Olive oil and the three Brussels ailments

I love olive oil. I love good olive oil. But why oh why, did the olive oil jug ban in restaurants and the subsequent U-turn become the main EU news coming out of Brussels last week? Has anyone noticed that there has been a European Council as well? Yes, it did get a bit of attention, but way less than the olive oil story.

This made me think. I often complain about how badly the EU institutions communicate. But there is more to it. I realised that there are three syndromes that from now on I will need to keep in mind when trying to find ways for the European Union to (re)connect with its citizens. And I will also have to be careful and remember that many in and around the EU suffer severely from these conditions, and not all of them are working in the Communications department of the European Union.

1) The shape of cucumbers syndrome: the problem sometimes is not how the EU communicates its decisions but what those decisions are. The Commission works on a vast number of portfolios and agriculture is a big one. But in the current economical situation, well, at any time for that matter, there are some things that the EU simply should not be dealing with. And jugs in restaurants is such a thing. Especially since countries that have such legislation already in place have serious difficulty implementing it - I wonder why.... So let's just leave it to the customer shall we?

 2) The damned if you do and damned if you don't syndrome: the fact that after the barrage of criticism Commissioner Ciolos decided to withdraw the proposal has been criticised just as much as the proposal itself. If you believe in something, then stick to it and defend it. But if you have actually changed your mind and you have the courage - because it is slightly embarrassing - to go out and openly say it, then be prepared to be slagged off anyway. Funnily, at the press conference, since most of the questions were related to how bad the proposal was in the first place, the Commissioner, after his u-turning statement, spent most of the time defending the original proposal and certainly not enough on why he had changed his mind.

Here the inspiring press conference:



3)The powerful lobbies syndrome: the typical Brussels conspiracy scenario: the olive oil industry lobby versus the butter producers lobby; the northern lobby versus the southern lobby; the quality lobby versus the quantity lobby; 'the-Commission-is-too-weak-in-front-of-industry' lobby versus 'the-Commission-is-too-weak-in-front-of-powerful-member-states lobby'. Couldn't it simply be that the Commission has made a mistake, realised it (admittedly after some external pressure) and acted on it (again, a bit too late)? Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that lobbies in Brussels are not powerful; I am only pointing out that everyone has got their 'bad lobby' to blame for something or other.

The Commission, the member states - for or against the proposal - and the European media have all behaved in a typical but frankly disappointing way: not one of them has actually explained properly what has happened: why has the idea come up in the first place? How serious of an issue it is? Why did countries like the UK abstain and later shouted against it to please their Euro-sceptic audience? Why has Cameron decided not to explain the reason for this strange behaviour, a question posed brilliantly also by Wall Street Journal's journalist Simon Nixon? Why has the coverage been so extensive but not particularly rigorous? Sadly, everyone stuck to their defensive position and kept on pursuing their own agenda.

And in the end, once again, the real losers are the European citizens whether they love olive oil or not.

Lobbying and communications in the Brussels bubble: the missing link

It all started once, while I was making myself a coffee in the kitchen of my old office, when a colleague asked me: 'How come, Virginia, that your clients are always the most difficult?'  Before then, I had never really thought about it. When a client was being difficult, I typically blamed myself and my relative inexperience in Public Relations. But her question got me thinking; the agency I was working for was, and still is, predominantly a public affairs agency (which is a rather confusing way, I find, of saying lobbying firm). She had been working with me on a couple of projects to develop communications tools for a lobbying objective. For these kinds of projects the client was generally the communications director of the company rather than the director responsible for public affairs. Conversations were often challenging, to say the least. So, was the conclusion that comms directors are, to put it nicely, more exacting? I was not convinced.

Then I got it. The big difference between communications and public affairs is that, when dealing with the former, everybody and his dog has an opinion. Everybody thinks they know enough about it; they think they know how to do it effectively i.e. they know what works and what does not. The only reason to hire an agency is to use the agency's wo/men power. They want someone to implement their communications strategy rather than someone who might propose a different one, which is why they may become 'difficult' if you dare to make even the smallest suggestion or criticism.

Public affairs is a different story: senior consultants in public affairs agencies in Brussels have got not only the know-how but also the contacts. They can open doors, or certainly they claim they can, that for many corporate clients - especially non Europeans- are closed. But to open these doors for you, the agencies need to develop their own strategy - based on an expertise they assertively say is unique - and help you implement it. Maybe lobbyists are better at...lobbying for themselves!

But I actually think it is more than that. This idea that everyone knows about communications is probably at the heart of a key problem in this city and it has permeated everything. I remember a very senior colleague in my office, when asked why there wasn't more time - which obviously meant more money - spent on learning about digital communications saying: 'We all know about digital communications: we all Tweet!' No further questions, Your Honour.

The reasoning, following almost an Aristotelian logic, goes like this:

"I know how to communicate, hence I do not need any help. If I know, everyone else knows as well, which means that in the end communications is not that important or rewarding".
The consequences are pretty obvious: in agencies, the communications teams are squeezed, overworked - as their budgets tend to be smaller- and very often demotivated; in the corporate world, companies that cannot or will not afford an agency, will use their communications people mostly as press officers; and in the institutions, as communications is totally undervalued, when there is the need to get rid of someone that is not that good, he or she will be 'promoted' to a post in communications.

The results are painfully clear: the material coming out of public affairs agencies is often mediocre, not to talk about the material coming out of the institutions. And wouldn't some Commissioners - not to name names - have benefitted from investing more time in developing a communications strategy and then sticking to it? I remember asking this exact question to a senior member of Cabinet and was told that the Commissioner in question had to deal with too many things and had to prioritise! There you go!

I understand that Brussels is, to most agencies, quintessentially a lobbying town. But what I find striking is the inability to see that lobbying and communications are two different aspects of the same thing: what else is lobbying (in the good sense of the word) if not communicating your point of view in such a convincing way that it will influence the legislation you are concerned about? Using ALL the tools at your disposal, not only increases your effectiveness but also makes you more transparent hence less subject to criticism. And even talking about the institutions one could use a similar argument: the positive effects of all that the EU does or claims to do are lost on the majority of people because nobody has bothered communicating it in a decent way.

To be fair, some consultants and some EU officials have understood this a long time ago. They attach a central importance to communications and try to do what they can, to spread the word. But in my conversations with them, I have sensed a deep frustration every time I mention this issue which shows that there is still a long way to go.

In the end, it is difficult to change the shape of a bubble without bursting it, which is why for many in Brussels it is probably better if things stay this way.