Marketing and the political environment - Marketing of Library and Information Services

The second question, "what," refers to seeking out technical elements of the process, such as directives defining what may or may not be requested, or the specific forms of request which will or will not be accepted. For instance, a corporation may have issued a directive to submit only a "hold the line" or even a "percentage reduction" budget. Is this directive being followed by every department or are there exceptions? Alliances result in some sort of sanctions being exercised against an administrator or a program. Is such a directive simply "window dressing" intended to convince stockholders of managerial frugality? Does the directive have "loopholes" which might apply to a specific operation? Careful investigation of all aspects of "what" is expected or allowed in a process places one in a position to ameliorate the possibly devastating consequences of simply "following the rules." For instance, instructions to prepare a simple line item budget might be intended to ease the load on overworked administrators. On the other hand, such instructions may call for line item budgets because, containing less explanatory material, they are easier to cut. Can a program budget, which better explains and supports an operation, be prepared to at least supplement the line item budget initially requested? If this can be done, to whom and how must such a budget be provided so that it ultimately attracts the attention of the appropriate decision makers?

The third and fourth questions, "when" and "where, " are often best addressed together. They refer to the fact that the elements which comprise almost all political processes are constantly in a state of flux with regard to time and space. The library budget a city required next week is now due yesterday if not sooner. A promise is made that a particular issue will be the very first thing on a legislative agenda, but it actually comes up six hours later after most of the supporters of the concept have already gone home. School board hearings mysteriously move from building to building, and no one seems quite sure where the next one is or who might possess this information. The final question, "why," is the only one which can usually be answered without reference to any specific political process. Contrary to popular belief, most political processes are not designed to help good concepts or products to succeed. Instead, they are usually crafted as, or quickly evolve into, systems which function to enable participants in them to fail. In any political process, there are many more requests for resources than there are resources available for distribution. Furthermore, although each request may be both simple and understandable if given proper study and consideration, those in charge of resource distribution seldom have either the time or the expertise required to do justice to all the information laid out before them.

Agencies which distribute resources are frequently faced with hundreds, if not thousands, of highly complex requests, all of which must be reviewed in a very short time and frequently under the microscope of hostile public scrutiny. Finally, even if the vast majority of requests can be eliminated due to a lack of merit, those truly deserving requests which remain may still call for resources far in excess of the amount available. What this all boils down to is that, if a request is turned down on the basis of merit, that decision is likely to be challenged. If a request is rejected by an identifiable individual, then that individual can easily become a target for political reprisal. If, on the other hand, someone missed a deadline, was not present at a key hearing, or simply failed to fill out the right form, then that individual was rejected by a faceless system. Those in authority can express their deep regret and offer advice concerning how to do better "next time." The very clear assumption underlying both these regrets and this advice, however, is that any blame for failure lies solely with the participant and in no way reflects on the decision makers in the political process.