politics is Local”95% 95% 86% 84% 77% How important are each of the following in turning a policy issue into a policy priority for you? 3
  • Outside research and briefing overviews play an important role when staffers meet with lobbyists academic NGO one page editorials industry polls ads blogswhitepapers Research briefings groups When you meet with lobbyists, which THREE of the following things do you pay the most attention to? 4
  • Making Life Easier Evidence-based analysis is important Present clear analysis with evidence 23% Top Two Factors Be focused on message 20% FactSupported Know the issue 11%Messaging Don’t be overwhelming/fewer e-mails 7% Better communication 6% Use more technology 4% Better cooperation 4% Personal contact 3% Local support 2% Schedule meetings in advance 1% What is the ONE thing that advocacy groups or lobbyists could do that would do the MOST to make YOUR job easier? (Open ended) 5
  • Campaign “Fail Factors” Small & narrow Weak media coalition relations 8% Narrow 8% corporate interests Poorly Poor 11% executed spokesman advertising 11% 7% No Limited studies support that support 12% goals Poorly Poor 4% message designed strategy 14% 23% Weak team 2% Which ONE of these is typically the reason why a public affairs campaign fails? 6
  • Advocacy is Personal voter community constituent emails local social onlineletters leader letters office visits editorials media petitions When hearing from local advocacy groups, which of the following things help that group’s cause, and which of the following hurt that group’s cause? 7
  • Effectiveness of reaching members through social networks and Twitter is growing, rapidly approaching more traditional modes that maintainReaching Members their lead Change 2009 2010 2011% Total Effective from 2009*In-person visits with constituents N/A N/A 94% --Constituent-sent e-mails 87% 92% 85% -2Telephone calls 85% 83% 83% -2Written letters 90% 88% 81% -9Through a member’s website N/A 72% 79% +7Newspaper columns N/A N/A 72% --In-person visits with a professional lobbyist N/A N/A 70% --Television appearances N/A N/A 70% --Through a trade association N/A N/A 64% --Press releases N/A N/A 62% --Radio appearances N/A N/A 62% --Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut or other social network profile 22% 37% 54% +32Op-eds N/A N/A 54% --Television advertising N/A N/A 47% --Print advertising N/A N/A 45% --Mobile interaction through applications or text messages N/A 32% 44% +12Through Twitter 7% 15% 41% +34Radio advertising N/A N/A 40% --Comments posted on YouTube N/A 14% 30% -- Traditional Channel Digital Communication Paid Media *2010 for Through a member’s website and Mobile interaction through applications or text messages When constituents contact your member, how effective are each of the following modes of contact? 8
  • The internet is a driver in informing and shaping policy issuesEducated EnergizedLearned about a public Changed your positionpolicy issue for the first on a policy issue, basedtime online (globally) 60% on something you read online (globally) 67% YES NO 54% 81% in 2009 40% in 2009 33% 46% NO 19% YES in 2009 in 2009 In the last 30 days, have you: 9
  • Globally, the effectiveness of Twitter andsocial networks are experiencing the most significant growth When constituents contact your member, how effective are each of the following modes of contact? 10
  • Current Member use of Facebook andTwitter is already outpacing last year’s forecast for three-year growth+8 +8 Thinking about several different technologies, please indicate whether or not your Member was using them tocommunicate with constituents on key issues 3 years ago, is using them now, and will be using them 3 years from now. 11
  • Twitter’s ability to provide news and politics is a large factormotivating who staffers choose to follow The focus on members of the media highlights a need for focus on direct media relations If you use Twitter, please select each of the types of people YOU follow on Twitter? 12
  • A majority of staffers use Twitter as an issues and news first alert system Twitter Use by Country There is a clear (60% Overall) desire to influence the Canada Mexico 96% 88% flow of information: 53% Do not use Twi er 6% US 84% using Twitter to Listening receive news to issuesArgentina 66% quickly and call 6% UK 66% attention to 14% Shaping China 65% issues bypasses Receiving debate Brazil 58% traditional news news 4% sources and quickly 16% Receiving EU 47% Calling unfiltered allows staffers a en on to India 47% to act as a 2% informa on issues Talking to France 32% source of cons tuentsGermany 30% information themselves. Thinking just about Twitter, which ONE of the following do you feel is the biggest benefit you get from using Twitter? 13
  • Designing the Perfect Campaign Make it relevant Tell a Compelling Story Take the issue onlineNational Economics/Local Impact Master Narrative Search optimization Analysis and research Statistics Compelling content White Papers Anecdotes Tweets & blogs Concise, impactful supporting contentPersonalize Your Outreach Supplement Traditional with Digital Grassroots/Advocacy Government relations Constituent letters/e-mails Media relations Member outreach days Twitter/Facebook Business/Community leader testimonials Social media/blogs/websites 14
  • 2011CapitalStaffersIndexA Global Analysis ofDigital Media’s Impacton Shaping PolicyNovember 2011 15
  • AppendixNational Score CardsNovember 2011 16
  • Summary of United States Effectiveness of Inbound 2009 2011 Change Top Twitter Digital Communication % Follow on Twitter Members of the media 48%% Total Effective Constituent-sent e-mails 84% 78% -6 Political professionals 48% Through a member’s website n/a 74% -- Bloggers 40% Through Twitter 16% 40% +24 Legislative Colleagues 38% Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut Federal Government Entities 38% 40% 38% -2 or other social network profile Local Interest Groups 33% Comments posted on YouTube n/a 30% -- Constituents 31% Mobile interaction through n/a 26% -- Community Organizations 26% applications or text messagesMembers’ Digital Usage Top 3 Twitter Benefits
  • Summary of United Kingdom Effectiveness of Inbound 2009 2011 Change Top Twitter Digital Communication % Follow on Twitter Members of the media 83%% Total Effective Constituent-sent e-mails 94% 97% +3 Political professionals 75% Through a member’s website n/a 89% -- Bloggers 73% Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut 15% 41% +26 Local Interest Groups 60% or other social network profile Through Twitter 9% 34% +25 Federal Government Entities 53% Mobile interaction through Community Organizations 53% n/a 23% -- applications or text messages Legislative Colleagues 47% Comments posted on YouTube n/a 12% -- Constituents 28%Members’ Digital Usage Top 3 Twitter Benefits
  • Summary of Brussels (European Union) Effectiveness of Inbound 2009 2011 Change Top Twitter Digital Communication % Follow on Twitter Members of the media 71%% Total Effective Constituent-sent e-mails 82% 84% +2 Political professionals 71% Through a member’s website n/a 76% -- Bloggers 54% Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut 22% 61% +39 Community Organizations 46% or other social network profile Mobile interaction through Legislative Colleagues 42% n/a 37% -- applications or text messages Local Interest Groups 38% Through Twitter 7% 22% +15 Federal Government Entities 29% Comments posted on YouTube n/a 12% -- Constituents 25%Members’ Digital Usage Top 3 Twitter Benefits
  • Summary of France Effectiveness of Inbound 2009 2011 Change Top Twitter Digital Communication % Follow on Twitter Legislative Colleagues 100%% Total Effective Through a member’s website n/a 72% -- Members of the media 81% Constituent-sent e-mails 88% 70% -18 Political professionals 75% Mobile interaction through n/a 54% -- Federal Government Entities 63% applications or text messages Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut Bloggers 56% 3% 36% +33 or other social network profile Community Organizations 38% Comments posted on YouTube n/a 24% -- Local Interest Groups 31% Through Twitter 0% 16% +16% Constituents 31%Members’ Digital Usage Top 3 Twitter Benefits
  • Summary of Germany Effectiveness of Inbound 2009 2011 Change Top Twitter Digital Communication % Follow on Twitter Constituents 67%% Total Effective Constituent-sent e-mails 88% 94% +6 Legislative Colleagues 60% Through a member’s website n/a 90% -- Members of the media 53% Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut 32% 40% +8 Political professionals 53% or other social network profile Mobile interaction through Local Interest Groups 40% n/a 24% -- applications or text messages Federal Government Entities 27% Through Twitter 4% 12% +8 Bloggers 20% Comments posted on YouTube n/a 8% -- Community Organizations 13%Members’ Digital Usage Top 3 Twitter Benefits
  • Summary of India Effectiveness of Inbound Digital Top Twitter 2011 Communication % Follow on Twitter Local Interest Groups 35%% Total Effective Constituent-sent e-mails 89% Members of the media 31% Mobile interaction through applications or text messages 78% Federal Government Entities 27% Through a member’s website 69% Bloggers 23% Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut or other social Community Organizations 23% 51% network profile Political professionals 23% Through Twitter 40% Constituents 19% Comments posted on YouTube 36% Legislative Colleagues 19%Members’ Digital Usage Top 3 Twitter Benefits
  • Summary of Argentina Effectiveness of Inbound Digital Top Twitter 2011 Communication % Follow on Twitter Constituents 21%% Total Effective Constituent-sent e-mails 74% Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut or other social Political professionals 18% 72% network profile Legislative Colleagues 15% Through a member’s website 70% Community Organizations 15% Through Twitter 62% Members of the media 12% Local Interest Groups 9% Mobile interaction through applications or text messages 58% Federal Government Entities 6% Comments posted on YouTube 54% Bloggers 0%Members’ Digital Usage Top 3 Twitter Benefits
  • Summary of Brazil Effectiveness of Inbound Digital 2011 Top Twitter Communication % Follow on Twitter Political professionals 72%% Total Effective Constituent-sent e-mails 90% Legislative Colleagues 55% Through a member’s website 82% Federal Government Entities 52% Through Twitter 68% Members of the media 48% Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut or other social Local Interest Groups 41% 56% network profile Constituents 38% Mobile interaction through applications or text messages 28% Bloggers 34% Comments posted on YouTube 28% Community Organizations 28%Members’ Digital Usage Top 4 Twitter Benefits
  • Summary of Mexico Effectiveness of Inbound Digital 2011 Top Twitter Communication % Follow on Twitter Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut or other social Members of the media 43%% Total Effective 96% network profile Federal Government Entities 25% Constituent-sent e-mails 92% Constituents 5% Through a member’s website 92% Political professionals 5% Through Twitter 82% Community Organizations 5% Local Interest Groups 2% Mobile interaction through applications or text messages 80% Legislative Colleagues 0% Comments posted on YouTube 70% Bloggers 0%Members’ Digital Usage Top 3 Twitter Benefits
  • Summary of China Effectiveness of Inbound Digital 2011 Top Twitter Communication % Follow on Twitter Federal Government Entities 38%% Total Effective Constituent-sent e-mails 50% Local Interest Groups 31% Through a member’s website 50% Constituents 15% Mobile interaction through applications or text messages 50% Bloggers 15% Comments posted on YouTube 45% Community Organizations 8% Members of the media 8% Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut or other social 35% network profile Legislative Colleagues 8% Through Twitter 30% Political professionals 0%Members’ Digital Usage Top 3 Twitter Benefits
  • Summary of Canada Effectiveness of Inbound Digital 2011 Top Twitter Communication % Follow on Twitter Members of the media 67%% Total Effective Constituent-sent e-mails 96% Local Interest Groups 58% Through a member’s website 80% Constituents 58% Through a member’s Facebook, Orkut or other social 76% Legislative Colleagues 58% network profile Through Twitter 56% Community Organizations 54% Political professionals 46% Mobile interaction through applications or text messages 40% Federal Government Entities 38% Comments posted on YouTube 28% Bloggers 29%Members’ Digital Usage Top 3 Twitter Benefits