TMI: Does Information Overload Spell The End Of Outreach?
Do you know what a zettabyte is? I don’t either, but in total people in the U.S. consume almost four zettabytes of information per year, or about 34 gigabytes of information per person per day. And that’s only counting non-work hours, so it is no wonder that social justice advocates — including those of us working on animal protection issues — have a hard time getting through to people. What does this mean for outreach and advertising for animal causes? Does the cacophony of information in today’s world limit our chances of persuading people to change using the various tools of public outreach?
——————–
Some readers may be familiar with advertising’s Rule of Seven, which suggests that “a prospect needs to see or hear your marketing message at least seven times before they take action.” Recently, some have argued that the rule of seven has become the rule of eleven, reflecting the increasing amount of “noise” that exists in a world full of competing advertisements and social messages. While we hope a person’s commitment to social issues runs more deeply than their commitment to consumer brands, the reality is that it probably takes just as many times for people to hear an animal advocacy message before they take action.
Even people who are receptive to your message may tune it out because they’re overwhelmed by the other 33.99 gigabytes of information they’re receiving every day, according to the Global Information Industry Center at UC San Diego. That includes “more than 20 different sources of information, from very old (newspapers and books) to very new (portable computer games, satellite radio, and Internet video),” but only counts information consumed during non-work hours. In other words, that’s a lot of competition. Moreover, the competition is mostly industry-driven and therefore well funded; industry can saturate the airwaves while advocates rely on relatively sparse advertising campaigns.
The answer, of course, lies is the internet — social networking is the great leveler of playing fields, right? Not so fast. According to Malcolm Gladwell, author of “The Tipping Point” and other stories of social phenomena, our connections with social media contacts are too weak to have much real-life impact. He refutes the work of Jennifer Aaker and Andy Smith who wrote “The Dragonfly Effect: Quick, Effective and Powerful Ways to Use Social Media to Drive Social Change,” writing in response:
| “’Social networks are particularly effective at increasing motivation,’ Aaker and Smith write. But that’s not true. Social networks are effective at increasing participation — by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires… In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice.” (New Yorker, October 2010) |
If Gladwell is right, then this has huge implications for social justice advocacy. Social media might still help level the playing field with the opponents of animal protection, but advocates must recognize that the increased engagement from social media stems, at least in part, from lowering the bar. In other words: You’ve made it easy for people to “like” your organization on Facebook, but the real challenge is to turn that low-level participation into a deeper level of engagement in animal causes. It’s not really about making sure people hear a message seven times, but figuring out what motivates them to take meaningful action.
It’s not an easy task, but here are a few ideas for breaking through the clutter and engaging people more deeply:
- Be Relevant: Whenever possible, divide your target audience(s) into small segments and approach each segment with a tailored message that is most relevant to their needs and interests.
- Ask for Input: Nobody knows your target audience better than your target audience. Quick surveys or other research can help you understand what causes your audience to get motivated and engaged.
- For TV Ads: If doing any television advertising, cable networks generally offer the best ability to target a specific audience, whereas mass media messages are rarely worth the cost.
- For Print Ads: Image is everything, so lead with a bold image. In Faunalytics experience, if you use an animal image, the more the animal resembles a dog or cat or primate, the better off you are.
- For Internet Ads: This depends on where you’re advertising, but the advantage of many online ads is the ability to very narrowly target your message. Test the different options to see what works best.
EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY
OTHER TOPICSRelated Posts
