One Question | by Skye
There's a lot of squabbling in the Democrat/liberal/progressive community about single issue groups, and whether they contribute or take away from the goal of winning back power from the Republican Party.
Here's an article from Andy Goodman's Free Range Thinking Newsletter (PDF) that doesn't explicitly address that issue, but which immediately brought it to my mind.
In Kansas City, a children's advocacy organization and a local marketing agency crafted a strategy around one central question used by the Hopi people: "Is it good for the children?" First, they did a poll to see if that question would resonate with people. Next, the president of the children's organization and his colleagues did 400 interviews with civic leaders to build support for the question. They didn't ask for a commitment, just a conversation. Then they lauched a campaign of 15-second television ads using recognizable community leaders to ask the question "and deliver the equally important message: 'It's your decision.'"
Three years into the campaign, over 700 local organizations had officially adopted the question:
These commitments were reflected in many ways: the city council put it on all purchase orders, religious organizations printed it on Sunday bulletins, school districts added it to their stationery. And the question kept popping up at meetings. Westbrook recalls one such meeting in 1998 in which a local CEO announced a summer schedule giving employees a 4-day week in return for working from 7:00 am until 5:30 pm each day. “A grandmother in the back asked, ‘Is it good for the children?’” says Westbrook, “and it absolutely changed the whole meeting.” The discussion turned to issues around daycare and carpools, and the proposed plan - which clearly would not be good for children - was dropped.
There isn't a whole lot in this article on the results, but their methods are striking. Instead of "We need message discipline, everybody get in line!", they took the time to build relationships. Instead of providing an answer, they provided a lens based on their values.
Comments
I like it.
I think the main "message thing" is about having a simple label you can use to describe yourselves. Something to be proud of and something to draw others to you. "We are the citizens that support children" is a powerful label.
It also reminds me that the Republican Party used to be the "Big Tent". While only a few may hold the reins now, the many are still in the tent out of intertia and if they left the whole party would fold. So, leaving room for differing opinions still feels right. Even though you want to have a common theme to link them together.
Hmm, I'm still trying to figure out why the DFA exercises on values sometimes felt like busywork while the question above and the values exercises at Austin Moving Forward didn't. I like the premise of the above: will this question improve our decision-making? I like the AMF premise: we have a lot of groups represented here, let's find our shared values. Maybe the DFA exercises felt weak because there wasn't a defined goal for how to use the knowledge. In blue Austin, I don't talk with reds that much about politics. Gotta remember to think about the stuff a little more before heading home for the holidays.
Posted by: GlennM | November 13, 2005 10:41 AM