Last week I wrote about research evidence showing that stories are more persuasive than data-intensive appeals when it comes to reaching most audiences. Here's some more evidence provided by the same source (nonprofit marketing guru Andy Goodman) suggesting that people more readily believe an individual's story than data describing the context of that individual's situation. Advocates should recognize the difference and avoid having the same bias themselves.
--------------------------
The additional research uncovered by Andy Goodman is from 1980, but this kind of innate response shown by most of the research subjects is unlikely to have changed much in just a few decades. The upshot is to have the data in your back pocket to support the story, but be sure to make the story itself your focal point.
Having read the story and reviewed the data, the subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire that measured their attitudes about welfare mothers. Despite the warning of a biased sample, the subjects' responses revealed overwhelmingly negative attitudes. The story had stuck while the data had been discounted. |
I feel compelled to clarify one thing: This advice only applies to messaging for external audiences (vs. internal benchmarking, etc.), and it may not be effective for all audiences. For instance, if you’re working on anti-vivisection issues and you’re trying to appeal to scientists, it may well be more effective to lead with data showing that animal models are non-predictive, for instance. Similarly, some legislators or government agency officials may be more open to compelling data rather than individual stories.
Perhaps more importantly, however, advocates must always seek out accurate and reliable data to guide their efforts for animals. When it comes to deciding which programs or campaigns are effective, or how to spend our limited resources, stories and anecdotal evidence are limited at best and misleading at worst. As Peter Marsh (Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets) recently stated it, the increasing use of data by animal advocates represents “the transition from myth to math.”
I welcome the transition. After all, it’s the reason HRC was founded nearly ten years ago and the reason we feel that consumer and “marketing” research are so vital to the animal protection movement.