Opinion: The case for strategic polarization

Jacob Brower

After sitting on my list for a while, I finally got around to reading “Words That Work” by Frank Luntz.

Luntz and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. Where we do agree is the extraordinary power of language to shape public opinion.

Few people have mastered that art better than Luntz. He understands something most organizations never do: People do not respond to what you say. They respond to what they hear.

That sounds obvious. It isn’t.

Every day, businesses, nonprofits, candidates, government agencies and advocacy groups spend enormous amounts of time crafting messages that make perfect sense to them. Then they act surprised when customers, voters, donors, employees or community members interpret those messages completely differently, assuming they notice them at all.

Luntz built a career around closing that gap. His work forced communicators to confront a difficult reality: Intent and impact are not the same thing. The words leaving your mouth matter far less than the meaning arriving in someone else’s mind.

On that point, I think he’s exactly right. I’ve worked with civic organizations operating on shoestring budgets that controlled the narrative against opponents with far deeper pockets. Strong messaging beats huge ad buys more often than people think. And, if you have both, look out.

Luntz’s work is largely built around persuasion. The objective is to identify the language that will resonate with the broadest possible audience and increase support for a particular idea, candidate, policy or cause. In many situations, that’s exactly the right objective.

The place where Luntz and I part company is the assumption that broad appeal should always be the goal. There are times when broadening your appeal makes perfect sense. There are also times when the smarter strategy is to narrow it.

Sometimes, the most effective message is not the one that wins over the largest number of people. Sometimes, it’s the one that makes your position so clear that apathy is no longer an option.

In those situations, the objective is not persuasion. The objective is polarization. Not the mindless, performative polarization that dominates cable news and social media, but strategic polarization: creating enough distinction that people understand exactly who you are, what you believe and whether your message is meant for them.

Most everyone in Springfield is familiar with attorney Bob Sweere’s sign. Nearly every day brings a new message, usually promoting a progressive cause or viewpoint.

Whenever the subject comes up, someone eventually says the same thing: “He’s running off half his potential customers.”

They’re right. He is. 

But that assumes his objective is to attract half the city. It isn’t.

Bob doesn’t need every potential client to like him. He simply needs enough clients to keep his calendar full.

Once you understand that, the sign starts looking less like a liability and more like a strategic asset. Every day, it reminds supporters that he shares their values. It gives people something to talk about. And it distinguishes him from attorneys whose marketing is largely interchangeable. It also ensures that an otherwise unassuming office on South National doesn’t disappear into the sea of signs, storefronts and businesses surrounding it.

Will some people drive past and decide they’ll never hire him? Absolutely. The more interesting question is whether even more people drive past and decide they will.

To be clear, Bob’s approach isn’t for everyone. In fact, for most organizations, I wouldn’t recommend it. But the strongest brands and organizations are often willing to sacrifice broad appeal in exchange for a stronger connection with the people they most want to reach. 

Apple built an empire by convincing creative people that they were different. Harley-Davidson cultivated an identity so distinct that many people actively rejected it.

The same principle applies locally. As hotels go, Vandivort and Moxy aren’t targeting budget travelers. Flame and Jimm’s aren’t trying to make steakhouses appeal to vegans. Every successful organization makes choices about who it wants to attract, even if those choices inevitably push others away.

I’ve long taken a similar approach in my own business. Not every prospect is a good fit, and that’s OK. I’d rather serve a handful of clients exceptionally well than try to be everything to everyone.

Regardless of your offering, don’t be afraid to be yourself. The market is already saturated with organizations so obsessed with broad appeal that they sand every edge off their identity. 

Clarity attracts. Clarity repels. More importantly, clarity gives people something to respond to.

Frank Luntz’s question is often, “What language will persuade the most people?” Mine is different: “What message is most likely to achieve the objective?” 

Sometimes, those answers are identical. Sometimes, they‘re not. 

Understanding the difference is often the difference between communication and strategy.

Jacob Brower is the owner of downtown Springfield business ABM Strategies. He can be reached at jacob@jacobbrower.com.