By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
As the Beatles sang, “I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together” (I Am the Walrus). Okay, so it wasn’t their most coherent musical statement. But it does illustrate a critically important strategy in persuasion, particularly the “we are all together” part. You collectivize your audience by appealing to shared circumstances and invoking a combined identity that unites speaker and audience. That “Us” appeal was on full display earlier this week in Hillary Clinton’s video announcing her campaign. She bypassed the press and the bunting-festooned auditorium in favor of a direct social-media-ready video that could be viewed, shared, discussed, and ‘liked’ by her future voters. The message was acutely sensitive to the downside of her current front-runner status: the potential criticism that, as the expected and thus far unopposed standard-bearer for the Democrats, she is treating her own nomination as an entitlement. To head off that impression, her campaign crafted a clear and collective “I am we, as you are we….” appeal.
The piece, entitled “Getting Started,” doesn’t feature the candidate until more than 90 seconds into the two minute and 18 second piece. Before that, it centers on the everyday activities of ordinary Americans: a woman planting a garden; a young mother seeking a better school for her kindergartener; a couple planning for their first child, a woman heading toward her retirement, a man starting a new career, two brothers opening a business, a young college grad searching for her first job, and so on. They are all setting off on some kind of relatable challenge. Each quick vignette is presented informally in relaxed and nonpolitical terms. When Hillary finally does appear, it is as one of them: “I’m getting ready to do something too – I’m running for President.” She is shot in the same manner as all of the other Americans, without any special lighting or backdrop. The message is not just that she is one of “us,” it is that “us” — and not just her — will be the focus of her campaign. Whether you love Hillary or hate her, you have to recognize it as good strategy, and as a messaging approach that applies to persuaders generally. As PR-News notes, “The messaging strategy laid out by her short campaign announcement video is one other brands and organizations prone to criticism can take to heart: Take the focus off of yourself and put it on those you are trying to reach.” In this post, I’ll look at this collectivizing strategy and the ways it applies to legal persuaders on both sides of the aisle.
Creating an “Us”
Starting from the basic expression, “My fellow Americans,” the collective appeal is, of course, a staple in politics. The broader principle applies to persuasion more generally. I’ve written before about the principle of rhetoric known as “identification.” It amounts to a recognition that persuasion is always built on common ground, and that common ground is established through common terms, shared references, similar circumstances, and uniting principles. The express or implied message that “I am like you” is an important building block of credibility.
This approach is in line with research showing that broad unifying appeals generally fare best. In a political setting, for example, one study (Hersh & Schaffner, 2011) showed that, compared to broad and general appeals, “micro-targeted” appeals to particular interest groups do little to improve support for a candidate, and may backfire. Appeals to the broad “middle class” tended to do better than appeals to religious conservatives, Latinos, or unions. To be sure, Hillary Clinton’s video does include particular appeals — for example, Spanish-speaking business owners, and a gay couple looking toward marriage, and the producers are also conscious to hit every important age and racial demographic. But across those differences, the overarching message is that we are all in this together.
Collective Appeals in Trial Persuasion
Trials, however, are purposefully not about “all of us,” and are instead closely framed on the specific parties. Jurors are told to set aside their personal interests, and advocates are told to avoid the kinds of “Golden Rule” appeals that would put jurors in the shoes of the litigants. That is what the law expects. But basic psychology suggests that any audience, including jurors, are still going to search for personal relevance. The juror in a criminal case may consider whether their community would be safer with the accused off the streets. The civil juror may think about whether they’re setting a precedent that will lead to safer products or to higher costs. The collective appeal may not be explicit or obvious, but it can nonetheless creep in. Smart legal persuaders know this and understand that, in order to make the message interesting and engaging for your target audience, it should — to at least some extent — be about them and not just about your client. Here are a few thoughts on how this collectivizing approach might work for plaintiffs and defendants respectively.
The Plaintiff’s Collective Audience
Plaintiffs have always cared about making the case about more than just an individual or about isolated parties. In personal injury, professional negligence, and products cases, the current Reptile strategy, however, makes that appeal more explicit than it has ever been. The idea is that plaintiffs can appeal to jurors’ primitive (or ‘reptilian’) brain by reframing the defendants’ behavior as a threat to their own safety and the safety of those they love. Fear is the motivator, based on perceived risk. But there is no fear if it isn’t collectivized. In other words, when framed as individual tragedy, it is just “someone else’s problem” and not yours. Instead, the Reptile’s message is that the case is about safety for all of us. Advocates accomplish that shift by implicitly generalizing beyond the individual (it is not just this child, but all children), beyond the target (it is not just this toy, but all toys), and beyond the circumstances (it is not just the warning, but the overall care companies take). Even when the subject matter is less intense, the appeal can still be collective. After all, we still all benefit from the principle that patentees’ innovations should be protected, employees should be treated fairly, and contracts should be followed.
The Defendant’s Collective Audience
It is a mistake to think that plaintiffs are the only ones who can frame their case in those kinds of collective and activist terms. I have written before, for example, that defendants have their own Reptile in the form of frames to apply that make the case about more than just this individual claim. The nearly-ubiquitous “hot coffee” effect, when jurors’ comparing any given case to the “frivolous” cases they’ve heard about, stems from the tendency to think about the broader social effect of plaintiffs’ verdicts. If jurors believe that the precedent will lead to higher costs, lower freedom, or reduced social responsibility, then they are likely to attach that perceived collective harm to an evaluation of the given plaintiff’s case. There are also some more conventional ways in which defendants invoke the “Us” in their audience. The defense, after all, is more likely to appeal the ideal of a reasonable and rational audience, looking at the law instead of being moved by sympathy. Even as that is an encouragement and not necessarily a description, the message of “this is who you are” still appeals to the collective temporary identity that individuals would like to assume as jurors.
In drawing the parallel back to Hillary’s campaign announcement, I am offering my first political post in what is going to be a long political season. Long-time readers of this blog will know that I welcome the campaign season because I like to make use of political examples. Even as I recognize the danger, and don’t want to suggest support or opposition to any particular party or campaign, I still like using politics as an accessible source of examples of persuasive approaches. Hillary’s populist appeal is unlikely to sway her many critics. After all, in the last decade she has gone from being a “former first lady” to being the ultimate establishment candidate and heir apparent to the presidency. But in appealing to that critical soft middle of American politics, framing herself as “one of us” is not a bad opening move.
______
Other Posts on the Lessons of Political Messaging:
- Take a Lesson from Political Campaigns: Going Negative Works (Partially)
- Stay on Message
- Be a Happy Warrior: 2012 Presidential Debate Series (Veep Edition), Part Two
______
Hersh, E., & Schaffner, B. F. (2011). When is Pandering Persuasive? The Effects of Targeted Group-Based Appeals. The Effects of Targeted Group-Based Appeals.
Image Credit: Screenshot from the public domain “Getting Started” video.