The first level of assessment involves evaluating the standing, presence, and legitimacy of your organization as a player in your target decision-making process, and is centered around answering the following question:
Do you have the established track record, visibility, and reputation as a provider of quality analysis and advice in this policy area to open doors and be taken seriously?
A number of factors should be considered in answering this question, focused on evaluating to what extent you have built a good reputation in the policy network through previous and ongoing engagement in the target policy debate. The recognized characteristics of a strong messenger are a combination of the following credentials:
- Known as an opinion leader, an expert or innovator whose opinion is valued in this area.
- Has an established track record as a reputable provider of research, analysis, advice, and commentary in the target policy area.
- Known to represent an important constituency in these debates.
- Known to have strong connections and visibility in the network.
- Has access to key players on the policy issue in focus.
- Has the trust of decisionmakers and/or opinion leaders in this policy area.
- Is seen as an honest broker and not overtly political.
- Has the trust of, sensitivity for, and connection to affected stakeholders.
- Has approval and support from opinion leaders, stakeholders, and/or even decisionmakers for your findings and/or recommendations.
- Known as an individual or organization that has the capacity and willingness to engage in the advocacy process and can make it happen.1
Taking this range of factors into account, this is a question of evaluating yourself in the context of the broader policy network by looking back at your policy experience and considering if the key decisionmakers and opinion leaders in the process already know who you are and see you as a player of merit in the debate. Of course, they do not have to agree with you or like your point of view, but they do have to see you as someone who can potentially change the course of events in the debate and decision-making process, that is, they will have to respond or engage with you in the process and they cannot afford to ignore what you say. It may not be necessary for you to tick all the boxes and possess all the factors, but identifying those that are crucial for the particular advocacy campaign and how you weigh up against them is valuable information. It goes without saying that gaining the trust of decisionmakers and stakeholders as a reputable provider does not happen overnight, but rather is the result of long-term engagement with these actors in this area and careful cultivation of relationships.2
While the above considerations of past experience, reputation, and connections are vital in considering who should be the face of the campaign, there is one instance when a newcomer may make a more suitable messenger: when you bring an innovative solution to a policy debate that is at a stalemate around a seemingly intractable problem. Under those circumstances, the new face with the new solution will often be welcomed as a breath of fresh air for an old problem.
The messenger is usually well established in the policy network, but in rare cases, a fresh face may be more suitable.