STATE OF PLAY
The organization, a nonprofit, noticed that media coverage of changing global issues—highlighted by ‘America First’ policies and daily foreign policy updates—was creating skepticism among some of its supporters. Relying only on past messages and trusted sources may have widened this divide. To address this, the organization aimed to identify skeptics, understand where they get their information, explore the roots of their doubts, and develop ways to reconnect with them.
ACTION
-
Narrative led a research project that began with a nationwide survey of registered voters. The survey looked at current attitudes toward two key issue sets, how opposition messages affected opinions, how effective counter-messaging was, and how exposure to different messages influenced respondents.
-
Using the survey data, we segmented respondents based on their worldviews, initial and changed stances on the issues, and their responsiveness to messages. We identified eight distinct groups, including some hesitant but persuadable voters. Our analysis showed which messages could most effectively change each group’s views.
-
The findings revealed that although some skeptics could be persuaded to support the organization’s goals, their support would be conditional and varied among groups. While crosstab analysis might have shown how skepticism varied by factors such as party, age, or ideology, segmentation revealed a more strategic view: distinct types of skeptics with distinct doubts, information habits, and support pathways.
IMPACT
This approach provided a clearer plan for distinguishing entrenched opponents from those open to influence and tailoring messages accordingly. Subsequently, the segmentation informed the next steps, including qualitative research, to identify target audiences and test messages. This helped the organization focus on persuadable skeptics and adjust outreach strategies based on solid insights, enabling more effective engagement.
