Reframing the conversation on economic rights
Together with CESR, an international NGO campaigning on economic rights, I ran a project experimenting with reengaging middle America in the conversation.
We took a recent campaign video they produced that laid out their vision for a rights based economy, and we produced a new version with a different content strategy designed to engage a mainstream audience.
Then we tested both videos against each other, both with CESR’s echo chamber audience and a new mainstream audience, and we compared the data.
33%
mainstream engagement increase
The situation
The conversation on economic rights is increasingly dominated by billionaire industrialists with narratives framing rights as weaknesses, and the only success that counts as being self made.
On top of that, the economy is deteriorating, real world consumer spending power is stagnating, and jobs are increasingly precarious. Talking about economic rights just doesn’t seem like a luxury we can afford.
At the same time, people are overloaded with information. Even though polling shows that up to 75% of Americans support unions campaigning for workers rights, most of that majority doesn’t define itself by its affinity to this issue.
These people don’t tend to click on NGO content, so the algorithms don’t serve them NGO content. This kind of content isn’t designed with them in mind, so the UX doesn’t work for them – it doesn’t give them an experience they enjoy. If content like this does happen to pop up in their feed and they don’t find it interesting, they quickly click away, which means that, in future, they (and people with similar algorithmic profiles) simply won’t get served more of this kind of content by the algorithm.
So the question was, how could we reframe this conversation, and reach (and engage) the people who could be persuaded to care about our cause, but who currently don’t know we exist?
Original content
The strategy is simply to say it straight; to lay out their ideas in two and a half minutes.
It’s stock footage and voiceover. It’s fairly well produced (by an external agency), but it’s not surprising in any way. Everyone has seen this kind of content before, and it’s exactly what you’d expect an organization of this kind to say. It’s content that would work well to open a conference where everyone in the room is fully on board with the vision already.
New content
UX Hypothesis
Hook with existing interest, then pivot
Strategy: Connect with people over the gadgets they hold in their hands everyday; connect with their nostalgia and amazement at the pace of change.
Link the pace of tech changes to the changes that are happening more insidiously in society. Link economic and social rights to more than just workers rights now; link them to their own kids’ futures.
Audience targeting
To reach the maximum optimal persuadable audience, we targeted people with a range of interests, including politics and consumer choices that would tend to correlate with middle class incomes and an interest in the world beyond their own lives. And we excluded followers of right wing media like Fox News, because it’s expensive and unproductive reaching people who are actively opposed to what you stand for.
Message testing
We tested both videos with both audiences, and compared the cost per engagement. (The way paid media works on digital platforms means that cheaper the engagement, the more willing people are to engage with the message, and therefore the better the UX works.)
Results
33% more engagement with the mainstream audience
Equal engagement with the pro-rights echo chamber
No increase in media-spend
This shows how CESR can reach a significantly larger audience (and significantly increase social impact) while still maintaining support from its base.