As Public Relations professionals, we know that words have a lot of power. Which words you use, and the order in which you use them, can be enormously influential. Changing a single word in a pitch can shift the tone of the entire story. In advertising, subtle changes in messaging can shift the public’s perception of your brand (see Weight Watchers becoming WW to distance themselves from diet culture and Dunkin Donuts becoming Dunkin’ to appeal to a healthier-minded audience). A single word can carry much more power subconsciously than the public may realize. Recently, researchers have taken an eye to the messaging around the most pressing issue of our lifetimes – climate change.
Activists and scientists alike have long questioned whether the term “climate change” is evocative enough to capture the current state of our planet, but have feared that anything stronger will alienate some groups. Now, a study done last month by New York advertising consulting agency SPARK Neuro suggests that a shift to a stronger, less neutral, phrase would incite more emotion in the general public, and could be more effective in garnering support for climate change initiatives.
This isn’t the first time our environmental crisis has been rebranded. In the early 2000’s, politicians came to the consensus that “climate change” was a more accurate description of what was happening than “global warming” was. It changed the frame of the story and made the phenomenon harder for critics to deny outright whenever temperatures are low. There’s even been pushback to the term “zero-waste” to describe the aspirational lifestyle of creating as little trash as possible, because it seems so unattainable that it turns more people away from recycling than it does encourage it. Even tiny messaging details can make a big impact on public perception.
The right words can influence not only peoples’ beliefs, but their behavior as well. One famous example exists on the New York Times Cooking site. The comments sections of online recipes are notoriously riddled with negative takes on the recipe, readers chiding the author on ingredient choice, and even arbitrary grumbling. In a word, these sections are typically unhelpful.
The comments section of the New York Times Cooking site, however, is getting different results from readers. Food editor Sam Sifton attributes this to the fact that they don’t have a “comments” section at all – they have a “notes” section. “Notes” tends to suggest that they are there for the benefit of others or the recipe, and not for the grumbling of the note-taker. While this subtle mental manipulation hasn’t completely done away with recipe trolls and complainers, Sifton says that in general, the Notes section is “civil and decent, and most of all, helpful.”
Although trolls on cooking sites seem a far cry from climate change deniers, the Cooking “Notes” section is a living example of how a subtle change in messaging can influence an individual’s actions. And this kind of shift in public action is exactly what activists like Greta Thunberg and progressive advocacy organization The Action Network are hoping this climate change re-brand can do for environmental activism. The study settled on “climate crisis” as the most effective term – inciting emotion in study participants without provoking push-back from conservatives – and the Network has begun a petition to get media to embrace the name change. The Guardian has already done so.
It remains to be determined whether this will make a difference in net opinion about climate change, but the results from the study alone demonstrate how important phrasing can be. This is something worth thinking about at any organization. Is your messaging in line with what you want to communicate? What emotions do you want your audience to feel when they read your mission, and does your statement incite those? Taking the time to re-brand if necessary can be enormously beneficial in the long-run.
