I have written about the pitfalls of campaigning, like marginalisation and delivering the message. Also I have freely expressed my delight about the segmentation studies, the wonderful work of Anable and Dill (building on Geller‘s proposition). These studies show us who is out there, what they currently do and what thoughts and intentions they have. But most importantly for building a broader base, the segmentations show us where the positive and the negative energies split.
Knowing this is vitally essential for building support. It is crucial for campaigners (the community-building type and the political activist) and for decision makers alike. I again and again sit in meeting where people whinge about “the motorist”. It’s good to have a moan every now and again, there are healing properties… and it can be rapport-forming too, I would agree. But this mustn’t become regular and settle in… in due course a whinge should also be followed by action (phases: awareness, knowledge accumulation through to making a decision for action).
So, I hope you find this tip useful. Go where the positive energy can be found. Do not waste your time to try and convert people who will most likely never get it (Anable’s die-hard drivers 19%, and Dill-Geller’s no way no how 25%). I have to say it rather quite often to people I talk to: it is okay to disagree. Deep down we know we cannot agree with everyone all the time.
But here’s the thing
All this does necessitate you knowing WHY you are doing something (decision makers, vision) or WHAT change you want to see happen (activists, eye on the ball).
Don’t waste your time. Familiarise yourself with the population segmentation, and use it for building broader consensus. It’s easy, really. I have removed the negatives. So here are the two studies each highlighting the support that can be built (as even the complacent car addict is prepared to listen to well-made arguments, according to the definition).
katsdekker 