The second step of the narrative change planning process - Build out the elements - consists of eight elements. Based on the strategy defined for your campaign in the first step, the focus now turns to building out all the necessary parts of a narrative change campaign that go together to trigger a positive, warm response in your target segment(s). This then serves as a basis to engage them constructively in dialogue on the issue.
 
In the planning process, it is assumed that you have already worked through the first step of the process and decided on a clear strategic direction for your campaign covering the following:

• A middle segment(s) that you will target/engage in the campaign
• A suitable entry point, occasion or target debate for your campaign
• A messaging space that is resonant with the target segment(s) and also one you/your organisation or coalition can live with
• A set of realistic objectives for the campaign

The following table illustrates the elements of the campaign build out covered in this step:

This step is the heavy lifting of the campaign preparation process, where you put the meat on the bones of the strategy. The eight elements incorporate the development of the key tools needed for an effective narrative change campaign adopting a reframing approach, with practical planning aspects also inbuilt. While the elements in the table above are presented in a series, the reality of this step is that you need to iterate back and forth among the different tools through the campaign build out process. This will not only inspire creative thinking across elements, but also helps to ensure the coherence and consistency between elements.

Principles/targets for the build out process

Before going step by step through this build out block, we first outline five principles or targets devised to guide you throughout the process of developing the campaign elements.

Focus on eliciting a warm, engaged response from the target segment(s).

Revisiting the Ganz model, the focus in building narrative change campaigns is on generating content which engages emotions/pathos through stories of lived experience in an effort to create a warm feeling that easily engages the audience, and ultimately appeals to the heart. In contrast to other approaches commonly used by progressives, these campaigns are not analytical, cognitive or appealing to the head.

Start with values- tell your audience why your message matters to them.

It’s often stated that policy is cold and values are warm. In order to elicit a warm response, you should lead with a focus on shared/overlapping values identified in the strategy step rather than a factual discussion of the issue. To take this further and quote a seasoned campaigner, Frank Sharry: “Values unite and issues divide”. Shared values are the way to start a relationship, whereas the detail of policy expertise can be more isolating, especially for non-specialists1 .

Put simply, telling people why your position and story matters with a value framing is key to anchoring the discussion and showing them the connection to their views is the first step to building empathy2 . Making this emotional connection is key to any reframing process. Further, starting with values allows you to actually frame the story in the way you want to, rather than having to react to the existing frames of others3 .

Frame in the positive and lead with solutions (where possible!).

The simple fact is that the news cycle and research agenda is dominated with in-depth analysis of problems and indeed, researchers and activists from the progressive side also tend to focus on the forensic detail and complications of the problem. As a result, and maybe especially because of this news agenda, many people tend to significantly overestimate the size of problems and this is indeed true in the migration debate4  . When problems only are on the table, people feel overwhelmed, and therefore the advice from many campaigners is to frame in the positive and lead with solution stories where possible and then get back to the problems5 . To reinforce, it’s better to focus on creating positivity and warmth, rather than adding to existing doubt and stress. However, as we learned in the message testing event we ran in June 2018 as part of the Narrative Change Lab, you still do acknowledge the challenges in your messages; otherwise, you can come across as naïve.

Don’t let the opposition set the agenda: If you negate a frame, you evoke a frame!

One of the best-known commentators in the discussion of framing is the cognitive linguist, George Lakoff, whose book “Don’t think of an Elephant” is widely used and referenced6 . As the title implies, once anyone gives you this command, the only thing you can think of is an elephant. It is this idea of what words trigger in us that is at the core of his thinking. Simply put, the words we choose are not just vehicles to transfer objective information; we automatically make all kinds of associations with specific words in our brains. So, if you use the language of your opponents (even when negating it), you make your job much harder by playing on the opposition field and some would even argue, you’re “giving them free airtime”7 .

For example, many campaigns talk about what migrants and refugees are NOT, e.g. not illegal or not aliens or not criminals. The most famous example of making this mistake was Nixon during the Watergate scandal when he famously said: “I am not a criminal”. Well guess what everyone took away! Another example in the migration debate: sceptics tend to use the metaphors and images of natural disaster/catastrophe, always talking crisis, tsunami, floods and waves. This is also a set of metaphors and entry point to avoid. We are not saying that you cannot challenge the opinions or positions of opponents, but don’t lead with these. Lakoff advises us to be respectful of opponents’ opinions and then reframe or tell the story you want, using your own language and framed in your values8 .

Work to achieve the right balance between resonance and dissonance in campaign elements.

Most authors and campaigners talk about frames that work as having ‘cultural resonance’9 . We’ve already highlighted that a challenge with messaging to the broader public in the migration debate is that campaigners often don’t make strong enough connections to the stories and concerns of their target audiences. As resonance is key, a strong aspect of building a reassuring feeling has to be present in all campaign elements. At a basic level, you are trying to avoid that immediate, automatic loss of attention that unfamiliarity or challenge to existing beliefs has been shown to bring10 . However, familiarity and resonance are not enough; adding some dissonance or challenge is needed to open up new thinking. 

So, putting these together, one key campaign principle we have been experimenting with in our Narrative Change Lab is getting the right balance between resonance and dissonance, i.e. the messages, visuals, messengers and other elements should mostly be familiar, reassuring, feel trusted and like common sense, but of course, also add a challenge or ‘twist’ to get the audience to think differently (See figure 2 above). The idea is that the audience feels warm and on board and you then add a little element that is thought provoking and challenges current thinking and hence, catalyses reconsideration. Such dissonance creates a psychological response in which people really need to resolve this new information and that may lead to some kind of attitude change11 , i.e. an opportunity to shift the debate and ultimately, achieve your goals.

This was a simple campaign asking people of all backgrounds to support the England football team in the Euro 2016 soccer tournament and post photos on social media using the hashtag - #WeAreAllEngland.

For example:

Also take a look at the 2 minute campaign video:

Breaking down the elements of resonance and dissonance in the campaign:

The point to dissonance in this campaign is a challenge to the doubt if immigrant and especially Muslim communities (even long-term ones) really integrate. So, all the elements of dissonance are challenging this.

<< 1.5 - 2.1 >>

• 1Delft University of Technology (2016) Framing: How Politicians Debate. edX online course.
• 2Crompton, T. (2010). Common Cause. The Case for Working with our Cultural Values. UK: WWF-UK. ; FrameWorks Institute (2009) Changing the Public Conversation on Social Problems: A Beginner’s Guide to Strategic Frame Analysis , E-Workshop.; Frameworks Institute (2013) Using Values to Build Public Understanding and Support for Environmental Health Work.; Hope not hate (2017) Going Mainstream: The mainstreaming of anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe and North America.; Waller, R. L., & Conaway, R. N. (2011). Framing and counterframing the issue of corporate social responsibility the communication strategies of nikebiz.com. Journal of Business Communication, 48, 83-106.
• 3Lakoff, George (2014). Don't think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate : the essential guide for progressives. 2nd Edition. White River Junction, Vt, Chelsea Green Pub. Co.
• 4Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ; The Guardian (2014) Today’s key fact: you are probably wrong about almost everything. Datablog: Immigration and Asylum
• 5 FrameWorks Institute (2009) - Changing the Public Conversation on Social Problems: A Beginner’s Guide to Strategic Frame Analysis, E-Workshop.; Solutions Journalism Network
• 6Lakoff, George (2014). Don't think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate : the essential guide for progressives. 2nd Edition. White River Junction, Vt, Chelsea Green Pub. Co.
• 7Delft University of Technology (2016) Framing: How Politicians Debate. edX online course.
• 8Lakoff, George (2014). Don't think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate : the essential guide for progressives. 2nd Edition. White River Junction, Vt, Chelsea Green Pub. Co.
• 9 FrameWorks Institute (2009) - Changing the Public Conversation on Social Problems: A Beginner’s Guide to Strategic Frame Analysis, E-Workshop.; Lakoff, George (2014). Don't think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate : the essential guide for progressives. 2nd Edition. White River Junction, Vt, Chelsea Green Pub. Co.; Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Supplement, 13, 106-131. ; Waller, R. L., & Conaway, R. N. (2011). Framing and counterframing the issue of corporate social responsibility the communication strategies of nikebiz. com. Journal of Business Communication, 48, 83-106.
• 10Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• 11Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviours to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.” Simplpsychology.org