Getting “Neutral” Bystanders Off the Fence
Shaping public opinion hinges on the persuadable middle, a very much not neutral group
Deep divides mark so much of public discourse today. Ragebait litters social media like landmines, preying on the strong-of-opinion and weak-of-Google. When I worked as a communicator for a risk-averse brand, I studied the extremes at both ends of online discourse so that I could write content that flew under the radar.
But when it comes to influencing public perception, focusing on the extremes is both a drain and distraction from the bigger goal of building up a base of supporters. The more typical tugs-of-war between opposing camps overshadow a more pivotal battleground for communicators to pay attention to — the internal conflict of an undecided individual.
Conflicted, not neutral
Image from 350.org
Political canvassers call them swing voters. To my friend’s 9-year-old, they’re “windshield wipers.” Changemakers label them as neutrals, and place them between passive supporters and passive opponents on the spectrum of allies. But this cohort is anything but neutral.
To be truly neutral is to be indifferent to the outcome. For instance, I’m neutral about bananas as far as fruits go. I don’t hate ‘em, but I don’t buy ‘em either.
But the defining characteristic of so many in this middle slice of the pie is that they’re conflicted, and are actively looking for a way to resolve their inner turmoil. Inner conflict is easily mistaken for apathy from the outside, as having no clear answer usually results in inaction. Their indecision is an opportunity for you, or your opponents, to present them with a way to make sense of what feels at odds within them.
So rather than neutral, these people make up what’s called the persuadable middle.
Understanding the persuadable middle
Learning to effectively reach the persuadable middle is essential for anyone striving to influence public opinion, advance social change, or simply connect across divides.
Persuadable middles are primed to choose a side. Where true neutrals are marked by indifference, persuadable middles are marked by conflict and feel pulled in different directions by more than one belief.
They might hold strong beliefs that waver in the face of a proposed solution that threatens a more immediate concern, like safety or financial security. Or they may simply feel uncertain about what the right solution for everyone is.
Every movement’s persuadable middle has their own set of motivations and conflicts. And it’s important to note that the persuadable middle is not a monolith. Common archetypes along the spectrum between supporters and opponents can include:
Pragmatists: Feels positively about the cause or community, if the solution does not negatively affect their livelihood, safety or another practical concern in the long-term.
Conditional supporters: May feel a sense of duty to help or do the right thing, but have reservations about the specific solution proposed.
Moderate opponents: Feels somewhat negative about the cause, but are marked more by questioning than holding a staunchly oppositional view.
A story that’s stuck with me is that of Phyllis, who was an undecided Alabama voter in the recent U.S. election. Phyllis holds strong secular and pro-choice beliefs, yet felt pulled towards Trump because life had felt more affordable during his first term. Biden’s presidency, on the other hand, was marked by troubling rising costs that made it more difficult for her to put food on the table.
It’s tempting to ignore people like Phyllis if you already know that the relationship between who’s president and cost of living is a loose and complex one. But being good at our job as communicators means understanding what people care about and by speaking directly to those concerns.
Making room in your conversations
Developing a strategy to reach your persuadable middles is a good insurance policy for maintaining your base of supporters. It’s important to remember that a donation today is not an eternal pledge of support. Your base is in constant flux. Supporters will inevitably drift back into the persuadable middle, opening up them to the opposition’s stories and framings. Three things to keep in mind to effectively reach this group:
Seek out your persuadable middle and create a space that allows them to honestly share their inner conflicts
We are far less likely to hear from persuadable middles, despite making up a big chunk of an audience. One theory about this silent majority is that they fear speaking up because we don’t make room for people like Phyllis in our move towards a better world. We might write people like her off as ignorant or too “impure” to fit into our idea of what is right.
But we would be remiss to treat people like Phyllis as unreachable, as they are in fact sympathetic and persuadable, but conflicted. All they need is a reason that makes them feel sure that you are the right choice, and feeling safe and heard in their uncertainty can go a long way in bringing someone from undecided to loyal supporter.
Frame messages in common values, in ways that also address their conflicts
Social Change Initiative and the Race/Class Narrative outline how you might create effective campaigns for the persuadable middle. How an issue is framed deeply affects where people fit it into their worldview. If addiction is framed as a crime issue, then it might logically follow that we punish drug users. But because we understand it to be a health issue, the solution instead becomes about healing and treatment.
Do watch for a common pitfall that progressive campaigners fall into, which is relying only on the common values that reinforce their support for you. To effectively reach the persuadable middle, we also need to address what they feel is in conflict with what you stand for.
For instance, a housing advocate might find that their persuadable middles agree with the idea that housing is a fundamental human right. Many of these persuadables might even donate or volunteer in support of the cause, yet hesitate to support new social housing complexes in their neighbourhood, worried about how it might affect their family’s well-being. (Recall that as communicators, we need to withhold the urge to simply decide they’re wrong and unreachable.)
Research by the Frameworks Institute has found two effective frames for affordable housing. The “regional interdependence” frame, which positions affordable housing as a matter of collective interest. Using this frame, a campaign’s messaging should name family well-being as a priority — when people can afford to live where they work, it’s families who come out ahead.
Drop language precision in favour of plain language (at first).
With the persuadable middle, you have a much smaller margin of error. If they don’t understand what you’re saying, they might feel bored, annoyed or confused. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to give my time to someone who makes me feel that way.
The Race/Class Narrative recommends that campaign messaging be written at the eighth-grade reading level or lower. This isn’t just to make your life as a writer difficult – it’s because 50% of Canadians (and Americans) read at an eighth-grade reading level or lower. And who is expecting to look up every other word in it?
This doesn’t mean that you should scrub difficult words from your lexicon forever. Language precision has its place, but that place is not the first time your supporter, or prospective supporter, hears about the idea. Plainer language, or sometimes no language at all, is what allows you to more persuasively frame your issue or solution in terms of what it means for them and why it’s important.
Written with very special thanks to Jenny Lee-Leugner.
—
Ready to start reaching your persuadable middle?
Let’s work together. I’m a communications consultant and writer with a background in equity and inclusion. I work with nonprofits and social impact organizations looking to grow their base of supporters and talk to them effectively.
