{"id":1093,"date":"2016-06-13T15:50:59","date_gmt":"2016-06-13T15:50:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/?p=1093"},"modified":"2016-06-13T15:50:59","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T15:50:59","slug":"seven-values-strategies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/threeworlds.campaignstrategy.org\/?p=1093","title":{"rendered":"Seven Values Strategies"},"content":{"rendered":"

This blog is a follow-up to 48 Campaign Strategies<\/a> and Management Parameters for Campaign Direction<\/a>.<\/h2>\n
\n

There is no hard and fast distinction between \u2018values strategies\u2019 and other campaign or communication strategies<\/a>.\u00a0 Just understanding values, how they apply at a personal or group level and what makes for a good campaign strategy, is not an alternative to other tools and ideas.\u00a0 On the other hand there are some insights that you simply don\u2019t get without values.<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. x3 Values Matching <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The default use of values insight for many campaigns.\u00a0 This is a \u2018Something for Everyone\u2019 strategy, suitable for instances where it is necessary to try and engage a whole population or group.\u00a0\u00a0 Any campaign which purports to address a wide \u2018public\u2019 is ostensibly trying to reach all three main Maslow Groups (Settler, Prospector, Pioneer), whether the campaigners are aware of them or not.<\/p>\n

    Here\u2019s an example on engaging the public in marine environments<\/a>, based on detailed audience research*, another on designing pubs<\/a>, and a heuristic for \u2018narratives<\/a>\u2019.<\/p>\n

    The simplest process of applying this involves deciding on a specific behaviour that needs to happen in the course of the campaign, and then creating three versions of it, in terms of activity, channel, messenger, context and benefits.\u00a0 It is much easier and more effective to create three bespoke opportunities than one.<\/p>\n

    [* In more detail at pp 303-10 in How to Win Campaigns: Communications for Change<\/em><\/a>].<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. x1 LCD Cross Values Appeal<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      This applies if for some reason the brief is to have one activity or opportunity that has to \u2018work for everyone\u2019, which in practice means as many different sorts of people as possible.\u00a0 (If you don\u2019t actually need broad values support you can make do with a much narrower engagement, typically people-like-you but many campaigns by cause groups are limited by only really engaging Pioneers).<\/p>\n

      So in this case there is only one \u2018proposition\u2019, based on the \u2018Lowest Common Denominator\u2019: one that is at least accepted if not enthusiastically embraced, by all the three Maslow Groups.<\/p>\n

      The marine example cited in #1 shows what would have<\/em> worked best for the three values groups separately but also the chosen solution which worked best for all three.<\/p>\n

      If you lack any<\/em> basis for deciding this (ie research giving you insight or a lot of experience with values and audiences in your country) the default should be to make it a proposition that works for Settlers, as Prospectors and Pioneers have previously both been Settlers.<\/p>\n

      If you have commissioned or can access national values surveys, you can also identify things that are not very values segmented.\u00a0 For example in the UK it would include the appeal of animal charities<\/a> and being a parent<\/a>.\u00a0 So by default, making propositions about animals, or children, or even better animals and children, is going to reach across values groups (= \u2018mainstream\u2019).<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The Mexican Wave<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        This utilises the basic cultural or social dynamics of change<\/em> across values groups (which is why CDSM<\/a>, the values company whose model I use, is called Cultural Dynamics<\/em> Strategy and Marketing).<\/p>\n

        Real social change involving doing or creating something genuinely new and different (as opposed to a new project that does something \u2018tried and tested\u2019 elsewhere) always starts with the Pioneers.\u00a0 This arises by default because the Pioneers are not as concerned as the Prospectors about taking social risks and being seen to fail, and, because they are not change-averse like the Settlers.<\/p>\n

        Not all new Pioneer experiments spread: most die out and don\u2019t even attract much Pioneer support but those which look \u2018successful\u2019 and approved of, will be noticed by Prospectors.\u00a0 So long as they become available to them in ways that do not carry a lot of Pioneer values-baggage that requires Prospectors to \u2018become a different person\u2019 (\u201cnot me\u201d), they may be taken up by Prospectors.\u00a0 This invariably happens between the Transcender Pioneer Values Mode and the Prospector Now People, and works by emulation<\/em>.<\/p>\n

        The Now People act as the behaviour or idea gateway to the rest of the Prospectors, who want to be like Now People (the most confident Prospectors and the definers of what is \u2018fashionable\u2019), and they are much better \u2018messengers\u2019 for other Prospectors than the Pioneers.\u00a0 So the change-baton can get passed on, often by the behaviour being endorsed by a \u2018mainstream\u2019 brand.<\/p>\n

        If Pioneers plus Prospectors together constitute a majority (which in almost every country studied in recent years now is the case), any widespread behaviour they espouse, starts to look \u2018normal\u2019.\u00a0 At that point is converted into a social norm and Settlers adopt it (norming<\/em>), as they have a great desire to be \u2018normal\u2019.\u00a0 Premature attempts to get Settlers to adopt a change however will fail unless enforced by authority through rules.<\/p>\n

        This also means that Settlers are the last to change and that both they and Prospectors will adopt behaviours they previously rejected and argued against.\u00a0 You do not need to try and change the people\u2019s values (impractical for large groups in terms of creating life experiences to do that by meeting unmet needs and otherwise an attempt at brainwashing), only to make the behaviour attractive in values terms.<\/p>\n

        So by a process of emulation and norming, change can spread around the values map from Pioneers to Prospectors to Settlers.\u00a0 Good examples seen in many countries are the spread of environmental behaviours such as use of renewable energy, and recycling.<\/p>\n

        Because this happens without people changing values, it is like a Mexican Wave in a stadium which spreads without people leaving their seats.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. The Locomotive<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          This appears similar to the previous strategy but is crucially different because it relies on the power of a leadership group rather than attempting to enlist the rest of society.<\/p>\n

          The locomotive in question is normally the Pioneers or a subset of them, as the people most willing to \u2018stand up for\u2019 or promote something seen as unusual, weird, baffling, controversial or otherwise \u2018difficult\u2019 but for reasons the proponents usually see as altruistic: \u2018good for society\u2019.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0So it\u2019s a Pioneer-led, Pioneer-dominated x1 Group campaign strategy, even if the proponents think it is \u2018open to all\u2019.<\/p>\n

          In many societies there are enough Pioneers to create a big enough recruitment pool to create and sustain large campaigns of this sort but it has self-evident limitations. \u00a0\u00a0For instance if it does not also engage or spread to Prospectors and Settlers, in most democracies politicians will see it as a subset of \u2018the usual suspects\u2019.\u00a0 Unlike a campaign group, politicians cannot usually ignore the majority or large parts of society, as the majority also have votes.<\/p>\n

          This strategy is unconsciously adopted by many campaigns which act a vanguards<\/a> or pressure groups for social reform and innovation (eg new sexually defined rights). \u00a0\u00a0The default organising principle for this strategy is to identify the group most likely to run with your issue, build it and then devote energies to that and work your way out to other groups, using affinities.<\/p>\n

          Those which become politically-correct in ways which mean insisting on others adopting their<\/em> reasons (values) as the price of admission (\u2018true belief\u2019, \u2018real reasons\u2019), are unlikely to do more than persist. \u00a0\u00a0Those which define their chosen issue or proposition in terms which polarise against the values of others, are likely to fail if they antagonize other groups and cannot over-power, out-manoeuvre or outweigh them.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Reframing for Values Uplift<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Values and frames are often confused but are two different things. \u00a0\u00a0Values in the sense used here result from unmet psychological needs and manifest themselves as deeply and unconsciously held beliefs.\u00a0 Frames are mental metaphors unconsciously used to recognize, categorize and process new information.\u00a0 Nobody yet knows what the underlying brain processes really are or how they intersect but for practical purposes of campaign design, the first is about \u2018rewards\u2019 and the second about \u2018understanding\u2019 in the sense of recognition.<\/p>\n

            Reframing a proposition so that it better resonates with attitudes and beliefs driven by a particular values group can be an effective way of gaining wider support (as in #1).\u00a0 But this has to be based on values insights from research, not guesswork in which people with one set of values try to second-guess what works for others.<\/p>\n

            For example:<\/p>\n