How to know if your campaign is set up to win
Seven simple questions that force clarity before the scramble begins
When we face a political or regulatory battle, the instinct is often to mobilize quickly: prepare a briefing, line up allies, schedule meetings. These quick actions build momentum, and momentum feels good. In fact, momentum is a critical “secret ingredient” for every winning campaign. However, momentum can also be distracting and can hide a deeper problem: your team ends up working hard without a shared definition of what winning actually looks like, or what it means.
Over the past few months, I’ve been experimenting with two frameworks that force slow thinking, early, when we’re developing the right strategy.
The first is the Arena Map, which I shared last week. The Arena Map is a simple way to sketch out the landscape: Where is the decision being made? Who sits at the table? What process governs the outcome? It’s a way of slowing down long enough to orient yourself in a system that is never straightforward.
But orientation alone doesn’t create a path to victory. For that, you need what I’ve started calling a Win Theory — a disciplined exercise in defining, in detail, what success looks like and how you’ll get there. The thinking that goes into developing the Win Theory forces clarity of thought (strategy) before you get to tactics.
For it to be useful, it needs to be simple. So I have seven questions that have been most useful in shaping a Win Theory in my regulatory campaign work:
What decision, exactly, by when? Vague aspirations like “get approval” aren’t enough. A precise statement — “The committee votes yes on Amendment 3.2.4 on September 5” — changes the way a team organizes. A timeline makes it real, and provides intense focus.
Who, specifically, must say yes? Roles aren’t sufficient. It’s not “the minister” — it’s the deputy who can stop the file before it gets there, or the eight committee members who will actually cast votes. Naming names forces focus.
Who influences them? No decision-maker operates in isolation. Perhaps it’s the member association the minister trusts, or the three CEOs the industry rep calls before every major move. Influence maps often reveal the real levers of power.
What makes their life easier? A polished 47-slide deck may not matter. Sometimes what a decision-maker really needs is a one-page exemption request they can justify to colleagues, or data that helps them answer an anticipated question.
What’s the specific ask? “Support us” is an invitation for drift, or less charitably, for grin fucking. “Exempt products under 10g/100ml” gives someone something to agree to — or reject. Specificity is the only way to create momentum.
What if Plan A fails? Because it often does. Teams that think through fallback options early don’t panic when reality shifts. They adapt.
What are the conversion moments? These are the visible turning points when the math of the decision changes: 200 businesses show up, unexpected allies step forward, or a committee chair signals a compromise. Spotting these moments early helps you build towards them intentionally.
Teams with clear Win Theories behave differently. They scramble less. Their campaigns and regulatory efforts feel more purposeful. Small decisions line up against a bigger definition of success.
I’m still reflecting on how the Win Theory fits with the Arena Map. Does mapping the terrain come first, followed by defining the win? Or is it iterative — as you clarify one, the other sharpens? My hunch is that they develop together.
I don’t want to overstate this. These are still emerging ideas. But I’m convinced of one thing: without a clear Win Theory, campaigns are left chasing tactics for the sake of tactics instead of shifting the math in their favour. And this too, is a critical part of a winning regulatory strategy: do you understand the Yes Math? More on this idea next week.
I don’t have all the answers here — I’m testing and refining like everyone else. But these questions have already shifted the way I approach campaigns.
I’d be curious to hear your experience. When you’ve faced a high-stakes regulatory fight, how did you define success? What questions helped you gain clarity before the work began?