It’s all in the framing

Lately, the Federal Government has been giving us all an abject lesson in how not to frame your messages. But what is framing?

Thomas Franks writes in Don’t think of an elephant:

“You can’t see frames. They are part of what cognitive scientists call the ‘cognitive unconscious’ – structures in our brains that we cannot consciously access, but know by their consequences: the way we reason and what counts as commonsense. We also know frames through language. All words are defined relative to conceptual frames. When you hear a word, its frame (or collection of frames) is activated in your brain… Because language activates frames, new language requires new frames. Thinking differently requires speaking differently.”

Case in point. The carbon tax.

There are almost too many things wrong with the way this has been framed to be contained in one blog post. But let me take a stab at the most obvious ones. First – what is carbon? I don’t really know and I doubt anyone else who is not a scientist does. I can’t see it, I don’t know what it looks like. I’m told it’s out there and is responsible for our climate change (yet another badly framed issue). And then there is the “tax” part of the statement.

To paraphrase Tony Blair, when asked by a reporter on his recent trip to Oz what advice he would have for our Prime Minister, he said “…well, a tax is always going to be hard to sell…”, which would be the understatement of the year.

In addition, over the past decade or so the very idea of tax has been demonised to the point where it is seen as an affliction and a burden on society, rather than as the necessary cost of a civil society.

So when combined, the burden of a “tax” and that invisible “carbon” stuff – is it any wonder they are having trouble getting traction on the message let alone support for the measure? There are just too many ways to poke holes in it.

Just imagine how different conversation would be if from the outset it had been called a “Price on Pollution” (note in some places, for example Getup.org.au it’s called a Price on Pollution).

Rather than railing about another burdensome “tax”, opponents of the measure would be having to make a case for why “pollution” is a good thing and should be allowed to continue. And perhaps we would be arguing about what constitutes pollution, but that is still a very different discussion (and probably more productive).

Instead the Government and other supporters of the measure are having to argue as to why a “tax” on something I don’t understand and can’t see is a good thing.

There are many examples throughout history of framing gone bad.

President Richard Nixon memorably stood up in a media conference during the Watergate investigation and declared, “I am not a crook.” What do you suppose happened next? Yep. Everyone associated him with the word crook. Perhaps a better frame would have been “I am a good man”.

This might seem like semantics and sometimes it is. However, if you are trying to get people to see past a particular message or idea that is out there to yours, invoking the other idea in your message, or using language that has strong existing frames is less than effective – it’s often downright detrimental.

All people will hear is the words they know and then the accepted frame will take over. You just made the hill you are climbing twice as steep.

Of course, whether a frame works for or against you does depend which side of the frame you are on. Sometimes evoking a certain framing can help your message by giving people a familiar reference point, which of course is great if the reference point is in your favour. I think the Opposition is very happy with the “carbon tax” frame!

So what’s this got to do with your brand? Plenty, if you want people to subscribe to whatever you are selling and see the benefits. Making sure your message sets the right frame is a key brand building block. As the Labour Party has discovered, getting it wrong can lead to problems getting your message or idea across (and falling polling figures).

So what’s your framing – is it helping or hurting you?

See you next week.

Michel Hogan is an independent Brand adviser and advocate. Through her work with Brandology here in Australia and in the United States, she helps organisations make promises they can keep and keep the promises they make, with a strong sustainable brand as the result. She also publishes the Brand thought leadership blog – Brand Alignment. You can follow Michel on Twitter @michelhogan