Any merit in mudslinging?
In our business, you have to stay positive. You have to find inspiration in the small wins and believe that bigger ones are possible. Otherwise, you’ll burn out.
But let me admit this, positivity is getting more difficult. Yesterday, I read the results of a poll revealing that 77 percent of respondents were either very unhappy or unhappy with the state of the world. It’s no wonder. There are wars and famine abroad. Meanwhile, domestic politics are increasingly caustic. And I can only imagine the collective unhappiness will spike as we get closer to November, particularly among those who live in “battleground” states.
Our current political trainwreck got me thinking about the power of negative messaging. The candidates are masters of it. But, in many ways, you and I face a similar conflict. We’re trying to change behavior, so we have an adversary. Be it addiction, stigma, illness, bigotry, or misinformation, we’re all trying to defeat something. Like the politicians, it can be tempting to call out the boogieman. But is it effective?
What political ads get right.
Ads for candidates have clear and simple positioning strategies. And those positioning strategies do not veer. I know right now that one presidential candidate will be labeled a danger to democracy and the other an inept octogenarian. Because both campaigns will have enormous budgets, you and I will hear both messages with such frequency that, like it or not, we’ll remember every word.
Where they miss the mark.
They don’t change anyone’s mind. The majority of Americans aren’t enthusiastic about either candidate. Only eight to ten percent of Americans remain undecided about how they will vote. These outliers aren’t weighing platforms or waiting on a debate, they are procrastinating a decision about who to vote against. Attack ads are reinforcing negative narratives, not changing beliefs or behaviors. As a result, they are making both candidates look bad and making voters feel even worse about their options.
How social impact marketing is different.
I hear you. We’re do-gooders, not demagogues. And because you believe in your cause, you’ll do whatever it takes to get the attention of your audience. If you villainize the behavior you’re trying to counter, people will finally wake up and be wiser. If you frighten people with the consequences of their actions, they will rethink their habits. The work of changing behavior is so challenging, and the cost of failure is so acute, that I wish such tactics could make a mark. But they don’t. Here’s why.
1 |
Your audience has to be change-ready. |
Most of the problems you and I are working to solve are the result of a slow build of abuse or neglect, not overnight occurrences. Likewise, so is the mindset needed to change them. Change is so difficult that when heart patients are told they will die unless they make lifestyle changes, 90 percent don’t. Your job is to relate to your audience, to be there when they consider and test changes, and to reframe the way they perceive the solution to their problem. That takes emotional appeal, not a fear-based rationale. |
2 |
Negative messaging can cause compassion fatigue. |
Adverse and grandiose messaging may grab attention but it doesn’t invite change. The bigger the problem is, the harder it is to solve. Dialing up the drama only makes change seem more challenging. I recall a study that measured respondents’ propensity to donate to a cause. The experiment tested two messages, one showing a single victim, and another sharing statistical information about a large number of victims. The single victim was more relatable and drew more donations. Present your solution as manageable and personal. Avoid dire narratives. |
3 |
The truth can be ugly, and off-putting. |
Telling people what they don’t want to hear is often a losing game. Most importantly, they know it already. Drugs are bad, smoking kills, eat less processed foods. The more extreme the outcome you present, the greater the denial. And the more long-term the corollary, the worse off you are. The real enemy here is looking away, changing the channel. You’re in the business of mitigating negative outcomes, not stemming a narrative about them. Keep it aspirational. |
There’s an exception.
Let me acknowledge that crisis-based fundraising is different. Presenting urgent needs following a disaster can be a compelling call to action. However, this important and impactful work is direct response philanthropy, not long-term, behavioral change marketing.
It’s unfortunate, but it doesn’t have to be.
Even those of us who don’t live in “battleground” states are battle-scarred. The fight is taking place in our living rooms and on our phones. But we need to attend to more important matters. It might be tempting to point out your cause’s monster hiding under the bed, but it’s not a good idea. Leave that to the politicians.
Keep believing in good,
Kevin
