As communicators serving nonprofits and socially progressive companies, it is in our nature to pay close attention to how people communicate and the associated outcomes of those communications. Presidential election cycles offer many teachable moments in communications best practices. This article offers some of the most prominent takeaways that we believe are applicable to the nonprofit sector.
#1 Tailor your messaging to an audience — the general population is not an audience.
Although a lot of media attention focused on President Biden’s age and cognitive capacity, a major miss in his re-election campaign was the use of very broad messaging, lacking in the specificity required for different audiences to see themselves represented. When the Democrats shifted to Vice President Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket, we saw more intentional, targeted messaging for key audiences: young voters; those who are undecided; those compelled by reproductive rights issues, etc. The Republican campaign has consistently targeted specific audiences and has continued to do so intentionally in this election cycle: fiscally conservative men and women; those who embrace traditional gender and family norms; Christians who may not be highly political; and other relevant demographics.
Often organizations come to us with the desire to speak to the broad general audience. This approach is faulty. You must know your current and potential audiences, and what they care about in order to effectively communicate with them. As the upcoming presidential election demonstrates, the most cogent communications tailor message, tone, call to action and emotional tenor to particular audience categories.
How do we apply this lesson in our own work? Organizations should clearly identify the categories and characteristics of audiences they seek to sway. The more specific, the better. Then, connect insights you can draw from data on those audience categories, whether it is from publicly available survey data, or a privately commissioned survey.
#2 Gender is a big motivating issue in elections these days, but maybe not in the ways you are thinking.
Undeniably, gender has been at the center of a variety of media conversations in this election cycle. This comes out in two ways. First, gender categories are a key demographic that polling institutions often use to differentiate blocks of registered voters. Polling institutions, for example, will report on which candidates or policies benefit from greater support among Black women, or White women, or men with college degrees, etc.
Second, scholars and analysts studying gender and elections also view gender as a part of the internal experience of one’s identity, which individuals embody or enact in their daily lives. Members of the population individually and collectively personify and constantly negotiate roles, behaviors and expectations socially associated with biological sex in a given culture or subculture. We see this come out in presidential elections because American politics invests such symbolic (and real) power in the President that many of us associate the role with “the nation”, and therefore, the ideal for how the representative of Americans should show up in the world.
Recent research has shown that these types of gender beliefs also matter for how people behave in elections, and in some cases, sway votes more than the actual gender identity of the voter. For example, scholars studying the outcome of the 2016 presidential election have found that what we had previously understood as “gender differences in candidate support…were largely driven by” beliefs supporting or rejecting the idea that “the United States has grown too soft and feminine”–what these scholars are calling “gendered nationalism.” Once you take into account the respondent’s answer to that question, their actual gender no longer helped to predict their voting behavior. Their gender beliefs were driving what had been previously thought of as the effect of gender itself on voting behavior.
How can nonprofits tailor their communications taking these dynamics into account? Make sure the stories you tell do not inadvertently draw on gendered themes that will alienate members of your audience. Consider how expressions of masculinity, femininity and representations of non-binary identities may or may not intertwine with your topic or issue areas. For example, are you making statements or assumptions directly or indirectly in your communications about what appropriate vulnerability looks like, or how strength should be demonstrated? If so, consider if your communication leaves the opportunity for other interpretations open. Casting a wide net here—ensuring that your communications do not unintentionally communicate gendered beliefs—will strengthen your ability to reach more members of your prospective audiences.
#3 When words become polarizing, consider showing what you mean.
Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris represent very different visions concerning the response to ongoing structural discrimination and increasing acts of reported hate crimes in our country. Addressing the racialized media tropes that help to hide the presence of institutionalized and interpersonal racism is an important part of communicating for social change. Unfortunately, some of the language used by advocates of social change—for example, “woke” or “DEI”—are now so politicized that they may not still hold a cohesive meaning, even for the audiences of social change organizations. Although this is not a new phenomenon, it has been magnified by the election media environment.
Audiences are quite aware of these dynamics: In their research, Special Report: Business & Racial Justice, Edelman surveyed majorities of all demographic groups, and of those groups surveyed, 64% of all respondents indicated that “politicians turn positive or neutral words into insults to undermine constructive discussions about racism” and 75% reported that among their major worries, top of the list is the fact that “politicians intentionally sow division.” People know that language and communications matter for how we address racial injustice and other equity issues, and they are wary of politically motivated jargon as bad faith efforts to address it.
How should you respond to this complex messaging environment as a communicator for social change? To do better, we can move beyond the use of terms that may be contested or polarized, to help people understand on a more experiential level the values we are referencing. When language has been politicized, consider showing it, rather than—or in addition to—saying it. For example, use imagery, rhetoric and historical references to make connections to key figures or events that embody the emotional tenor, logic or behavior you want to encourage.
To be clear, we do not recommend avoiding direct language to talk about oppression, racism and the reality that systemic injustice is ingrained in many of our institutions and practices. At the same time, we should also be intentional to avoid reducing our discussion of these themes to catchphrases that may or may not hold clear meaning for our audiences. Let’s use all the communications tools at our disposal to speak plainly about these important topics. When done effectively, referencing famous figures, moments when people have come together for a greater purpose, or events relevant to your organization’s history can all imbue your communications with the values and energy of those events. Make sure that you are doing so in a way that is authentic to your work, respects the people, places and events you are making connections to, and clearly avoids appropriation.
#4 Emotions are the water we swim in as communicators — use them wisely and strategically.
We have all observed the shift in the current election cycle that has come from the Democratic party establishing a new emotional connection to the electorate with a change in candidate. Media has been quick to point out the energetic power behind the emotional tone change that has taken place—from warning against threats to democracy to fostering joy and comradeship across our diverse communities.
This seems to indicate a presumption that the emotions associated with evoking the dangers to democracy were being overplayed and losing their impact on a population tired of high-intensity vibes driving calls to action. If an emotion has been overused—even if the underlying set of circumstances are still relevant—consider other tactics or avenues to get to the behavior change you are aiming to achieve. Democrats shifting to more light-hearted vocabulary that is also more straightforward has been written about extensively. For example, with the adoption of “weird” as the go-to adjective, or refocusing of attention at the convention on freedoms, or even leaning into the power of nonverbal communication, like laughter.
The research on use of emotions in communications has also shown that the choice between relying on negative emotional valence and more positive communications should be one of strategy. In a wide-ranging review of literature on the topic, researchers found that short-term attention can be generated with strong negative emotions (like anger/rage, guilt, pity or shock), but long-term loyalty can be better sustained with communications that deploy more positive emotions such as hope, joy and self-efficacy—a sense that your behavior can make a difference.
How can you use these insights to bolster your communications to meet your nonprofit’s objectives? Use the emotional triggers strategically with your calls to action. For example, if you’re running a funding campaign that aims to garner immediate donations in a short period, running images or text communications next to the “donate button” that trigger shock or anger could be effective. On the other hand, if your communications goal is to attract longer-term donor loyalty to your cause, focus on the outcomes of your organization’s work and how they build the more positive future you and your supporters believe in. Just remember, whatever emotional valence you lean into, it is important to avoid exploiting the difficulty of the people your organization is aiding. Shock or anger can be triggered by images or written copy that emphasize the gravity of a situation but without diminishing the humanity and agency of people experiencing that reality, or showcasing their vulnerability.
#5 The first rule of crisis communications is to plan ahead.
In election cycles, significant attention is always paid to the possibility of an October surprise—an 11th hour event that unexpectedly turns the tide in a presidential election. This is a perfect example of how, although crisis events are unpredictable, there are elements of dependability within them. One increasingly common dynamic of crisis communications for both nonprofits and for-profit companies is the presence of misinformation and disinformation spread by groups or individuals who are actively campaigning against the work of an organization. Where likely, this can be flagged ahead of time to aid organizations in identifying the reoccurring and cyclical events that may coincide with this increasing trend. For example, hurricane seasons are one of the only relatively predictable series of natural disasters. As proponents of mis- and disinformation continue to benefit from stoking chaos, taking steps ahead of time to manage the presence of communications in high-pressure high-stakes contexts is essential.
In summary, there are some important communications lessons you can draw from the campaign right now, to more effectively do your own work of communicating for social change:
- Focus on identifying and tailoring content to key audiences.
- Consider if and how gendered norms and beliefs may be unexpectedly surfacing in your writing.
- Focus on showing what your organization is going for, just as much as saying it explicitly.
- Consider how you can use emotions strategically to advance your cause.
- Proactively plan for crisis management ahead of time, by gathering data on cyclical events and trends in crisis events within your industry and the world at large.
Although we don’t yet know the outcome of this historic election, we do know that on November 5th and every day after nonprofits will continue to fight and work for greater equity, no matter who is in the Oval Office. These communications tips can help us in that collective work.
To learn more about how The Wakeman Agency can help your team boost the impact of your communications fill out the contact form at the bottom of this page for a private consultation.