How to Do Government, Public Service and General Well-fare Storytelling
- Kralingen
- Aug 10
- 5 min read
Updated: Oct 28
The Art of Storytelling in Government Communication: How Personal Relevance Makes a Difference
In the tumultuous world of today, more and more hinges on governments doing a good job in governing. As with all things, this starts with the story they convey. Yet, a lot of general welfare messaging is still not up to par, even in a world that has been perfecting its branding and marketing messages. Today, we use a simple example to demonstrate how best to communicate to the public as a public body: fireworks. It all comes down to personal relevance.
Sender Function and Receiver Emotion
In all communications, there is a sender and a receiver of a message. The sender tends to communicate the functional benefits of their product, service, or concept because they understand what it does. However, the receiver processes these messages through their emotions. We won't dive deep into those workings here, but it's worth covering the basics quickly. You can find a list of tricks here.
All human communications started from one single source: emotions. Our emotions are physical signals from the body that jump-start processes in our neurons and hormones. The most famous of these are the fight, flight, or freeze responses. They raise our chances of surviving and thriving. These emotions function as signals within ourselves. Yet, since we are a social species, they are also communicated outwardly to help others survive and thrive. Hence, the hundreds of different emotions we communicate through our body stances, eyes, gestures, and even our mouths and eyebrows.
To convey these emotions better, we started using specific grunts and noises. We later translated these into more elaborate signals and symbols in drawings and writings. This development led to languages and dialects that spread useful information. Down the line, we began using music, dance, and numbers, all the way to the different media we use today, such as paintings, photography, film, and even street art. The gist, however, remains the same: we communicate messages to receivers so they understand what we, as senders, are trying to say. The best way to do that is to add emotion to the message, triggering our core understanding from when we were cave-dwellers.
Personal Relevance and Fireworks
In communication theory, we refer to these messages as having personal relevance. A good story or message needs something that the receiver relates to on a personal level. This is also the right approach in general welfare communication or messages from a government authority trying to stimulate good behavior from the masses.
The example we use today to understand this better is communication surrounding the use of fireworks. The Netherlands is famous for shooting millions of Euros in fireworks into the air during New Year’s Eve. It’s a great tradition. But those fireworks can be dangerous. Therefore, the government feels obliged to issue a general welfare warning.
Over the decades, we've seen that different campaign angles yield different results, depending on how personally relevant the messages are. If the government campaign has a general message—fireworks are dangerous—the campaign does not work well. However, if the government shows what fireworks can do to you personally, the campaign works effectively in reducing accidents.
The Cognitive Dissonance at the Heart of General Welfare Communications
In general welfare communications, there is an irony at work: everyone agrees that fireworks are dangerous. Yet, we tend to dismiss the danger to ourselves. We apply something called ‘cognitive dissonance’. We tell ourselves that while generally speaking it might be dangerous, it doesn’t apply to us personally because we feel we know how to handle danger.
Cognitive dissonance is akin to jaywalking. A red light sends the same signal to all of us—a generally accepted message telling us not to cross the street. Yet, almost all cultures jaywalk (except maybe the Japanese). We all agree the general rule is good. But applying it to our personal behavior is a different matter. We create a distance or dissonance from it, thinking we can handle it, and walk through the red light.
The campaign that brought a significant drop in accidents surrounding fireworks in my country was a TV commercial featuring people who had severed limbs. Their message? “I too thought I’d never be in danger” or "I thought I could handle fireworks," just before showing people with injuries. It hits home because that message allows our minds to build the imaginary construct of ourselves losing a limb with fireworks. Hence, it becomes personally relevant.
As a social animal, we can empathize with that message because it reflects what we thought too: "Others are in danger, not me; I can handle myself." In other words, the message is deconstructed in our receiver minds as something we already thought about ourselves before it adds the injuries. Ultimately, most people change their behavior and become more cautious with fireworks.
The Paradox of Global Warming Messaging
General welfare messaging only works when it’s personally relevant. It’s a cool paradox: the more personal you get, the more you reach large masses.
Personal relevance comes from personal choice. This harks back to the principle of telling the whole or entire story: telling only the solution or the function is never enough. The irony is that people will probably believe you have a good product, service, or message. They might even trust the sender. However, they just won’t respond or change their behavior without that personal relevance.
This applies to bigger issues as well. Let's take a hot topic right now—quite literally—and pick global warming. If people don’t feel the heat due to global warming, they are much less likely to respond to calls for environmental consciousness. If, however, their crops start to suffer from the heat, they will join the cause, as we now see many farmers doing. Many farmers, I might add, who first vehemently resisted even the idea of global warming.
Now, if you wish to put people in the right frame of mind who did not have personal experience with global warming, you must ensure that you understand their thoughts and emotions. This understanding is crucial, even if it seems counterintuitive to you as the sender. The receiver may not care for, understand, or even believe in global warming. Yet, if you put them in the shoes of those who have suffered from it, they will apply empathy, regardless of their political color or outlook on life. That is the natural response for an empathetic social species.
If One Person Gets It, Everyone Gets It
You must make your message tangible enough for one person to have everyone understand. Even (or especially!) when you have global messages concerning things like the environment, a pandemic, or a natural disaster. Relate to one person, and you will reach many.
You also don't have to fear adding the conflict, the challenge, the negative. As long as you make it personally relevant—with a personal fear, joy, or benefit—you can go all the way into the heart. Ultimately, that is the key to all government and public service storytelling.
Conclusion: Mastering the Art of Storytelling
In conclusion, mastering the art of storytelling is essential for effective communication, especially in the realm of government messaging. By ensuring that messages resonate on a personal level, we can inspire change and foster understanding. This approach not only enhances the effectiveness of campaigns but also builds trust between the government and the public.
As we navigate the complexities of modern communication, let’s remember the power of personal relevance. It can transform a simple message into a compelling story that resonates deeply with individuals. So, the next time you craft a message, ask yourself: How can I make this personally relevant?
Luv, as always,
Rogier
(This blog has used parts of The Whole Story book)
