5 Common Mistakes Organisations Make When Running Advocacy Campaigns
Advocacy campaigns can accomplish great things — but they also stumble in predictable ways. This post distils five common mistakes organisations make when running advocacy campaigns and offers practical fixes so your next effort is clearer, stronger and more likely to succeed.
Even experienced teams repeat the same missteps: launching tactics without a theory of change, assuming one tactic will do all the work, neglecting measurement, under-investing in partnerships, and failing to craft messages that move decision-makers. Below we unpack each mistake and show how to avoid it.
Why avoiding these mistakes matters
Small errors in campaign design often cascade into wasted resources, missed opportunities, and reputational risk. Avoiding these five common mistakes increases your chances of durable policy influence, stronger partnerships and better stewardship of donor and community trust.
Five common mistakes to avoid
Mistake 1 — No clear theory of change
Teams often start campaigning with heat but without a clear line from activities to outcomes. That gap makes it hard to target the right audiences or know when you’ve succeeded.
- Problem: Activities are disconnected from measurable change; tactics are chosen because they’re familiar rather than strategic.
- Consequence: Resources are spent on things that don’t shift decision-making or implementation.
- Quick fix: Draft a one-page theory of change tying actions to short- and long-term outcomes and the actors who must change their behaviour.
- Tip: Test assumptions publicly and cheaply to see if your causal pathways hold up.
Clarity here focuses effort and creates an evaluation baseline for learning.
Mistake 2 — Weak stakeholder mapping and coalition-building
Campaigns frequently overlook or mis-prioritise the people who actually influence outcomes: allies, opponents, gatekeepers and implementers.
- Problem: Failure to map influence means outreach goes to the wrong audiences or duplicates effort.
- Consequence: Opportunities to amplify messages or neutralise opposition are missed.
- Quick fix: Create a simple influence map (who decides, who implements, who persuades) and identify two partners to strengthen reach.
- Tip: Invest time in relationships — credibility often unlocks access more than volume of messages.
Good mapping turns solo plays into coalition wins and reduces risk.
Mistake 3 — Poor narrative and messaging
Even strong evidence falls flat if messages don’t connect to values, incentives and political priorities of target audiences.
- Problem: Abstract or technical messaging that fails to resonate with policymakers, media or the public.
- Consequence: Attention without persuasion — lots of coverage but little policy movement.
- Quick fix: Develop two short messages: one for public resonance and one that directly addresses the policy audience’s incentives.
- Tip: Use simple tests—short interviews or message A/B tests—to find what sticks.
Better narratives increase influence and make evaluation clearer.
Practical fixes: how to avoid these mistakes
Fix 1 — Define a concise theory of change
✓ Map assumptions and outcomes
- Write a single-page logic model linking activities to measurable outcomes
- Identify key decision points and who must change behaviour
- List critical assumptions and how you will test them
- Agree success indicators before major investment
Quick fix: Draft a short logic model and iterate it with a partner organisation.
Fix 2 — Map stakeholders and build alliances
.png){kind=icon}
✓ Create an influence map
- Identify decision-makers, implementers and conveners
- Pinpoint two coalitions or partners you can realistically join or strengthen
- Design outreach that meets partners’ needs, not just yours
- Set simple coordination protocols to avoid fragmentation
Quick fix: Run a 1-hour stakeholder workshop to align roles and quick wins.
Fix 3 — Test messages and diversify tactics
.png){kind=icon}
✓ Run small message and tactic tests
- Try short interviews or message A/B tests with target audiences
- Use a mix of coalition-driven outreach, targeted advocacy and public-facing narrative
- Prioritise tactics that move decision-makers, not just attention
- Plan redundancy so one failed tactic doesn’t derail the whole effort
Quick fix: Pilot your message with two key stakeholders before scaling.
Fix 4 — Measure, learn and adapt
.png){kind=icon}
✓ Track outcomes and refine
- Agree a handful of sensible indicators tied to your theory of change
- Collect lightweight evidence regularly and use it to adapt
- Share learning with partners and donors so iteration is expected
- Plan for handover and institutional memory to survive staff turnover
Quick fix: Create a one-page monitoring plan with two core indicators and review them monthly.
How avoiding these mistakes gives you an advantage
Treat advocacy like an iterative craft
-
Test and iterate: Small experiments reduce risk and reveal what actually works
-
Build feedback loops: Use simple monitoring to adapt quickly
-
Document lessons: Keep short, shareable notes so learning compounds
Show your work to strengthen trust
-
Demonstrate impact: Donors and partners want to see a clear line from effort to outcomes
-
Build credibility: Transparent, evidence-based approaches win long-term allies
-
Secure sustainable funding: Funders favour teams that can show learning and adaptation
Two final mistakes to watch
Mistake 4 — Attention-seeking instead of persuasion
Problem: Prioritising coverage or virality over moving the people who can make change.
Solution: Balance public-facing tactics with targeted advocacy designed for decision-makers; tie visibility to a clear ask.
Mistake 5 — Short-term thinking and weak measurement
Problem: Focusing only on immediate wins while ignoring indicators of sustainable change and learning.
Solution: Track a few clear indicators tied to your theory of change and schedule regular learning reviews to adapt tactics.
Related pitfalls
Problem: Fragmented coalitions, unclear roles or governance gaps that undermine campaigns.
Solution: Build simple governance and communication protocols with partners to reduce duplication and friction.
Call to Action
If your organisation wants practical, evidence-based support to avoid these mistakes and run higher-impact advocacy, we can help you design experiments, strengthen coalitions and build measurement that matters.
Specialised Support for Queensland Disability Providers
Take your advocacy skills to the next level with our tailored program
Queensland-Focused Expertise
Learn advocacy strategies specifically designed for Queensland's disability sector and regulatory environment
Provider-Focused Training
Practical tools and frameworks tailored to disability service providers' unique challenges and opportunities
Certified Advocacy Skills
Earn recognised certification while building real-world advocacy capabilities that drive outcomes
Limited spots available - Join providers across Queensland who are transforming their advocacy approach
Questions about the program?
Remember: The five mistakes above are common because they are easy to make — and easy to fix. A clear theory of change, good stakeholder mapping, tested messages, proportionate tactics, and simple measurement turn energy into real influence. Start small, learn fast, and coordinate with partners to make your advocacy count.