Less Chatter, More Matter: The Communications Podcast

#131  Why emotions matter for your comms and how you can tap into them

• Mel Loy • Season 1 • Episode 131

Share episode

Ever nailed a comms campaign, where you know it's clear, concise and beautifully targeted, only to find it falls flat in action? 

The missing ingredient might be emotion. In this episode, we dive into the power of 'getting them in the feels' and why emotions are often the deciding factor in whether your audience engages, acts, or ignores your message entirely. 

Drawing on fascinating research, we share four practical ways to tap into emotions: making your message relatable, priming your audience’s thinking, framing information effectively, and connecting with their sense of identity. So, if you're driving organisational change, inspiring donations, or motivating action, these insights will help you speak to both hearts and minds, and actually get results.

Listen in to this week's episode of the Less Chatter, More Matter podcast.


Links mentioned in this episode:

Say hi!
Follow me on LinkedIn
Find out what I'm up to Instagram
Check out my website
Ask a question

Your comms are ticking all the boxes. They're short, sharp, and getting to the point. They're skimmable. You've used subheadings and bullet points to make it very clear what's going on and what people need to do. It's personalised. You've segmented your audience and make sure that each email says exactly what that team specifically needs to do. The language is simple and inclusive, and honestly at this point, you're pretty proud of yourself because even the execs approving the comms are happy with it. So in accordance with your diligently planned comm schedule, you hit send, publish, post, whatever, and off the messages go. But then something happens, or... doesn't happen. People don't do what you want them to do. People aren't happy with the change you want them to make people ignore the message and move on. What happened? Just a hunch here, but you haven't got them in the feels. That's right. Emotions matter. Why do they matter so much and how can we tap into that influential power in our comms? Well, that's what today's episode is all about. Hola amigos and welcome to today's episode of Less Chatter More Matter, the Communications podcast. I'm your host, Mel Loy, and I'm recording this episode on the lands of the Yuggera and Turrbal people here in Meanjin, Brisbane. Today's episode is all about getting you in the feels, because it's all about tapping into your audience's emotions to help get you the results you want. Whether that's undertaking a change, motivating someone to donate to charity, to complete a survey, whatever, it all comes down to emotions. If you've been listening to me for a while, you know I always bang on about the three outcomes for every comm strategy They are: Know, feel, and do. So, what information do you need to share? What action does your audience need to take? Those things we're usually pretty good about because. Quite frankly, they're easier to lock down and they are simple to share most of the time. But where we tend to fall down is the feel. If your audience doesn't feel confident in taking an action, they won't. For example, if your audience doesn't feel excited about a piece of news, they won't engage. They won't share it. So how do we tap into those emotions? Today I'm going to share four tips with you, but before we do that, let's do a little bit of a recap on why emotions work so well. And basically it's how our brains are wired. There is a great piece of research from the nineties by Demasio et al where two groups of participants were asked to make decisions based on information they were given. Now, one of the groups were people who had brain injuries or disorders that impacted the ventra medial frontal cortis' of their brain. So basically that's the part of your brain that integrates emotional signals with your thinking processes. So essentially... They couldn't feel any emotion when analysing information, determining the potential outcomes, and therefore making a decision. And because they couldn't Assign an emotion to an outcome. They actually couldn't make a decision. They understood the logic, but without the emotion, they couldn't make the decision. And that's how powerful emotions are. As much as we like to think we are rational, logical creatures, we are not. It's why you often hear that our messaging needs to speak to both hearts and minds. We will consider the logic, but ultimately the final decision is driven by emotion. And here's the thing, we are making thousands of micro decisions every day. Everything from will I respond to this email? How will I respond to this email, to what shoes will I wear? Or will I drink some water now or a bit later, or. Can I cross a street right now? You get the idea. Every single step you take is a decision, and our brains are constantly taking in information and processing it really quickly, trying to make sense of it all and make decisions really quickly too. And it's that quick processing that leads to the effect heuristic, which basically means emotion driven decision making. Not decisions based on logic or concrete information. It's your gut feeling type of decisions, or when you're really under pressure and you need to act quickly, there's not enough time to think. That's when we tend to make really quick judgements and weigh up risks and benefits of a particular action, and this is influenced by our emotions. That's when this all kicks in and our preexisting beliefs and feelings just amplify that effect. So, for example, there was actually a small study in Armadale, which is a little town here in Australia, where researchers looked at how people would respond to potential policies designed to limit wood smoke. So basically there were concerns about people's health due to people burning wood in their fireplaces or outdoor fire pits. Now the short story is that people who already had positive feelings about wood heating, so they're the type of people who love a cozy fireplace or love a fire pit. They were less likely to support any policy intervention that involved regulations to reduce wood smoke. The researchers think this is because those positive feelings they already had made them think there were more benefits and fewer costs to wood heating. But interestingly. Despite being against regulation, those same people who love a good wood fire, were generally supportive of policy interventions like education or incentives. They just didn't want to have that regulation put on them. So that's the science behind why we make decisions based on emotion. The next question is, well, what does that mean for how we communicate? Let's get into it. Tip number one. Make it relatable. If people can't relate to the message or the story that you're telling, they are less likely to take action. Part of this is just basic relevance, right? So when you write a communication, you've gotta let people know why they're getting it, what it means for them. But it does go a bit deeper than that, particularly when it comes to things like charitable donations. There's this heuristic called the identifiable victim effect, which means that we are likely to act to help an individual or just a couple of people rather than a large group. So for example, if you are asked to donate to a cause that was quite broad, like helping kids who have been bullied. Or you are then watched a TikTok video of a child who has been bullied and is crying his eyes out. You are actually much more likely to donate to that individual child rather than the broader cause. And the reason we think this is the reason, is because when we talk about a big group of people. Even when it's an emotional and horrible topic like bullying or starvation, that can feel very overwhelming and very removed, and it's hard to connect to a group like that, especially if they are quite removed from us. But when you put a real face to the issue, it's not only less overwhelming because it's just one person, but it's also easier to connect to that individual and feel sympathy. There's another thing at play here, which, uh, Robert Cialdini, if you haven't read any of his books, please do. Um, pre-suasion is one of my favourites, but Cialdini called it the liking Principle. So, basically. We are more likely to be persuaded by someone we like, even if they're wrong. And that taps also into a bit of what we call the similarity bias, which is where people tend to like other people who are similar to us in some ways. So they could have the same job, maybe they have the same interests, qualifications, even physical features. Now, there are some studies that show that expertise can be more persuasive than liking in certain situations. So for example, if you need technical advice for your computer or you need medical advice from a doctor, but typically if the liking feels authentic, it's pretty persuasive. So how do we tap into this in our own communication? Here's just a couple of ideas. So let's say you are communicating about a change. Don't speak about the whole group or even the whole team. Use an individual who's happy to be named or come up with an avatar that people can relate to and show how that person had a challenge and how this change is going to help them. Uh, if you're using a testimonial, whether that's internally or externally, highlight the features of that person that are similar to your audience. So, for example, a message could be like, like you, Sharon, has used this platform for data entry for years. Or Sharon is also an early childhood teacher. Finally, if you're trying to get people to act or donate, consider using an individual story or, and this is what World Vision actually does really well, Focus on supporting a specific personal people rather than supporting a broad cause. Okay, so that's number one. Make it relatable. Tip number two is to prime people's thinking, to help tap into their emotion. So priming means that when a person is exposed to a stimulus, whether it's an object, a word, a sound, an image, it can sub subconsciously influence their response or decision. So it can make them feel something, and that then influences what comes next. There's been some really interesting studies into the effectiveness of priming. One was by JE etal and they looked at the words used in CEO's emails and how that impacted the motivation of team members. Now, it was a small study, but they found that when achievement related words were used, so words like accomplish or master, there was a boost in effectiveness of 15% and an increase of 35% in efficiency. Now, obviously there's a lot of caveats to consider with field work like that, but priming has been found to be really effective in other studies as well. There was a 2007 study by Small et al where they tested the power of words, and in this study they looked at the impact of analytical versus emotional priming on the willingness of people to donate to a child in need. So those people who were primed analytically. So for example, they may have been asked to solve a math problem before they were asked to donate. Those people donated far less than those who were primed to think emotionally, and in fact, the emotionally primed participants were 96% more generous. Now, images can also be powerful primers. There was another example in Robert Cialdini's book where a group of researchers were asked to help a university increase donations from their alumni. So at this university, students called alumni and asked them to make donations. Right? Now the researchers wanted to test whether they could tap into those students' emotions and get them really fired up so that they could elicit more donations. One group of students were given a plain sheet of talking points. The other group got the same talking points, but that piece of paper also included a photo of a runner winning a race. And here's the result. The callers who got the photo collected 60% more money than the other group. That image of the runner primed their thoughts and emotions. So the question is, that's great, Mel, but how do I use it? Excellent question, my friend. Well, a couple of examples, thinking about what I just said there, have you got speaking points for leaders that you've just sent out to them? Is there an image you could include on that to prime their thinking, to get them tapping into the emotion that you want them to tap into when they deliver those speaking points? Uh, let's say you want to get people motivated behind a new organisational strategy. Again, think about the emotion you want from them. Maybe it's an emotion of excitement. Maybe it's an emotion, like a sense of injustice that they want a right or wrong. Whatever it is, show a video that helps elicit that emotion before the CEO launches into the new strategy, and then play something on the way out as people leave as well. So really prime their thinking so that they're tapping into the emotion that you want before the content is delivered. And from an external perspective, let's say you want people to sign a petition. You could prime their thinking with an image that shows people signing a petition or protesting without realising it, their thinking may start to change and you could actually really influence them in, in getting them to do that action. Or maybe you could play music that taps into the emotion that you want them to have. So that's tip number two, prime people's thinking. The third way to get into people's emotions is by framing, which is the way we present information and how that influences people's reactions, what they know, feel, and do. Now, I've spoken about this before on the poddy because reframing is also a great way to simplify the complex, make things easier to understand. And one study, which I've mentioned before, is by Katie Milkman and her colleagues. And they approached students and they asked if they would volunteer for 200 hours a year, or other students were asked, would they volunteer for four hours a week. So it adds up to be the same amount. When the ask was reframed into more granular amounts. So four hours a week instead of 200 a year, the volunteer hours increased by 8% over a 12 week period, and people were more likely to stay on and volunteer for longer. Another Cialdini experiment found the same thing when asking for donations to a charity. They used the phrase "every penny will help", which significantly increased the number of people who donated. Although not the amount they individually gave, but the amount overall of course, was much more. There's also a lot of research around the power of framing, courtesy of the Frameworks Institute. If you don't know who they are, absolutely look them up.

Just Google:

Frameworks Institute, they have so many great resources on the language we use and what works and what doesn't. What is strengths-based language and what isn't? Now the head of the institute, Dr. Nat Kendall Taylor, was in Australia earlier in the year, and I was really lucky. I got to see him present. And one of the studies he's done is about support for evidence-based policies that address child mental health. So they tested two versions of a message that people had to read before they were told about the policy. One version was framed as collective responsibility, meaning the message read something like, children are our future. They're key to our ability to move forward as a community. Okay, so that collective notion, the other message was framed around vulnerability, and we see this a lot. So the message would be something along the lines of, we need to do a better job of addressing child mental health because children are our most vulnerable citizens. Right. Then there was a third group, the control group, who got no message. Now they found that by reframing the communication as the collective support message, the support for the policy increased by almost 8%. But interestingly, when it was framed with that vulnerability lens, support decreased for the policy by almost 6%, and yet in their research, the team found that 93% of comms in that child mental health sector were based on that vulnerability message. So basically, people are putting in a lot of effort for no reward. So even though that vulnerability message probably tapped into an emotion like sadness. It didn't work. It didn't motivate people. The collective support message probably tapped into emotional like injustice or a sense of pride in the community, right? So again, what does this mean for our comms? Firstly, think about the emotion you want to get from people before you frame your message. So, for example, if you want people to feel less overwhelmed, then frame the message into smaller amounts or smaller chunks of information. And the Frameworks Institute has also shared a few framing strategies. I've just picked a few. So like we just heard, move away from messages about charity and vulnerability, and instead focus on messages around that idea of the common good. Uh, show the big picture and make the case that what people see isn't an isolated event. Frame it as a bigger issue. The big issue that it is. Uh, the third tip that I'll share from them is describe the effects of the policies or decisions or programs on actual humans. So, for example, if we don't upgrade our digital platforms, parents in our city will struggle even more to apply for support for their kids. So it's not about. You know, this is our platform simplification program, and it will involve blah, blah, blah. It's the outcome of that on humans. And the fourth tip is be clear on what people can do right now. So again, reframe a big issue, requiring a big complex solution into something that's much easier for people and that makes that path to action really visible, really tangible and feasible. Okay. The final tip, which does relate back to the other three, is tap into a person's sense of identity or who they feel they want to be known as. People like to feel as though they are consistent. It's called the consistency bias, where we tend to judge our own behaviour in accordance with our self image. So basically if we've said, done something in the past, we tend to want to stay consistent with that, even if it's uncomfortable or if our views might have changed. From a change perspective, asking someone a question like, do you think yourself as an adaptable person could elicit a very positive response? And I hope that does. And if when that happens, then ask that person to undertake the change. And as uncomfortable as they might feel about it, they are likely to want to remain consistent with that sense of identity because they've identified themselves as an being adaptable. And that's why, for example, when you get accosted by people in shopping centres who are asking for donations, they might start with a question like, do you consider yourself a generous person or you look like a person who cares about animals or whatever their cause is, right? And in fact, another experiment cited by Cialdini tested this situation. People were approached in the shopping centre and asked to participate in a survey. Only 29% of people agreed, so they weren't gonna be paid for this survey. They just were asked to participate in market research. But when people were approached and asked, do you consider yourself a helpful person, then 77.3% of people volunteered. Now, again, I've talked a little bit about this in previous episodes where we can tap into people's identities and help drive change. There was one 2011 study from the US where community members were asked. Will you vote or will you be a voter? Of course, in the us unlike here in Australia, voting is not compulsory. So the researchers found that people who said yes, they would be a voter were more likely to turn up and vote compared to those people who just agreed to say, yes, I will vote. Now again, there are limitations to this study and it's not something that has been replicated universally, but we've also seen similar results from others, with another study from Stanford University. Which I won't go into today, but it's not just about individual identity either. It's a group identity too, and it comes down to in-group bias. Now, this bias is courtesy of our early days in the human species where you really wanted to be part of a tribe because the tribe meant safety, food, procreation, all the good stuff. The way that that has manifested to our brains in our world today is that we tend to want to stay in the in-group so badly. That we might even appear to agree to actions or beliefs even when we actually disagree with them. And that in-group could be your team at work. It could be your family, your friendship circle, your sports team, your community group, whatever it might be. The fact remains that nobody wants to be pushed out of the in-group. And the flip side is we tend to think less of people outside of our groups. There is a wonderful 2005 experiment that tested this bias. The researchers set up an experiment where participants were chosen because they were fans of the Manchester United Football Club in the UK, but they didn't know that's why they were chosen. Okay, so that's a caveat to this. So the participants were asked to complete a questionnaire about how much and in what ways they liked their favourite team, and they were required to write down the name of the team. So they were primed to think of themselves as Man U fans. They were then told they had to walk elsewhere for the second part of the experiment, and as they made their way to the second location, somebody fell over and hurt their ankle. Now the person that fell over was actually a researcher in disguise, and they weren't actually injured. But here's where it gets interesting. In the scenarios where that researcher was wearing a Man U jersey, the participants were significantly more likely to help them. In fact, 12 out of 13 participants stopped to help. However, when the research fell and re or researcher fell and was wearing a Liverpool jersey, so a rival team, only three out of 10 participants stopped to help. Now this experiment also tested whether tapping into a broader identity, so your identity as a football fan in general, not just as a specific team fan or a Man U fan. They tested whether that would have a similar effect. So this time, the questionnaire people were given was about football in general and being a fan of football, not of a specific team. And when the researcher pretended to fall, no matter what jersey they were wearing, most people stopped to help. So in short, tapping into people's identity impacted how likely they were to help someone considered outside their in-group. So again, what does this all mean for comms? Let's try a few examples. I'm not saying they're great examples, they're just examples. So. Uh, when communicating about change to employees, tap into their sense of identity. So, for example, as an IT team member, we really need you to help lead this change. Or as a leader, you can help make this change happen by having conversations with your team members. You could even talk at a broader level, like, as community members, we have an obligation to improve our systems. Uh, thinking more externally when asking people to support a policy or sign a petition or donate, again, tap into that sense of identity. You know, it could be something like, as a parent, you know, how important it is for children to have access to healthcare no matter where they live. Or if you're a Queenslander, then you know how important the Great Barrier Reef is to our environment. So again, it is tapping into that identity, making it relatable. All right. It is time for our episode recap. So if you're tuned out or you're feeling a little overwhelmed by all the studies I've just thrown at you, come back in now so I reframe it into more granular buckets for you. So today we talked about feelings, why it's so important that we consider them in our communication. And ways to tap into them. The four tips I shared were, number one, make it relatable. People need to see themselves in the same situation or be able to empathise with a specific individual. You can't be too broad or too vague because it's really hard to feel something. You can prime people's thinking. That was tip number two. So start tapping into the emotion that you want people to have before you communicate. Tip number three was frame your message either to make it less overwhelming or easier to understand or frame it in a way that's likely to tap into the emotion you want to elicit from your audience. And tip number four. Tap into a sense of identity. We want to feel like we're consistent with the image we have of ourselves, and we want to feel a sense of belonging to a group. Alright, team. Well, that's all we have time for today. But as a listener, I would really love it if you could take a few minutes to leave a review or rate the show on your podcast app of choice that makes a big difference to how widely this gets spread. And also, if you have, uh, bought my new book. I would love it if you could become a reviewer, not only because you know, it helps me know what's good and what's bad about the book, but for every review that's left on Amazon or that you write on somewhere like LinkedIn, I'll be donating part of my time to DV Connect. So they are a charity here in Brisbane and they do amazing work offering women and men support who are experiencing domestic and family violence, and also run a lot a range of preventative programs as well. So you can find my book Less Chatter, More Matter on Amazon. And again, please leave a review either there or on your app of choice. And I, for every review, I'll be donating part of my time so your words really make a difference. Alright, team, that's all we've got time for today. Have an amazing rest of the week and I'll see you next week again on Less Chatter, More Matter.