Re-engaging mainstream Danes in the climate conversation
This ongoing project with Action Aid Denmark aims to re-engage mainstream Danish society in the climate conversation, and reduce the cost-per-signature on its climate petitions .
The challenge
Climate content gets extremely low engagement for media and NGOs. It seems surprising given that we hear so much about sustainability these days, but by analyzing the culture and gaps in the content of other organizations in the same space, we can quickly understand the low engagement problem, and develop hypotheses as to how we solve it.
27%
Up to 27% reduction in petition signatures advertising costs
Culture
Climate is part of the zeitgeist now. That’s both a challenge and an opportunity. People have heard the same message for a long time, and it’s always doom and gloom. That causes climate fatigue.
Sector
Almost every NGO campaigning on climate has a very similar message. It’s simple and alarmist, and it doesn't add new ideas to the conversation so much as repeat the same ideas.
People don’t look to NGOs as news sources. They look to them for direction and impact, yet a lot of NGO content does little more than repeat facts their audience has already heard elsewhere.
Low differentiation means low motivation to hear the same message again and again. There’s little narrative to engage with; therefore low entertainment potential (and let’s be honest, news works much the same way as entertainment – people understand the world through stories).
Most of their content is aimed squarely at their community, with in-group jargon and ideas that’s just doesn’t provide an engaging user experience for an audience that isn’t 100% with them already. In fact, a lot of NGO content seems like it’s wagging its fingers at anyone who’s not engaged.
Audience
Up to 88% of Danes are at least somewhat worried about about climate change. So why don’t they engage?
Two decades of doom narrative and no solutions, has created hopelessness and apathy.
People don’t expect much from NGO content, so they’re not motivated to engage with it (and based on previous engagement, the algorithm doesn’t serve it to them).
Doom isn’t where people want to be, especially when they reach for social media to relax.
Shame isn’t where people want to be, either.
Everyone has a thousand and one other problems they need to deal with right now. Climate is a future concern.
Rethinking targeting
Our question is, who do we have a hope of engaging with this subject? There’s no point in engaging hardcore climate skeptics; they’re never going to engage, and we’re very unlikely ever to change their minds.
Similarly, there’s (almost) no point in only reaching the people who are already most motivated to engage. That just exacerbates polarization.
So who’s our maximum optimal audience? Let’s define them.
They're centrist(ish) politically, not dogmatic far left or right – extremism limits imagination, and extremists live to find fault with anything and everything.
They’re politically aware / interested in the world beyond reality TV and pop culture glitz (ie, they read the news).
They’re wealthy enough to have the luxury of caring about issues beyond putting food on the table.
They're smart enough to understand that solutions are complex (ie, university educated).
User experience experiments
User Experience (UX) is everything. If people don’t get a good experience, they don’t engage.
UX is the reason that, in spite of widespread concern, most people just don’t engage with climate content.
So how can we create better user experiences? Right now, we have lots of ideas, but we don’t know for sure. Strategy is just a best guess until the data proves or disproves it. So what we do it this:
We come up with lots of different UX hypotheses – all of which are rooted in an in-depth understanding of our audience’s psychology and values – and we test them out to learn what actually drives engagement.
AB Testing
Ideas are not expensive (I came up with 20+ for this project, I’m sharing 4 below), and all of the creative you’re about to see was executed for just the price of the stock media – less than a hundred euros in total. That means we can produce numerous versions, and learn what works (and what doesn’t).
We target all the new messages against the original messages with both audiences in a kind of randomized experiment. The way paid media works on digital platforms means that the cheaper the engagement, the more willing people are to engage with it, and therefore the better the UX works. So, by comparing the cost per engagement with each message, we can understand which messages are most effective.
Reducing risk
New directions might seem risky, but experiments are small and actually reduce risk. We can target messages at a tiny percentage of the potential audience and learn what works before committing budgets for larger campaigns. Some ideas won't work. Others will. But if we're open to taking calculated risks (and maybe even failing sometimes) we gain valuable insights into our audience, how to engage them, how to make our media budgets go further, and ultimately, how to drive greater social impact.
UX Hypothesis 1
We can get past apathy with impact
Let’s assume people are with us already but they’re busy. They might not have time for activism, but they do care. They’re happy to know that we’ve got this for them. But if they’re going to support us, they need to know we’re creating real impact. We’re taking care of something that’s important to them – it’s kind of like a service / quid-pro-quo proposition.
This graphic, together with the post copy, promotes the concrete impact an Action Aid project had in persuading Danish pension funds to divest from oil companies.
UX Hypothesis 2
Connect climate with current priorities
This is about connecting the climate (a future worry) with our audience’s number 1 priority right now; their kids and grandkids. Studies show we’re more likely take action to help others than we are to help ourselves. And, the dissonance between the frantic work that we put into our kids and that kids put into themselves, and the possibility of it all being for nothing, is deeply moving (and emotion drives action).
UX Hypothesis 3
Connect climate with current suffering
This is about bringing climate (a future concern) into the present again. The greater the pain of our current problems, the more motivated we are to deal with them. So an iteration on the previous example could be to test linking climate with the immediate wellbeing of our target audience’s loved ones.
Climate anxiety is soaring among young people. 83% believe previous generations betrayed them. More than 45% say their sadness, anxiety and guilt about climate change negatively affects their daily life.
If we can pivot effectively from the problem to a solution (the best remedy for climate anxiety is to do something concrete like support our impactful work), we might be able to motivate action.
UX Hypothesis 4
Say the weird thing they’re thinking already
People engage with what’s new and different and surprising. But more than that, they engage with ideas that validate them. A large segment of our persuadable audience lives with dissonance about their consumerist lifestyles and the knowledge of impending climate catastrophe. A lot of NGOs seem to wag their fingers, but few people outside the activist bubble want to engage with that kind of energy. If we acknowledge that apathy is common & understandable, perhaps we can get their attention and get them on side; then we pivot, and get past apathy with solid examples of our impact or solid thought leadership on solutions.
UX Hypothesis 5
Group dynamics / we’re in your corner
Corporate lobbying is an injustice, and injustice drives emotion and engagement. Our challenge is that it’s been said so many times before that it's lost its impact. This aims to say it in a fresh way, and position us “with mainstream Denmark”. It aims to position us as being on our audience’s side.
Initial Results
Up to 27% more cost effective than the original ads at motivating signatures on climate petitions
No increase in media spend
