Crafting a Winning Story: Together for Yes
In this series, we’ll be analysing successful social movements and recent animal freedom campaigns from a narrative perspective. This month we're discussing the narrative strategy of Together for Yes.
Welcome to the second blog post in our Crafting a Winning Story series! Last time we explored the narrative strategy of Freedom to Marry, and this time we are turning our focus to Together for Yes (TFY), who campaigned successfully to legalise abortion in Ireland. TFY was an umbrella organisation, bringing together over 70 diverse civil society bodies.
How they created effective messaging
TFY invested time into researching and understanding the anxieties of conflicted voters, and used this to tap into the Irish collective spirit and reframe the narrative as a societal, rather than personal, issue.
Persuasion
Focus on the ‘concerned centre’ – TFY tactfully selected the audience for their messages, deciding to focus on persuading conflicted and undecided voters – ‘the concerned centre’. They knew that because these voters were conflicted, their minds could be changed.
Private matter —> Public concern – TFY shifted the narrative from abortion as a private matter – “my body, my choice” – to a public concern – “Sometimes a private matter needs public support”. They emphasised that abortion access didn’t just impact individual women, it impacted other family members and whole communities, and in turn the wellbeing of Irish society. And they showed this in a lot of their visual content, showing images of groups and communities standing together in solidarity to vote Yes.
The 3 Cs: Care, Compassion, Change – The 3 Cs guided the messaging of TFY, making a collective appeal for compassion, care, and change from the Irish people and reminding them of the ways that they had demonstrated this collective spirit in the past. It acknowledged that Irish people were caring and compassionate and urged them to live in line with this and collectively rectify problems in the present by helping create change. This slogan not only appealed to shared values, it also spoke to aspirational identities of voters and a vision of the kind of society Ireland could be proud of.
‘We come together for our wives, sisters, granddaughters, daughters. Together, let’s finally do better. Together, let’s be caring and compassionate. Together, let’s be proud to live in a progressive Ireland. Together, let’s vote yes.”
Individual stories – To humanise the issue and combat the pervasive ideas of women as irresponsible and abortion as a personal issue, TFY created a ‘story lab’ which collected and disseminated the real and intimate stories of Irish people trying to get abortions. Facebook campaigns like ‘In Her Shoes’ also offered the opportunity for women to share stories of how the 8th Amendment abortion ban had impacted them.
Empathy approach – Through the 3 Cs and individual stories, TFY moved away from sympathy appeals and towards an empathy approach. They worked to make the story personal, prompting voters to imagine what might happen to themselves or their loved ones if the 8th Amendment remained in place.
“A woman you love might need your yes”.
Trusted messengers – The voices of medical doctors and nurses were highlighted in the campaign, as research showed that they were widely trusted by voters. The ethical training and experience of doctors provided reassurance that abortions were necessary and ethical.
‘Choice’ —> ‘Decision’ – The word ‘choice’ was avoided and replaced with words like ‘decide’ and ‘decision’. Campaigners recognised that ‘choice’ was associated with ‘rabid campaigners’ and consumerism, suggesting abortion was a casual choice, not a difficult decision.
Lack of confrontational imagery – TFY avoided the use of graphic images and instead focused on rational conversation, drawing from focus group research that showed a desire for more moderate voices. Rather than telling people what they should be doing, they were non-confrontational and gave them an opportunity to make up their own minds. This actually made people more likely to listen.
No airtime to the opposition – The campaign focused on platforming new narratives and didn’t give any credence to the opposition by debunking their narratives. As George Lakoff argues in his book Don’t Think of an Elephant, “activating a frame – even when rejecting it – strengthens the frame.”
Pervasion
TFY platform & ‘story lab’ – These online platforms gave wider visibility to the campaign, attracted new campaign allies, and collected and disseminated real stories.
Campaign merchandise – Wearing merchandise was described by campaigners as a ‘high visibility’ action which demonstrated support and generated dialogue.
Canvassing – Campaigners carried out door-to-door canvassing to engage in dialogue with communities and create cohesion.
Television debates – Pro-repeal politicians engaged in debate with the No side position and revealed their fault-lines and weaknesses.
Creation
The images below - of Nicola’s story and two groups of TFY campaigners - illustrate how TFY made use of intimate stories of real women, high visibility merchandise, and slogans that emphasised abortion as a public concern in their narrative strategy.
Key takeaways for the animal freedom movement
Focus on conflicted audiences who can be persuaded, and take time to research and understand them before crafting our messages.
Research by Pax Fauna has also suggested that we need to focus on targeting people who are experiencing ambivalence about an issue. These people are attached to animal products but also upset about what is involved in making them. As they are processing their emotions around other animals, they will be more susceptible to persuasion.
Taking time to carry out qualitative and quantitative research to recognise and respect what our audience feels and wants is crucial. We must acknowledge their feelings and give them the space to come to their own conclusions, rather than simply telling them to go vegan. Faunalytics has also noted the importance of showing empathy for meat-eating rationalisations in messaging.
Utilise vets as trusted messengers.
A 2019 survey commissioned by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RVC) found that over 90% of the public trusted veterinary surgeons. In the league table of most trusted professions, vets ranked number three. This indicates that they would be strong, credible messengers in the animal freedom movement.
Put the societal mission at the forefront.
Like TFY, we should focus attention on animal freedom as a collective, societal issue that impacts all of us – not just other animals. This will also allow us to take an empathy, rather than sympathy, approach in our messaging.
Reduce airtime for the opposition.
We should reduce reference to opposition messages in our communications to avoid activating and reinforcing their narratives.
Don’t rely too heavily on graphic imagery.
This can shock people and turn them off a message, rather than engaging and drawing them in.
It may be worth departing from using words like ‘vegan’ and ‘rights’.
These words are associated with radical campaigners and implies that the issue is an individual consumer choice, rather than a societal issue.
Find shared values that most resonate for audiences on a particular issue.
Values have a priming effect that enables people to understand the issue in more helpful ways.
Focus on individual stories of other animals to personalise the issue and create empathy rather than pity.
Stories of other animals resisting their oppression and thriving in sanctuaries, despite their trauma, help frame other animals with dignity and shows how they have agency.
Hats off to the Together for Yes campaign group for their tireless efforts in championing reproductive rights! Dive deeper into their inspiring work here.
Every month, our Narrative team shares their knowledge in our Narrative Change for Animal Freedom Newsletter. To stay informed about upcoming events and access our latest research, sign up for this exclusive newsletter.
Great insights from a well-researched and important campaign. I think the point about reframing it as a societal issue rather than a consumer choice is powerful. What wording would you suggest in place of 'vegan' and 'rights'?