Informed Communication = Better Results
Good communication is at the core of everything we do as advocates. Whether we’re trying to convince individuals to go vegan, showing institutions that vivisection won’t stand without a fight, recruiting new activists for a protest, working on animal protective legislation, or even writing a communique about freed animals… we’re always employing what we know—or think we know—about best practices for reaching the most people with our message.
But we need to get better at it.
Ever wonder what that societal tipping point of vegans, liberationists, abolitionists—whatever you want to call them—would even look like? Something from the distant, inconceivable future? Nope. The future is now, friends. Okay, a critical mass of vegans is still off on the horizon. However, the process of getting there is definitely happening right now. So how do we harness that? By understanding better how to make that process happen faster and more effectively. And here’s a good place to start…
Back in the 60s, communications scholar Everett Rogers developed a model called diffusion to map out what he termed “innovation adoption.” (To be clear, an innovation can refer to anything from an iPhone to a new way of thinking about existence.) Refined over the last six decades, Diffusion of Innovations has become one of the most relevant and cited theories in its field. Fortunately for us, it’s a pretty simple concept. DOI theory attempts to show when, why, and by whom new ideas, practices, and products spread through networks, eventually reaching widespread adoption. While communications is a very fluid and nuanced subject (after all, we’re talking about how humans interact), if we can take Rogers’ research as valid, we can also apply a lot of DOI toward improving our own advocacy communications.
We can see Rogers’ theory playing out in everything from pet sterilization to anti-fur campaigns, but I’m most interested here in translating diffusion for our movement as a whole. How do we get the general public to embrace the seemingly innovative idea that animals have an inherent right to freedom? We’ll try to answer some of those questions in the second installment of this article, coming in a few weeks. But for now, let’s look at the (very condensed!) mechanics of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations. And while you read this, keep in the back of your mind how these components overlap with whatever issue you’re working on, as well as that comprehensive ideology of animal freedom mentioned above.
THE HOW: Understanding the Innovation-Adoption Process on an Individual Level
Note: None of this is fixed. We’re complex cognitive beings, so your process and that of the the people you’re trying to reach may not follow a linear or rational path. These steps just paraphrase what Rogers asserts is the most readily-observable course for absorbing and adopting or rejecting what’s new.
Step 1: The Knowledge Stage
The existence of an innovation is introduced, as well are its relative advantages and applications. Potential adopters may ask, “What is this? How does it work? What’s in it for me?”
Step 2: The Persuasion Stage
Information about the innovation is being assessed and subjective opinions are being formed. Potential adopters may ask, “Does this align with my existing values? Can I apply it in my daily life, and how hard would that be? Does it offer me some kind of benefit?”
Step 3: The Decision Stage
Cognitive and practical action is being taken toward adopting or rejecting the innovation. Potential adopters may ask, “Can I give this a trial period to see if it fits? Is there support in my networks for putting it into practice?”
Step 4: The Implementation Stage
Once adopted cognitively and often after a trial period, the innovation becomes integrated into daily routines. Still perhaps tentative adopters may ask, “How do I make sure this is sustainable? Am I totally sure it’s beneficial for me? Are there other people I can model who have more experience with this?”
Step 5: The Confirmation Stage
After full recognition of the benefits of adopting and practicing the innovation, cognitive and affective commitment to it forms, possibly resulting in the adopter’s active advocacy for it. Adopters may say, “All right, I’m totally sold and glad I decided to do this,” and maybe even, “Now I need to tell my friends about why they need to try it.”
THE WHO & WHEN: Charting the Innovation-Adoption Process as it Occurs Within a Population
Note: Once more, this is not set in stone! The following descriptors are very general traits Rogers found to be shared by people in each adoption category, which fluctuates depending on the innovation in question. So someone may be an early adopter of one kind of innovation and a late majority adopter of another. The percentages represent rough calculations of population segments Rogers and others aggregated from many varied studies on the subject.
The take-away from this section? It’s meant to help you potentially identify the type of person you’re trying to reach with your animal advocacy. Pragmatically, we should be aiming our efforts at the early adopters and early majority adopters… but we’ll get to more of that in the second installment of this article.
The Innovators — 2.5%
Meet the folks responsible for introducing a new idea, product, or practice to society. Because they’re not usually well-connected socially, they often go unseen as the pioneers they are. When they do get noticed, they tend to be viewed as extreme, eccentric, or avant-garde by most people.
The Early Adopters — 13.5%
These are the people who influence their networks to adopt an innovation; we regard them as the taste-makers and thought leaders in our culture. Generally speaking, they’re risk-takers, willing to trust the innovators and try out something new without the need for social precedent. They’re pretty well-connected in their circles and adept at communicating an innovation’s advantages and practice.
The Early Majority Adopters — 34%
Consider these folks the bandwagoners—but don’t write them off. They’re the ones who push an innovation up over the curve, if for no other reason than because there are so many of them in society. These adopters quickly follow their peers. And while they may look for more information, social proof, or validation that the innovation is a good idea, they’ll take it on if early adopters show them the way. They’re well-connected in their social groups, but typically not leader types.
Late Majority Adopters — 34%
These people take some more time to follow the crowd, but are eventually swayed. They may need extra reassurance that the innovation is worth adopting, and might only adopt it because of a need to fit in. Then again, they may also just be unaware of the innovation’s existence for a longer time. Chalk it up to the fact that they tend to be less socially-connected. Unsurprisingly, they’re not seen as leaders.
Laggards — 16%
This is the group that tends to be nearly impossible to reach. They’re the ones who either actively resist the innovation for a long time, or are simply so out of the loop, it takes them a very long time to even learn about the innovation’s existence. These hesitant adopters may be steeped in conservative thinking and living, and they might only adopt an innovation because no other alternative exists anymore. They’re often identified as social isolates.
THE WHY: Noting Best Practices for Accelerating the Innovation-Adoption Process
Note: The following points are synopses of what Rogers asserts to be the attributes of innovations that diffuse most rapidly through networks and broader populations.
- They’re communicated precisely and demonstrated by people others trust: the thought-leaders, taste-makers, experienced experts, and people who are generally well-connected socially.
- They’ve got social proof behind them, whether from the aforementioned social influencers, or simply from an existing majority of adopters within the network (jump on that bandwagon, y’all!).
- They give people some kind of advantage over their current way of doing things, as well as observable results after adoption. That is to say, these innovations (or their presenters) demonstrate clear benefits of adoption to the audience.
- They’re not terribly complex, or at least are explained in a way that simplifies comprehension of how the innovation works and how it can be implemented. As Rogers would put it, the innovation is presented in a way that “reduces uncertainty.”
- They offer a period for potential adopters to “try on” the innovation while sorting out its advantages and application. Everyone likes a trial period without pressure to commit, right?
So hopefully all of this has your brain ticking about the parallels and possibilities within animal advocacy. If so, post your thoughts in the comments section. And either way, check back soon for the second part of this article, where we’ll connect some dots between diffusion and advocacy. In the meantime, here’s another way to look at diffusion (and leadership), as presented by Simon Sinek at TED.
Alex Graff is a longtime vegan, full-time communications specialist, sometimes organizer, and an activist through and through. She’s mostly been living in St. Louis for the past 10 years, but is on her way to San Diego to see what the West Coast holds.