RALLYchat
How should progressive communications and campaigns folks approach their work?
Welcome to the first of a semi-regular series of discussions among RALLY experts. This week’s chat topic: in a context where everything is uncertain and crisis feels like the new normal, how should progressive communications and campaigns folks approach their work? Here’s (some of) what RALLY-ers Felix Schein, Lara Bergthold, Latia Curry, Shayna Englin, Derek Jansen, and Kevin Singer had to say.
Kevin Singer — When you think about lessons learned from the election, what stands out to you as the most important thing Progressive communicators need to heed?
Latia Curry — I don’t think there’s one most important thing since so much is evolving. I do think there are insights to keep in mind and apply when it seems fit.
:: It’s about the people. ::
Derek Jansen — Something I’m going to be watching closely is how effectively organizations can elevate individual voices to represent broad communities.
Latia Curry — @djansen I totally agree with you about elevating individuals. I think about that in terms of focusing on people who mean something to specific communities. All of the general noise is very overwhelming. When I think about my clients, many of their constituencies may feel unsure of what to believe and what to do next. I think we can’t be all about The New York Times (although it has its place) if we want to build sustainable support. Fatigue is a real factor. Campaigns should almost be operated in a micro fashion to maximize engagement, build and keep momentum, and manage expectations (a lot of what we want won’t happen overnight).
Derek Jansen — I think by elevating individuals — whether in an interview with the New York Times, long format radio/podcast/television, 30 second ads, social media, etc. — we can still get the credibility of the New York Times, but create an echo chamber about the PEOPLE.
Lara Bergthold — I also find that communicating through people’s organic networks that have built up since the election is the best way to communicate authority and truth. I watch for people who I trust to circulate stuff for me that they trust. It goes back to the bottom line that you can’t win the hearts and minds of people electorally without talking to them. So identifying influencers, even if those influencers only have a few hundred or thousand followers, is still the best way to move a message or change a conversation. You can have it written about in the Washington Post, but you still need someone to say “this is important, pay attention and think about this.”
Lara Bergthold — My bottom line on living in a click-bait environment? Ignore the panic, always try and find a reason to make what you’re saying more interesting and clickable, but don’t fall prey to the notion that you have to join the alt-truth environment. Don’t get me wrong, I support creative strategies, but I think our clients need us to help them communicate truthfully, finding ways to communicate conviction and engage members/followers, and we have to keep our eye on that north star.
:: Be BOLD — What’s your Big Idea? ::
Latia Curry — I think about the nature of the ideology of the left and how that naturally leads to a certain kind of communication that is less willing to be as abrasive as the right. When we read communications materials put forward by the right, I think we are shocked at how brash they are but they work! There is something about calling out to people’s hearts, and not necessarily their minds, that works well for the right.
Latia Curry — I think we sometimes play very safe for fear of polarizing. Safe is truthful but not motivating. I think recent movements that have been more polarizing in their nature (in a good way) have awakened many folks that were just sitting on the sidelines. And if we can be polarizing in a way that actually brings many people together including odd bedfellows, then that would really be something.
Felix Schein — I second that. Big ideas win. What was HRC’s big idea? I can come up with a dozen for DJT, even if I disagree with all of them.
:: Who do you need? ::
Felix Schein — We’ve long said you need to segment messaging to your audience(s), but is that no longer enough?
Derek Jansen — Segmenting doesn’t feel like it’s working. Because segmenting implies that we can control all/most of the information people receive. With increased fracturing of how people receive information, how can we really segment for that?
Shayna Englin — I think it might be less about segmenting, and more about acknowledging that different segments are seeing and trusting entirely different things.
Kevin Singer — But it’s not like Fox and Breitbart are asking us for our take on things, so is communication with that segment a lost cause? It can’t be, right?
Shayna Englin — Nope. I think it’s understanding that anything that’s not being said on Fox, isn’t being heard by a big chunk of the population. So, if the strategy includes engaging conservatives of any stripe, then the communications strategy needs to include content, messaging, etc. that will be relevant on Fox News. Which will be completely different than what you try to say on CNN or local TV, but that’s okay because those two audiences will never see what the other is seeing.
Derek Jansen — But I think the idea of “[insert progressive org here] said something on Fox News that sounded conservative” isn’t enough.
Kevin Singer — I think that’s a good point @djansen, assuming we’re trying to engage conservatives to take Progressive action, @shayna, that’s easier said than done.
Shayna Englin — I think figuring out how to get Fox News to be progressive is not the right question.
The right question is, when we need conservative people for anything (to act, to not act, etc.) what are we going to say on Fox News? And that’s in almost every instance going to be something completely different than what we’d say on CNN, MSNBC, or local news.
As communications pros, we’ve long had message fidelity as a north star. It’s the wrong north star.
We instead should be laser focused on 1) who we need, 2) where they get their information, and 3) what we need to say to them, even when it’s very different across audiences.
Latia Curry — @shayna I would add to that list — 4) what are we trying to accomplish, really?
:: Truth is Not a Strategy. ::
Shayna Englin — We tell the truth, but understand that 1) telling the truth isn’t a strategy; 2) something like 2/3 of the population either won’t believe the fact, won’t care about it, or don’t believe the truth is fully knowable; 3) there’s tons of research pointing to facts being selectively utilized by people to bolster what they already think. Facts aren’t persuasive.
We need to tell the truth AND be bold, connect emotionally, and be fine with people not being experts on issues before they care about and act on them.
Latia Curry — @shayna I love this. Truth isn’t a strategy. Ha!
Felix Schein — You are rocking my liberal arts educated sensibilities.
Shayna Englin — @fschein that’s what I’m here for.
Latia Curry — Yes. We need a vocational mentality!
