Abstract
This study aims to better understand public policy communication in the context of public relations research. Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with 15 public policy communicators who work directly with policymakers. In defining public policy communication in the context of public relations, this study proposes a strategic model that provides a comprehensive view of public policy communication. This study contributes to the public relations literature by extending the understanding of the dynamics of strategic public policy communication practices and bridging the gap between practice and public relations theories.
Keywords
Research on advocacy communication has flourished in public relations scholarship in recent years (Lee, 2024; Tsai et al., 2020). Various entities have been involved in advocating for social issues. Corporations now take stances on social and political matters beyond their financial interests (Taylor, 2024), and nonprofit organizations address diverse societal challenges and advocate for groups of people (Day, 2021). In addition to organizational communication, civil society builds networks and advocates for issues (Tsai et al., 2020). With increasing advocacy involvement, research on advocacy communication has focused on how organizations and active public communicate to shape public opinion and mobilize resources from a strategic communication perspective (J. S. Lim & Young, 2021; Rim et al., 2020). Although existing scholarship has provided empirical insights into strategic advocacy communication with the public, a research gap remains in understanding the interplay between public policy communication with policymakers, strategic communication, and public relations.
This study addresses this gap by exploring public policy communication in the context of public relations. This study adopts key public relations functions and relevant theories, including issue management, stakeholder theory, and relationship management, to delineate public policy communication from a public relations perspective. Given the rising importance of advocacy communication in public relations practice and scholarship, this study aims to connect the missing link between strategic advocacy communication and policy change by (a) exploring the current state of public policy communication practices through in-depth interviews with advocacy communication professionals and (b) incorporating public relations concepts and theories generated from practitioners’ interviews. Practices can be determined through a deductively derived typology (e.g., Miles et al., 1978) or an inductively based taxonomy (e.g., Miller & Friesen, 1977). To reconcile the current gap between scholarly efforts and practices in public policy communication, this study adopts an abductive approach, assigning theories to articulate practices for further theorizing (Van Maanen et al., 2007).
From the practitioners’ perspective, this study attempts to understand, define, and conceptualize public policy communication and its strategies in a public relations context. By incorporating media advocacy and public relations theories, this study proposes a comprehensive framework for public policy communication.
Literature Review
Advocacy Communication in Public Relations Research
Advocacy has been defined in various ways across disciplines (Edgett, 2002; Jenkins, 1987). McKeever et al. (2023) identified three key characteristics of advocacy: (a) bringing people’s attention to an issue, (b) engaging them with the issue, and (c) influencing the decision-making process. Based on these conceptual definitions, advocacy communication in public relations research has been studied along three primary dimensions.
First, scholars (Gaither & Austin, 2023; Waymer & VanSlette, 2021) have examined how corporations communicate advocating for particular issues through the concept of corporate social advocacy (CSA). CSA refers to corporations publicly addressing social issues to improve their image and create social impact and change (Gaither & Austin, 2023). Research in this area has examined effective CSA communication strategies, such as message (Song & Choi, 2023), company–cause fit (J. S. Lim & Young, 2021), and authenticity (O’Donnell et al., 2025), to engage the public and maintain positive relationships with the issue and the corporation. Studies investigating public responses to CSA communication strategies have also considered individual factors, such as public issue stances (Hong & Li, 2020), preexisting attitudes toward the company (Xu et al., 2024), and static characteristics drawn from the situational theory of problem solving (Roh & Oh, 2021).
Second, another line of research has focused on how nonprofit organizations engage and mobilize people for their causes. Scholars have examined nonprofit organizations’ communication strategies on social media (Auger, 2013; Tao et al., 2021), key antecedents based on individual characteristics that influence public support for nonprofit organizations (Harrison et al., 2021), and the effectiveness of various message strategies (Pressgrove et al., 2021).
Although the first two streams of research have centered on the effectiveness of organizational communication strategies, the third line of research has investigated the public’s collective voluntary advocacy efforts. For example, Tsai et al. (2020) examined how politically motivated consumers influence the communication networks of companies taking stances on sociopolitical issues. By analyzing and comparing the social networks of the two groups, supporters and opponents, they found that consumers predominantly retweeted and mentioned in-group content, thereby forming echo chambers. In addition, their analysis identified key mediators who amplified in-group networks and bridged communication between opposing groups, thus providing insight into how public form and mobilize issues on social media. This line of research has explored public responses to particular CSA efforts on social media (Zhang, 2024).
In the public relations scholarship, Edgett (2002) defined advocacy as, “the act of publicly representing an individual, organization, or idea with the object of persuading target audiences to look favorably on- or accept the point of view of- the individual, the organization, or the idea” (p. 1) noting advocacy as a central function of public relations. In this regard, scholars have focused on persuasion as a key function of advocacy within rhetorical theory, arguing that persuasion uses words and symbols to influence (Toth & Heath, 1992). The connection between advocacy and persuasion has been discussed in the realm of rhetoric for persuasive discourse (Berg, 2012).
Although public relations scholarship on advocacy communication has extensively studied how various entities bring attention to and engage audiences with issues, research is limited on the final facet of advocacy communication: influencing the decision-making process. However, persuasion is integral to all three functions. Messina (2007) noted that persuasion is a public relations’ blind spot, arguing that public relations scholars have avoided discussing persuasion in place of public relations due to the feeling against persuasion as a propaganda tactic. Despite extensive research on advocacy communication efforts at the organizational level, the critical link between advocacy communication and policy change remains underexplored. This is partially because public relations in advocacy communication targeting the public has been deemed a management function, whereas the final influencing process on decision-makers has been considered persuasion. Although some argue that public relations functions center around shaping public opinion (Van Leuven & Slater, 1991), which, in turn, influences the policy decision-making process (Hudson, 2023), influencing decisions requires distinct strategic communication efforts. Advocacy communication between advocacy communicators and policymakers has not been discussed in public relations research, even though it involves management, communication, and relationship strategies that are critical components of public relations.
Public Policy Communication
Public policy communication refers to the communication surrounding public policy issues, encompassing the creation of policies and addressing complex societal problems (Canary et al., 2013). With any actors, it involves the process of informing, engagement, and persuasion (Canary & Taylor, 2020). The term is often used interchangeably with policy communication in political communication and public health research (Crozier, 2007; Labarca et al., 2020). Studies on public policy have highlighted the importance of effective communication in implementing policies and achieving policy objectives by engaging various stakeholders such as public, policymakers, or interest groups (Hidayat & Dariyanto, 2023). Public health and public policy research often discuss communication strategies targeting the public to raise awareness about pressing health issues and the necessity for specific policy enactments (Crow & Jones, 2018).
In public relations scholarship, public policy communication has frequently been discussed in the context of government public relations (Agerdal-Hjermind & Valentini, 2015) and public diplomacy (Servaes, 2012). Examining the intersection of advocacy communication and public policy communication, Heath’s (1990) article on issue management identified a practice for public policy communication aimed at policymakers: “to shape meaning, define events, and establish value priorities” (p. 38). While advocacy communication refers to any communicative actions that bring attention, engage the public, and influence the decision-making process (McKeever et al., 2023), public policy communication is a subset of advocacy communication, particularly aimed at strategic communication on public policy issues. In doing so, strategic communication is an umbrella term indicating all types of planned and intentional communication to influence attitudes and behaviors (e.g., public relations, marketing, advocacy communication, public policy communication, political communication, health communication) (Hallahan et al., 2007).
Despite limited discussion on the strategic communication aspects of public policy communication in public relations research, the media advocacy model from public health research offers a framework for exploring its role in policy change. Media advocacy refers to “the strategic use of news media by those seeking to advance a social or public policy initiative” (Holder & Treno, 1997, p. 190). Media advocacy targets the public to influence policymakers indirectly. Media advocacy consists of three steps: (a) setting the agenda, (b) framing the issue, and (c) advancing solutions (Gibson, 2010). Advocates build public and media agendas by framing and promoting the issue’s salience to increase media coverage (Wallack et al., 1993). By advancing specific solutions, they provide a call to action that enables the public to engage with the issue (Kensicki, 2004). While the final target audience of media advocacy is policymakers who change the policy, scholarship efforts in media advocacy have focused on analyzing the strategic value of media content in influencing policy agendas (McKeever, 2013), under the assumption that the media agenda shapes the policy agenda (Wallack et al., 1993).
However, Dorfman and Krasnow (2014) noted that advocates need to use every available channel, including in-person communication, to reach decision-makers effectively. They called for more research into interpersonal strategic communication for policy change. Similarly, public relations literature has highlighted the importance of interpersonal communication in campaigns to drive change (O’Keefe & Reid, 1990). Investigating direct communication links between advocacy communicators and policymakers is essential for understanding the full scope of advocacy communication and its strategic value on policy change. In doing so, understanding how practitioners describe their role is crucial, given the lack of conceptual and practical ambiguity on public policy communication in public relations research. Here, practice refers to “various routines, discourses, concepts” enabling practitioners to enact strategies (Jarzabkowski & Whittington, 2008, p. 101). Therefore, from a practitioner’s perspective, this study explores how practitioners define advocacy communication in the context of public policy communication.
Based on the concept of public policy communication, the remainder of this literature review will examine relevant public relations concepts and theories that contribute to public policy communication.
Issue Management
Issue management encompasses the strategies and efforts organizations use to influence public policy through “communicating, issue monitoring, achieving responsibility, and strategic planning” (Heath, 1990, p. 30). Initially conceptualized as a process to shape public policy decisions, issue management focused on how corporations respond to pressures from activist groups, legislators, and regulators (Chase, 1984). Early research in this area has primarily examined corporations’ efforts to turn unfavorable circumstances into favorable outcomes (Heath & Cousino, 1990).
In recent years, issue management has evolved in terms of actors and scopes. As organizations increasingly take a proactive approach to navigating their environments and shaping issues, scholars have explored how entities beyond corporations use issue management to achieve their goals (Sommerfeldt & Yang, 2017).
Coombs and Holladay (2018) defined issue management as a “proactive strategic communication function that helps management achieve larger goals” by addressing social issues (p. 81). Social issues management describes the process by which corporations advocate for specific social issues, often taking clear stances. Coombs and Holladay (2018) noted that the focus of issue management across various organizations has shifted from influencing public policy to addressing social issues and making internal policy decisions.
Although the actors and scope of issue management have evolved from the initial concept, the idea of issue management helps advocacy communicators navigate and respond to emerging issues. Understanding the intersection between issue management and public policy communication is essential to comprehending how organizations strategically influence policy decisions.
Stakeholder Theory
A stakeholder is “any group or individual that can affect or is affected by the actions, decisions, policies, practices, or goals of the organization” (Carroll, 1996, p. 74). Stakeholders inherently have “a stake, something to gain or lose as a result of its (the corporation’s) activities” (Clarkson, 1998, p. 2). Stakeholder theory emphasizes the importance of engaging with multiple stakeholders and balancing their interests simultaneously (Paul, 2015). In public relations research, stakeholder theory has been a foundational concept for exploring corporate social responsibility, which examines the “relationship between business and society or the role of business” (Kim, 2019, p. 1,143).
Although other disciplines, such as business, focus on stakeholder management for direct and tangible outcomes like financial returns, public relations scholarship prioritizes value outcomes through relationships and communication efforts (Paul, 2015). Consequently, stakeholders have been examined in diverse contexts, including relationship management within religious organizations (Morehouse, 2021), nonprofit relationship management (Pressgrove & McKeever, 2016), and multi-stakeholder issue networks in civil society (Saffer, 2019).
In the context of public policy communication, Heath (1990) highlighted that managing conflicts arising from stakeholders’ differing values and interests is integral to the issue management process. For example, in the public policy arena, each entity has its own interests, and companies must align legislators, regulators, trade associations, unions, activists, and other stakeholders with the broader social good. Although public relations research on issue management and stakeholders has extended to various actors, its application within public policy communication remains limited to the corporate sector.
Relationship Management and Interpersonal Communication
Relationship management in public relations initially adopts its idea from interpersonal communication (Bruning, 2002). Because public relations has been initially tied to mass communication theories, scholars have emphasized the value of expanding public relations theory through interpersonal communication perspectives (Bruning, 2002; Coombs, 2001; Hon & Grunig, 1999). Interpersonal communication research focuses on how communication initiates and sustains relationships. Public relations scholarship has adapted these principles to explore organization-public relationships (OPR; Bruning, 2002).
Coombs (2001) identified communication, management, and relationship as critical concerns shared by interpersonal-level relationship management and OPR. Hon and Grunig (1999) introduced public relationship maintenance strategies, suggesting that concepts from interpersonal relationships can be applied to symmetrical public relationships. Relationship management has long been a central focus in public relations (Dozier et al., 2013). In particular, OPR remains a key topic in relationship management (Sallot et al., 2003).
Examining relationship management research in public relations, Ki et al. (2023) argued that OPR is a subtheme of relationship management, and the two concepts are often used interchangeably in public relations. According to Ki et al. (2023), relationship management concerns “the entire process of relationship from the beginning to the end,” indicating it is a more extensive and broader concept, whereas OPR specifically addresses an organization’s efforts to develop and evaluate the quality of relationships with public (p.2).
Within the domain of relationship management, interpersonal relationship management was examined, particularly through mass media publicity, event planning, and public policy communication in public relations research (Langett, 2013; Rhee, 2007; Wise, 2007). For example, the personal influence model is an important media relations strategy in East Asian cultures (Huang, 2000). Shin and Cameron (2003) found that interpersonal relationships between journalists and practitioners significantly influenced media relations outcomes in South Korea. Given the interdependent nature of the relationship between practitioners and journalists—where practitioners serve as sources and journalists as reporters (Giber & Johnson, 1961)—relationships are often cultivated informally through unofficial calls, private meetings, alumni or regional connections, press tours, advertising negotiations, and perks such as dinners or drinks (Cameron et al., 1997). These interpersonal relationships influence news coverage and content (Cameron et al., 1997; Shin & Cameron, 2003). Subsequent research has demonstrated its presence in diverse contexts, including ethical leadership (Meng & Neill, 2022), employee relations (White et al., 2010), and membership relations (Derville Gallicano, 2009).
Heath (1990) pointed out the importance of interpersonal communication for balancing and managing diverse stakeholder interests in public policy communication. Although interpersonal relationship management is a crucial component of public relations, efforts to incorporate it into public relations research remain limited, and its application in the context of public policy communication has yet to be thoroughly examined.
Following an abductive approach, we defined and articulated the theoretical framework (Figure 1) and integrated multiple theoretical models to derive key strategies for public policy communication. Strategies here indicate carefully planned efforts to achieve communication goals in practice (Hallahan et al., 2007). Next, in the context of taxonomy, this study empirically investigates how these theoretical frameworks uncover the strategies of public policy communication. Given the limited research on advocacy communication, public policy communication, and their intersection with public relations, this study explores how advocacy communicators define communication and the strategies they use to influence public policy change.
Initial theoretical framework of strategic public policy communication.
Methods
To better understand the various channels and methods employed by prosocial communicators, we spoke to 15 practitioners who work directly with policymakers. In-depth interviews were conducted to examine public policy communication practice and strategies, considering 1) the inconsistency between the theoretical framework and practices, 2) the depth and details of interview data attached to experiences, social processes, practices, and events (Edwards & Holland, 2020, p. 583). The practitioners were selected based on affiliation with the Public Affairs Council (n.d.) and/or the National Institute for Lobbying & Ethics (n.d.). Public Affairs Council (n.d.) is a membership association which defines their members as having “direct experience in corporate and association public affairs management, lobbying, digital advocacy, global affairs, corporate responsibility and ESG, PACs and campaign finance, crisis communication and host of related functions,” indicating the key practices of advocacy communication, bringing attention, engaging them, and influencing decision making process. The National Institute for Lobbying & Ethics (n.d.) defines its members as “lobbying, public policy, and government affairs professionals.” Initially, the chair of the Public Affairs Council provided the list of the members who are directly working with policymakers. The listed members are in leadership roles in public policy communication within their respective organizations, overseeing a range of advocacy communications and influencing decision-making processes, in particular. This initial selection was made based on participants’ roles and responsibilities rather than job titles, given the different organizational structures and job titles within which the communication/public relations team operates (Bowen, 2009). In addition, the selection criteria meet the purpose of the study, defining the roles and strategies in the public policy communication context. Internal Review Board approval was received on October 23, 2023, and practitioners were contacted via email between November 14, 2023, and March 22, 2024, to schedule interviews.
We used purposive sampling to recruit participants. First, we sorted a list of potential participants by industry to ensure representation in multiple sectors. Then we emailed five names at a time, either scheduling interviews or marking them as unavailable. Conscious decisions were made to contact participants across a range of races, genders, ethnicities, and locations. If we did not receive a response from our initial email, we would reach out again after 2 weeks to verify receipt. Interviews were scheduled as availability allowed, most within 2 weeks of initial contact. All interviews were conducted via Zoom and recorded for transcription purposes. Participants were offered a $150 Amazon gift card to incentivize their time. Several declined for ethical reasons or because it violates company policy. The average interview length was 46.05 min, with the shortest being 36.37 and the longest being 68.05. Interviews were sent to Rev.com for human transcription, and final transcripts were edited for accuracy. Transcripts were then imported into MAXQDA for analysis.
All interviews began with a summary of the project and a request for consent to record and transcribe. We continued by collecting demographic data (race, gender, and age). Then we moved into a semi-structured interview protocol with open-ended questions such as, “Tell us about your day-to-day duties. What do you focus on the most and why?” Further questions became more specific, for example, “For a campaign targeting policymakers, how do you reach out to them?” Most of the interviews were conducted with both researchers present, taking turns asking questions and probing for more details or clarification as needed. Researchers employed both inductive and deductive approaches, posing specific questions derived from industry knowledge and subsequently presenting case scenarios where participants were asked to apply these general principles. For these interviews, it was essential to speak to key sources currently working in prosocial communications. The goal was not to reach a certain number of interviews, but to achieve saturation in the data regarding the quality of participants. As noted in McCracken’s (1988) The Long Interview, “less is more” (p. 17). A recent systematic review of qualitative research found that studies with 9 to 17 interviews reached saturation, offering further evidence supporting saturation in our 15 participants (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022). The sources selected for these interviews came from various industries, represented causes that could be considered either conservative or liberal, and offered varying insights into how prosocial communication works in the era of Zoom meetings, AI, and text messaging.
After the transcripts were imported into MAXQDA, the researchers individually reviewed three transcripts and then met to agree on coding variables using Johnny Saldaña’s (2016) protocol and InVivo coding. Protocol coding involves coding specifically for the research questions, and InVivo coding identifies key quotes and segments for the themes using an inductive process (Saldaña, 2016). For example, when coding for communication channels (protocol coding), the researchers sought points in the conversation where the participant specifically mentioned the channels they used, such as social media, press releases, op-eds, letters, phone calls, etc. (Saldaña, 2016). InVivo coding was used to note points in the conversation where participants discussed concepts such as truth, relationships, reputation, and emotions, such as frustration (Saldaña, 2016). Coding began in July 2024 and concluded in August 2024, with each researcher coding all the interviews using the agreed-upon variables and meeting throughout to discuss findings. After all coding was complete, the researchers met again to discuss the final results, compile key quotes, identify themes, and determine how these interviews could inform updates to the strategic public policy communication model.
As researchers, we acknowledge that our experience in advertising and public relations may have influenced both our interpretation of participants’ responses and our interactions during interviews. Our familiarity with public policy and prosocial communications provided insight into participants’ terminology and professional contexts, but it also risked assumptions about shared understanding. To mitigate this, both researchers consistently used follow-up questions to clarify participant meanings and engaged in peer debriefing with colleagues outside of the research team to challenge our interpretations. We also had detailed conversations about the use of terms following the interviews to ensure a non-biased understanding. One example of this is the term lobbying. This term was used by almost everyone during the interviews, some positively and some negatively. We had several team discussions to clarify how the term was used and defined in the context of specific interviews, and how that concept would fit into the findings.
Findings
All practitioners were assigned a pseudonym, and any identifying information was redacted from the quotes used. A list of pseudonyms, race, gender, and age of the participants, along with their positions and industries, is presented in Table 1. In summary, women comprised 40% of the participants (6), and men comprised 60% (9)—no one identified outside the gender binary. Overall, 73.3% (11) identified as white, and 26.7% (4) identified as people of color, with three Black participants and one Asian American. The most prominent sector participants were from nonprofits (33.3%, 5), followed by finance/insurance (26.7%, 4), automotive (13.3%, 2), and medical, events, lobbyists, and consumer goods, each with one participant (6.7%). Most participants worked for the company they advocated for (93.3%) 14, and only one participant worked at a lobbying firm (6.7%).
Participant Details.
The practitioners defined their roles in advocacy communications as liaison, relationship manager, and issue driver. The findings are organized by research question and conclude with further updates and an explanation of the advocacy communication model. For clarity, a table with exemplar quotes has been included for the roles and strategies described by participants (Table 2).
Exemplar Quotes for Roles and Strategies.
Research question 1 explores how participants define advocacy communication, focusing on three key categories discussed during the interviews: liaison, relationship manager, and issue driver.
Liaison: “We play that key role of . . .liaison between two parties”
Participants described themselves as liaisons, often working between two parties to garner support. Adam, a lobbyist, described this simply: “We find folks that have influence.” When asked to expand, he said: It could be CEOs, it could be a family in the community that’s highly recognized or important. There are a number of drivers that motivate policymakers that ultimately will lead them to a conclusion that we like, that we support. So it is not linear, but it does work if you start with alignment. . .try to build an alliance or coalition.
Another participant, Amy, an internal advocacy communicator in the finance/insurance sector, described being a liaison in terms of translation. She said, “We’re that translator in helping the business understand how something might be able to get done or not get done in some cases. And then working with lawmakers to help them understand the implications. . .” She summarized the thought by saying, “We play that key role of liaison, interpreter, whatever term you want to put around that, but that liaison between the two parties.” Both Adam and Amy described being a liaison as two-thirds of the public policy communications process that Canary and Taylor (2020) describe—informing and engagement. They inform interested parties about the policy situation and connect them to engage on the issue.
In addition to bringing people together, Rick, who handles advocacy communications for a nonprofit, connected liaison activities with developing policy, saying: Now, does [redacted for anonymity] have a position on whether the federal government should fund Ukraine? Absolutely not. But do we have people here who think about that? Do we have people here who think about elementary education on Native American reservations? Yeah. . .We don’t have a position on those issues, but we have people that think about it. So how do we put those people in touch with policymakers to help them come up with good policy?
Rick described how to strategically make connections that further advocacy efforts and demonstrate a willingness to work together to help policymakers, which is another example of informing and engaging (Canary & Taylor, 2020).
Ciera, an internal advocacy communicator in the nonprofit sector, described her role as being knowledgeable enough to connect people with others who can help with advocacy efforts and get policymakers involved. She said: I’m like a jack of all trades. I know a little bit about a lot of different things, and then I bring the expert in to talk to the expert piece. And then there’s a lot of times there’s an event component. . .I like to try to get policymakers doing a welcome or opening. . .so that they have some kind of involvement in what we’re doing.
Ciera is taking her liaison efforts into the final third part of the public policy communications process, persuading (Canary & Taylor, 2020). She is connecting experts, engaging with the issue, and, when given the opportunity, going one step further by persuading the policymaker to get tangibly involved in the process by participating in an event.
This role of liaison extends the traditional role of interpersonal communication (Hon & Grunig, 1999) in public policy communications by moving beyond direct, relational, and person-to-person interactions and furthering the relationship into that of an intermediary. Where interpersonal communication emphasizes relational connection, being a liaison involves consistently fostering relationships by facilitating conversations, aligning interests, and advancing issues or goals. In this capacity, trust is not merely built through repeated contact but through the consistent management of exchanges across multiple stakeholders. Acting as a liaison is more strategic than traditional interpersonal communication because liaisons are trusted to connect networks and guide exchanges between stakeholders. Using words such as “translator,” “bridge,” and “interpreter” demonstrates a shift in the role from informing and engaging toward persuading for policy outcomes.
Relationship management: “This is fundamentally a relationship credibility business”
Beyond building connections and acting as a liaison, our participants discussed the importance of interpersonal communications and authentic relationships with policymakers. Shoun, an internal advocacy communicator in the finance/insurance sector, describes this as a crucial component of the process, saying, “But we also have to spend a lot of time on caring. . .for and developing new relationships at the level of the member of Congress and their team that is most focused on the issues that we care about.” Ryan, an internal advocacy communicator in the consumer goods sector, expanded on that to include that it should be a long-term relationship focusing on the reputation of the company and the individual, saying: We expect that this is going to be a long relationship. . .for us, we’re going to be there months, years from now. And so we want to make sure that the officials that we work with feel really good about how they interact with us. And the data that we’ve done here in DC proves that out. . .you do things the right way, and I think you get a reputation as a company and as an individual advocate.
Adam, an external lobbyist, echoed that sentiment, saying, “This is a long-term approach, and so there aren’t any short-term fixes, so our success is incremental to relationship building.” Describing relationship management as long-term and crucial underscores the connection between it and interpersonal communications (Bruning, 2002).
Alan, an internal advocacy communicator in the finance/insurance sector, discussed his belief in balanced relationships being fundamental to the role, saying: This is fundamentally a relationship credibility business and you’re going to be. . .dealing with the same regulators or the same policymakers on Friday as you dealt with on Monday and six months from now, 12 months from now. That keeps it. . .from being that sort of transactional and unethical because you’re going to have to go back for something, and you can’t burn somebody and expect to be able to continue to represent the organization.
The term “lobbyist” was mentioned positively by some and negatively by others. Amy, an internal advocacy communicator in the finance/insurance sector, addressed that, saying, “Well, I think lobbying sometimes gets a bad rap or bad term. I think it’s really about building relationships.” Several participants described lobbying as educating policymakers, so Amy’s view on lobbying as building relationships offers a unique perspective, building on the interpersonal communications described by others (Bruning, 2002).
Ryan, an internal advocacy communicator in the consumer goods sector, argued that it’s not just a relationship; policymakers must also like you.
So I guess you start with. . .as I like to call it, [being] pleasantly persistent. . .I think I’ve told people this who get into this line of work, you can have really effective arguments, but if people don’t like you all that much the way you’re doing it, that’s not going to work very well.
It is possible to have a relationship with someone you do not like, but in a situation where you depend on that person for policy change, managing that interpersonal communication so that you enjoy working together can make a notable difference. Several advocacy communicators took the conversation beyond relationships and described friendships and partnerships with policymakers. Dave described coaching a football team and knowing that one of the dads of a child on the team was a legislator. He made a point to speak to him at the games to discuss things unrelated to advocacy issues.
Bryan, an internal advocacy communicator in the events sector, discussed what could happen if advocacy communicators do not focus on interpersonal relationships, saying: You burn a member of Congress, you burn a congressional staffer, you will never get the opportunity to do it again, and they’ll be happy to let all your friends know that you burned them too. . .For us, it’s really about building those relationships, communicating in a way that’s clear, concise, and accurate, and over time, that helps build relationships that people understand that you are an honest broker and then what you’re bringing for them is good not only for your organization but the entire constituency that they represent.
The practitioners we spoke to described relationships as more than workplace acquaintances. They discussed friendships, partnerships, and the benefits for everyone involved when the relationship is reciprocal. These crucial relationships were described in the literature as added value, interpersonal, and balanced (Bruning, 2002; Heath, 1990). However, the descriptions from our practitioners extend beyond the prior literature definition, into the public policy arena, and move toward friendships and partnerships. As previously noted, relationship management is a key role in public relations (Dozier et al., 2013). Yet in our current environment of texting, emails, and AI, chatting with someone at a kid’s football game becomes even more critical for solidifying connections. In the current public policy environment, our practitioners argue that close relationships outside of work are central to influencing policymaking because they cultivate trust and authenticity beyond professional courtesy – creating genuine personal bonds that make dialogue more open, information sharing more candid, and policy collaboration more likely to succeed.
Issue Driver: “It’s called influence for a reason”
As advocacy communicators, the core of the job is communicating in a way that will drive change for the issue(s) you are working for. This portion of the job description moves the advocacy efforts from informing and engaging to persuading (Canary & Taylor, 2020). Alex, an internal advocacy communicator in the nonprofit sector, connected persuasion/driving change to being an influencer. He said: It’s called influence for a reason. It’s called persuasion for a reason, and we’re trying to motivate. We’re not only trying to motivate behavior change among grassroots, we’re trying to reinforce or change behavior by lawmakers and policymakers in the way that they feel about issues that we care a lot about.
While several participants mentioned focusing on education instead of direct advocacy communications, Dave argued, “Legislators want to make positive changes.” It was the role of advocacy communications to give them the data and stories they needed to make that happen. Linda, an internal advocacy communicator in the finance/insurance sector, explained how important storytelling is for driving change on issues, saying: Throughout the year, we try to marry hard facts with storytelling because we recognize that they both are really valuable, but together, they have the greatest influence. . .So we’re consistently communicating those pieces and using that as kind of our underpinning for communication for the year from a tactical standpoint.
Bryan took the concept of being an issue driver back to the basics of advertising, saying, “We rely. . .heavily on communication that. . .follows a. . .traditional consumer value proposition model of problem, solution, reason to believe with a little bit of a top of why does this matter to you.” Dave extended that concept to include personal research on the legislator, arguing that the more you know about them, the more you can connect their priorities to the issue you’re working on, saying: So what I like to do and what I advise. . .staff members is to really get to know that legislator. . .You review their bio, you look at the latest news articles and to see what they’re saying, you look through their website to see what else is going on with legislation that they support so you can form a story that they’re going to relate to and understand based on their vision. No matter what state a legislator represents, they have their own personal agenda as well. And so we like to know that what that personal agenda is so we can target them with the most appropriate message.
This idea of being an issue driver challenges the neutrality of traditional public relations roles. Our practitioners did not describe themselves as detached facilitators; they saw their role as motivators of change who intentionally shape policy discourse and drive issues forward.
Addressing RQ1, our participants described their role as advocacy communicators in three unique ways: liaison, relationship manager, and issue driver. While these three roles do not exist in a vacuum, each is an important part of advocacy communications and reflects the complex environment that practitioners face. They also extend the roles noted in prior literature with key updates and descriptions for our current media and organization environments.
Key Communication Strategies Impacting Policy Change
This portion of the findings focuses on RQ2, the communication strategies practitioners use, and how those strategies work within or add to the strategic public policy advocacy communication model. The practitioners we spoke to described four key strategies they use regularly: Forming issue coalitions (media as “air cover” and forming issue stakeholders), providing expertise, being consistently authentic, and multi-layered approaches.
Forming Issue Coalitions: Media as “Air Cover”
Linda argued that media support was critical to building understanding around an issue. She said, “That ability, particularly, to have those conversations with media, whether it is being someone that is a resource for them for facts and fact-checking is. . .as important as those relationships on Capitol Hill because that narrative shapes everything else.” She went on to describe this as “condition[ing] the environment, mak[ing]sure they hear about us somewhere beyond our team.” Using media to create a narrative conducive to policy change is the cornerstone of media advocacy and a component many participants discussed (Holder & Treno, 1997; Wallack & Dorfman, 1996).
Ryan described using media advocacy alongside his efforts as “air cover,” saying, “I like the idea of creating an echo chamber so we can make sure our issues get that momentum and air cover when they need them.” Bryan echoed that sentiment, saying: We try to create media awareness for these public officials to support what we’re doing on the ground. It’s because we find the air cover, particularly for our issues, which again aren’t necessarily top of mind for a lot of these policy makers. It helps them understand when they see it in the media clips.
Shoun described media use as something that happens before you contact policymakers, saying: You see these broader campaigns that provide the air cover for the lobbyists to go in and do what they normally do. Partly, that’s to show the impacted folks, that the people that exist in this town to help them out are actually hearing them and taking it seriously, and really driving home an issue.
Holder and Treno (1997) define media advocacy as “the strategic use of news media by those seeking to advance a social or public policy initiative” (p. 190). Using the media to target the public, with a broader aim of speaking to policymakers, is a strategy that many of our participants discussed. Coombs and Holladay (2018) argue that garnering public support in the early stages of a campaign puts pressure on policymakers in the issue management process. Our participants describe that pressure as “air cover,” agreeing that it is easier to garner support for an issue if the public agrees and if policymakers are already aware of the messaging. Alex discussed why “air cover” is a critical strategy, saying: Media coverage gets read by so many people. A lawmaker who sees that knows that it’s not just the lawmaker reading it; it’s a whole lot of people, and the lawmaker needs to think, “Okay, lots of people are seeing this. I know it’s directed at me, but I know a lot of other people are seeing it, and I may hear from them as well.” Or same with paid advertising, same with social media, same with videos and web content to a degree.
Not only does this “air cover” get information to many people, but it also implies that the issue has broad support. Alex said, “We’re really trying not only to emphasize what our advocacy priority is, but we’re trying to do so in ways that indicate we’ve got broad support, strong support, and that the lawmaker or policymaker should listen to us.”
Forming Issue Stakeholders
While forming the media air cover, participants emphasized the importance of bringing relevant stakeholders to the discussion table with policymakers. Dave, an internal advocacy communicator in the nonprofit sector, gave specific examples: “So I brought together mental health counselors that are counselor educators that primarily do research. I brought together my government affairs team and I brought together an outside lobbyist who has experience working with schools.” He also discussed the importance of coalitions: We are part of a national coalition, The Mental Health Liaison Group, and there’s several other coalitions out there, but this is the big one. We communicate together to work with legislators. . .And so we just come together in small groups to work with those people to ensure that they understand our issues and they can advise us on which direction we should go.
Several participants mentioned coalitions, demonstrating what Heath (1990) described as effective communication with policymakers “to shape meaning, define events, and establish value priorities” (p. 38). By being part of a coalition, participants work with other advocacy communicators to establish priorities and communicate using shared messaging, defining why an issue is important. Shoun, in the corporate sector, also mentioned, “Most of what we do is part of a coalition, and we really work to develop trade organization messaging because a lot of things it’s just the traders represent an industry-wide voice.”
In addition to forming coalitions within the industry or sectors, participants also form coalitions with voters in policymakers’ districts. Jessica, an internal advocacy communication in the nonprofit sector, discussed: We specifically reach out to members where we did something in their district or where they’re part of the cancer caucus, and they might be interested. . . “Hey, we just contributed to the childhood cancer center in your district. Thought you would want to know.”
With the external air cover adding gravity to the situation, forming an issue coalition by bringing in relevant stakeholders and including them in discussions helps advocacy communicators yield relational outcomes through their efforts (Paul, 2015).
Provide Expertise (Balance Through Reciprocity)
Rick, an internal advocacy communicator in the nonprofit sector, described building trust in relationships incrementally, over time by providing expertise to policymakers, saying: I look at it as if I’m putting stuff in the bank. . .I want that member of Congress to think, ‘[redacted for anonymity] totally helped me out. [redacted for anonymity] gave me great information. [redacted for anonymity] didn’t lead me astray on this, and I’m grateful for that.’ And so that’s part of the relationship, but it’s also part of that communication piece, and it’s part of the package.
Rick is describing a balance within the relationship. As an advocacy communicator, he is not always asking for something; he also provides services with the hopes that a relationship will be built over time. This balance is key to advocacy communications. By providing assistance and expertise to policymakers when needed, communicators create an environment in which relationships with stakeholders are not one-sided, adding value to those involved (Bruning, 2002; Heath, 1990).
Dave discussed providing expertise to get policymakers to contact them rather than relying on one-way advocacy communication. By providing expertise to policymakers, practitioners can build on those interpersonal relationships that are so critical to policy change and create a reciprocal environment that benefits several parties (Bruning, 2002). Dave described this as: We have the experts on staff. . .and so it opens up many doors, and what happens is that legislators, instead of my team going to reach out to legislators, they start to reach out to us to ask questions and ask us to take a look at their bills before they drop the bill or introduce the bill to their colleagues in Congress or state government.
Ciera, an internal advocacy communicator in the nonprofit sector, described this as providing expertise and connecting policymakers with experts to humanize the information, saying: So a lot of what I do is take our researchers to meetings with government staff. So basically, we can share our work. We do a lot of research and evaluations and we want to share what we learn from them so that it can impact policy and make policy change.
Consistently Authentic
Several practitioners discussed the importance of providing truthful information backed by data to demonstrate authenticity. Adam described engagement as “Lobbying 101, you don’t want to show up when you need something. . .that consistent engagement is what the vast majority of companies, peoples, individuals, pay for when they hire in-house or outside firms.”
Participants also discussed the importance of providing credible information on both sides of an issue, not just the side you’re advocating for. Ryan said, “Honest, credible, and persistent. Provide facts, making sure you’re sharing the other side of the story.” Alan described it as not being transactional and owning your “bad facts,” saying: I think some people view government relations as very transactional. . .You need to understand both sides of the policy issue so that you can address those. Find the bad facts, the things that you know are going to resonate with the other side and address those up front. We think that makes you more credible. We know that this is a point out there. You’re not going to ignore it. You want to own your bad facts.
Bryan described earning trust by discussing the opposing argument, saying: I think when we are communicating any advocacy conversation, it’s all about trust, right? If you’re talking to a policymaker. . .they need to be able to trust everything you say. When I have a meeting with a policymaker or a regulator, I’m happy to put the opposing argument on the table.
Multi-Layered Approach (It Depends)
When answering questions about communications strategy, many practitioners began with “it depends,” demonstrating that there is no “one size fits all” approach to advocacy communications. What followed “it depends” was typically a description of a multilayered approach designed for the individual situation. Ryan gave a specific example of a bill he was working on at the time: It depends on the issue. I’ll give you an example. I mean, right now the tax bill that we’re working on is being held up by Senate Republicans. . .So yeah, we’re focused on Senate Republicans. . .because they’re the impediment to getting the tax bill passed. But by and large, I would say we communicate with both sides. . .We do employee town halls. I meet with our top executives all the time.
Rick got straight into specifics, saying: Well, it depends. I mean, the email is the quickest. Texting someone carries the implication that it’s really important and it’s something serious, I think. And then setting up a formal meeting, either on Zoom or even more like, “Hey, I’m coming to Washington. I want to talk to you about this,” signals the gravity of this situation.
Alan, an internal advocacy communicator in the finance/insurance sector, also got very specific, saying, “It depends on the issue. Sometimes, it’s a one-page leave-behind. Sometimes, it’s a one-page leave-behind with your brand on it. Sometimes, it’s a one-page leave-behind without your brand on it, following up by emails.”
Several participants even apologized for the “it depends” answer. Alan said, “I hate to give the lawyer answer that it depends, but it really depends on the issue.” Amy expanded on that while still apologizing, saying: I think it depends on the industry. It depends on the issue. For those industries that can really pull heartstrings, so I don’t know, ASPCA, they have cute puppies. They can pull on that. I mean, let’s be honest: bank regulation is not the most exciting sometimes. So, there might not be a regular cadence of interaction. It could be just when a particular policy pops up in this area. . .But again, unfortunately, it’s not really answering your question because. . . it’s a little bit more of an art than a science sometimes.
Alisa, an internal advocacy communicator in the automotive sector, discussed this multi-layered approach in terms of focusing on the audience instead of politics, saying: It depends on your audience, right? So we’ve done some surveys that show that nine in 10 Americans agree that we need more American energy versus relying on unstable regions of the world for that energy. . .So part of the role I think of industries is to stay above sort of that politics and to be able to create education and awareness about what’s at stake.
These strategies are ongoing and cumulative. Our practitioners described fluid, reciprocal relationships with long-term, mutually beneficial outcomes for all involved. Figure 2 depicts the key strategy and nature of these communications, showing that public policy communication centers around public relations practices and theories.
Strategic public policy communication model.
Discussion
Through in-depth interviews with 15 professionals, this study investigated how practitioners define public policy communication and the strategies they employ. Grounded in practice, the findings advance the definition of public policy communication within the context of public relations and identify four key communication strategies. This discussion addresses how these findings contribute to and expand current public relations theory, emphasizing the strategic function of persuasion in advocacy and public policy communication.
Theoretical Implications
Public relations scholarship has largely overlooked public policy communication, focusing instead on organizational advocacy practices and communication with the public, partially due to the lack of research on the persuasive nature of public relations. Given the multifaceted nature of advocacy communication, this study adds essential facets of advocacy communication to public relations research by defining public policy communication in the context of public relations.
First, by identifying how practitioners “influence the decision-making process,” this study identified specific persuasion strategies in the public relations context. The findings demonstrated how strategic elements from issue management, stakeholder theory, and relationship management constitute persuasion in public policy communication. By connecting key public relations theories to persuasion through an abductive approach, this study provides a solid foundation for explaining public policy communication practices and strategies within the overarching theoretical frameworks of public relations and strategic communication research. Considering public relations scholarship has discussed persuasion either as persuasive rhetoric (Toth & Heath, 1992) or unethical propaganda (Stauber & Rampton, 1995), this study defined persuasion from a strategic communication approach and explicated key strategic elements of strategies of public policy communication encompassing issue management, stakeholder relations, and relationship management beyond rhetoric.
Second, this study expands on media advocacy by offering a more comprehensive understanding of public policy communication in public relations and in the mass communication context. Media advocacy, rooted in mass communication theories, emphasizes public information campaigns through media. Although media advocacy and issue management focused on organizational communication targeting broad public (Coombs & Holladay, 2018; Wallack et al., 1993), our findings illustrate how these processes form parts of strategic public policy communication by proposing a comprehensive view of public policy communication encompassing mass communication and public relations theories. Considering the public’s short attention span and the competitive environment for issue attention (443 out of over 10,000 bills were passed during the 115th Congress) (New Health Care Bill Facts, 2024), the findings demonstrate the advocacy communicator’s role in driving and shifting issue dynamics through ongoing relationship and stakeholder management. While public relations research has recognized social issue management as a core function of public policy communication (Coombs & Holladay, 2018), the findings highlight how issue management serves both primary and supporting roles by working with media advocacy in public policy communication.
Third, the findings delineate stakeholder management and strategies in public policy communication. Across sectors, practitioners emphasized the importance of navigating and balancing stakeholder interests. They identified their role as liaisons and described building issue coalitions as a key communication strategy. By representing their organizations’ or clients’ interests, participants highlighted their responsibility to engage policymakers as part of their stakeholders’ network and to balance stakeholders’ differing interests by acting as moderators (Reynolds et al., 2006). Our findings indicated that this relationship and stakeholder management are issue-centered rather than organization-centered, enabling advocacy communicators to identify stakeholders and form issue coalitions. In addition, participants noted that this issue-centered coalition approach helps engage policymakers as key stakeholders in value co-creation. While value co-creation has been a theme in recent public relations research (Morehouse & Saffer, 2018), our findings suggest that it is a critical strategy in public policy communication. A recent study on journalists’ audience relationships (Loosen et al., 2025) found that forming a community enables journalists to maintain high-quality relationships with audiences and to select stories that align with audience interests. This finding may be relevant to our own findings in the context of relationship and stakeholder management.
Our findings also indicate that public policy communication involves a strategic planning and management process rooted in relational perspectives. This study provides a foundation for identifying key relationship attributes that researchers can use to define and measure relationships in public policy communication. Additionally, while the personal influence model in relationship management has historically been criticized as unethical (Huang, 2000) or as a cultural norm specific to certain contexts (S. Lim et al., 2005), this study suggests that personal influence is a vital strategy in public policy communication, even in the USA, where professional norms typically dominate public relations practice. The findings underscore the importance of interpersonal communication and relationship management in public policy communication, highlighting the need for further research into these areas.
Taken together, the findings also provide implications for political public relations theory building by defining and conceptualizing public policy communication as issue management, stakeholder management, and relationship management, with the purpose of influencing public policy change. Strömbäck and Kiousis (2019) defined political public relations as the application of public relations strategies and tactics in political contexts/purposes, through issue management, stakeholder engagement, and relationship management via media and interpersonal communication. Given the nascent state of the field, Strömbäck and Kiousis (2019) called for further research on political public relations. Our findings lay the foundation for further deductive research by examining key strategic factors for effective public policy communication, which contributes to theory building in political public relations.
Practical Implications
This study identifies several practical strategies for public policy communication, including media advocacy, issue coalitions, reciprocity, relationship building, and multi-layered/channel communication. Although reciprocity and relationship nurturing have been extensively discussed in donor relations research (Kelly, 1998), the nature of reciprocity and relationship management in public policy communication focuses on creating a balanced relationship that fosters co-value or shared interests between parties. This approach differs from donor relations, which primarily center on maintaining dialogue and expressing appreciation to engage stakeholders in the communication network (Harrison, 2023). Interpersonal-level public policy communication moves beyond dialogue to pursue tangible outcomes that benefit both parties. This reciprocity contributes to long-term relationship maintenance, with advocacy communicators adapting their strategies based on issue type, urgency, relationship nature, channel availability, and industry context.
This study clarifies that the practical implications of public policy communication are rooted in consistent, meaningful interpersonal relationship-building. This level of relationship building extends beyond maintaining casual acquaintances or routine exchanges of greetings. Our findings indicated that practitioners actively seek common policy goals by authentically sharing political values with policymakers. By creating media air cover and issue coalitions, advocacy communicators aim to establish connections with policymakers and include them as key stakeholders. In doing so, navigating and shaping public opinion on issues by building an agenda and framing messages is also an important public policy communication strategy that helps practitioners leverage various media channels to achieve influential public policy outcomes. Understanding the full picture of public policy communication, encompassing mass communication and public relations theories, helps organizations and practitioners manage their advocacy communication holistically.
Examining public policy communication strategies across sectors, Heath (1990) raised concerns about practitioners’ expertise in understanding the organizational effects of nuanced technical, regulatory, legislative, or legal changes. Many of our interviewees from corporations and lobbying firms were lawyers, underscoring the critical role of expertise and knowledge in public policy communication. Interviewees from advocacy organizations also emphasized the need to provide hard facts and data to policymakers. The findings suggest that reciprocity and authenticity in public policy communication are often built on the delivery of knowledge, facts, and data beyond dialogic expertise.
Limitations and Future Research
This study provides a valuable link between public policy communication and public relations scholarship, but it has several limitations. First, the demographic diversity of interviewees was limited. Purposeful sampling, with greater attention to diverse demographic characteristics, could yield a deeper understanding of public policy communication. In addition, including participants who work with policymakers at international organizations, such as the European Union, could offer insights into other dimensions of public policy communication. Second, methodologically, this study employed a qualitative approach based on a convenience sample. The sample consisted of participants willing to participate in the study. Moreover, although the interviewees represented different sectors, a larger sample, including a broader range of organizations, could provide a more comprehensive examination of public policy communication practices. Third, refining the proposed model and strategies requires further examination and testing. This study is based on practitioners’ perspectives, so interviewing or surveying policymakers to evaluate which communication strategies are effective or ineffective could offer a more nuanced understanding of effective public policy communication. Adopting quantitative research methods to test the effectiveness of different strategies could also enhance the findings. Finally, expanding the model of media advocacy, future research could identify practitioners’ relationship with media personnel and explore the different clusters of audience relationship forms in the context of media advocacy efforts on public policy issues (Loosen et al., 2025). Given that this study represents an initial step in examining public policy communication in public relations research, future work should continue to explore public policy communication practices and efforts.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by a Page Legacy Scholar Grant from the Arthur W. Page Center for Prosocial Communication at the Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications at The Pennsylvania State University. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Penn State.
