The Power of Reframing: It’s Now a “Climate Emergency” Says Scientific American

The best and sometimes only way to win an argument or influence action is not with facts and logic but by reframing the message. Facts and logic that run counter to a person’s frame will simply be distorted or filtered out. Scientific American recently published a powerful opinion piece by Senior Editor Mark Fischetti that shares their belief that there is a “climate emergency” and that is the way that the conversation should be framed. Reframing the discussion from “climate change” to “climate emergency” can make all the difference if the new frame can become established.

An emergency means that there is a crisis situation that requires action right away. And according to Scientific American’s article, that is the current situation the world is in. The scientific analysis is compelling, and the leading indicators are not decades away. The hurricanes in Florida, the fires in California, the power failure in Texas, the rising ocean, the quality of the air and water are all now apparent to us.?

Messaging framed as “climate change” is very different. There is no urgency or even a suggestion that there is a problem, certainly not a potentially catastrophic one. So, if a brand is trying to influence an audience, it has to start by convincing them that there is a serious problem or positioning messaging in a way that creates urgency. Too often, messaging never progresses beyond that to actually affect beliefs or behaviors. Because of how it is framed, the argument starts at the bottom of the mountain instead of being halfway up.

Support for the power of framing comes from the writings of UC Berkeley linguist?George Lakoff, which can be seen in his classic book “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” His primary turf is political thinking where he argues that Republicans are geniuses at framing and as a result win most of the arguments, while the clueless Democrats still think that rational thinking will carry the day. Republicans have framed discussions with terms like “death taxes,” “anti-abortion” and “tax relief.” When their frame is accepted, the argument is over.

Consider the difference in perspectives on taxation situated by a phrase that frames the discussion. “Tax relief” engenders the metaphor of a hero who is relieving people of a burden with tax cuts. “Tax as investment in the future” produces the image of roads built, children educated and a defense force enhanced. “Tax as dues” is a metaphor associated with paying your fair share for services benefiting you and others like you. Each frame influences the discourse by implicitly altering the objectives. Republicans have made “tax relief” the winner.

Lakoff argues the key to winning the argument is to find the right metaphor and supporting vocabulary or phrase that drives the metaphor home. The frame winners are persistent and disciplined about always using the metaphor over years and decades. No waivers.

The concept of framing works in many settings. A new brand entering the market should frame its messaging by highlighting how the category or subcategory it is in should be perceived. It will be rewarded by controlling that category or subcategory. The best route to discourage or even trump future competitors is to own the framing of the category or subcategory. If a brand becomes tarnished, the best way to recover is to change the conversation by reframing the brand messaging. Intentional and powerful terms and phrases can and should be used consistently to frame your brand. The power of framing and reframing can change the way a brand is perceived and can influence action or behavioral changes among your audiences, similarly to how the Scientific American piece strives to convince its readers to embrace a new term and take action.

Read more about the concept of framing in my previous post about framing your subcategory and in my book Owning Game-Changing Subcategories. You can find more of my perspectives on branding on the Aaker on Brands blog.