About Inertia and Habit

 Few would consider developmental communications a mathematical science. Yet scientists and engineers have copied many of its most basic principals. Take for example the fact that media is a force, which if applied to a body at rest can move that body, or if applied to a body in motion can change its direction.

 Think about this. Inertia is a fancy foreign word, that means habit. My Oxford Dictionary defines inertia as, “a tendency to remain unchanged, or a property of matter by which it remains in a state of rest or if in motion continues moving in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force”.  If we take that definition and twist it about a bit to suit our needs we find that,’ Habit (inertia) is resistance to change’. It is the tendency for a society to continue in the existing direction unless acted upon by a force opposing that direction. Scientists and engineers use inertia as a factor in their calculations. In fact they have some pretty good formulas that tell them exactly how much force must be applied, and where, if they want that imaginary body to change directions and go the way they want it to. Bingo! We have a formula for resistance to change, if we can only adapt it to our purposes.

 Here are the elements. We have a body at rest, (not doing what we want), or a body in motion, (doing something we do not want). The tendency to continue doing what that body is doing is called inertia, it is the bodies resistance to change and can be measured.

 Media is one of the main forces we can apply to that body in order to induce a state of change. We can, hopefully, control the amount of force and the direction in which it is applied to achieve our desired result. Ah, if only it were that easy. In fact that is the basic principal behind everything we do, and media is one of our prime forces for motivating people.

 When you create a communication campaign it’s objective is to elicit a certain action from your target audience. You want them to get out and do something. Or you want them to continue doing something, but doing it your way. If you really want your campaign to “work” then there are a few things you should consider and use your findings as guidelines to your campaign.

 Some professionals call their campaigns “Interventions”, different word: same meaning. The first, and most difficult, question you must ask is: Does my way really work? A lot of ideas that sound good in the head office maybe absolutely useless, or even worse, when put into practice. What you want people to do must not only be doable, but it must have obvious advantages.

 A few years ago there was a well-financed campaign in one of the East African countries to help take pressure off of the local forests by convincing people to cook with gas. Sounds great doesn't it. They must have spent well over a million dollars - more I bet - publicizing their campaigns with every media they could find. I doubt there is a single person in that country that can’t quote you each and every one of the advantages of cooking with gas.

 There was only one minor catch in the scheme. The deposit on a gas bottle was way past what the average charcoal burning family earned in a year. The smallest, and least economical, bottles deposit was about 4 months income.  That doesn't count buying the gas to cook with, just the deposit to buy the bottle to put it in.

 You may have already figured out that their campaign failed. Why? Because all the technical geniuses failed to ask, “ why are people using charcoal, and not gas, in the first place?” Just goes to show why bosses have big offices, as far away from the field as possible, doesn't it?

 No one bothered to investigate whether their bright idea to save the worlds forests could actually work. Everyone just assumed his or her idea was so great that it had to work. And, mind you, some bright light spent a lot of money backing that idea. Ouch!

 The bottom line is that if your idea is not feasible to adopt it simply will not work; no matter how hard you promote it. A few simple questions before you start might save you a lot of troubles - rewriting your CV - later on. Never assume that just because the boss thinks it’s a great idea that it actually is. Remember the Peter Principle? It is alive and well in this business, also.

 When you are talking with people you have the possibility to cover an enormous number of potential subjects. Your campaign will be the most effective if you stick to only one. What you want is to identify the path of least resistance.

 That said, some subjects, and therefore, actions are better suited for intervention than others. Just as certain segments of your target audience will always be easier to convince than others, some actions will always be easier to sell than others. Now, when I say subject here I am indicating segments of your program, not big broad areas of life.

 The trick is to identify exactly what actions you want your targets to adopt. Then isolate the ones which they are most likely to adopt with the least resistance, will have the least difficulty adopting, or that will render the clearest indications that your way is better. Then concentrate your campaign on those areas or segments.

 By targeting what is “Feasible” your chances for success go way up, the number of people you will convince to ”try it your way” will increase logrythmicly, and your boss will think you are a genius.

 Tip: the easier it is for your targets to adopt what you want them to do, or the clearer the actual benefits, the more they will be willing to give it a try. If you want people to stand on their heads and gargle peanut butter you will have a better chance if you can get them eating peanut butter first.

 Development communicators often over look, in their rush to save the world, that actions which show instant, beneficial, results have a lot better chance of being adopted than ones that promise results somewhere in the future. Look at the church - pick one, any one - they have been at that for thousands of years and still haven’t convinced the world’s population. OK, that was a cheap shot. But, you did get the idea. Didn’t you? 

 People love “Instant Gratification”. They respond much better when they can push some perceived magic button and get their reward “ right Now”. Programs that take years or even decades to realize, or actions where the real benefits are difficult to “see” are much more difficult to implement than those that have a strong “ instant gratification” factor built into them. And, trust me here; the instant gratification impulse is much stronger in poor and developing countries than it is in the developed countries where the phrase was invented.

Look for the elements inherent in your program that have the easiest to “see” benefits and promote those benefits. Long-term benefits often get lost in peoples scramble for their daily bread.

 Ask yourself if your program is compatible with the accepted cultural and social norms. Does what you want people to do in anyway conflict with their established beliefs, traditions, or customs? Are you trying to help them improve their lives or is your actual objective to change their society so it will be more like yours?

 People are usually more than willing to accept useful assistance in their fight for that “daily bread”: what they are not interested in are people tinkering with their society or beliefs. You’re the same way: so why act surprised? If your program or what you want to accomplish crosses any of the lines mentioned above, you had best sit down and give it a real good think. At that point you have two choices: make what your want, somehow, fit within the established norms or get ready for a long hard up hill fight. A fight you will most likely loose.

 When you look at your expectations ask your self,” What is really involved in doing it my way?” If what you want from people will take up a lot of their valuable time, cost them money, or even worse, make them work harder - then you have a problem. On the other hand if you can save people time, money or additional work then your life just became a lot easier.

 Most programs actually fall somewhere in between those two extremes, so, that’s why they hired you. You should highlight the advantageous aspects of the actions you want and use every thing you can to reduce the actual negatives. That means study the action you want and look for simpler or easier way of doing the same thing, and secondly down play the negative aspects. You may even want to look at breaking your approach into several stages that will ease the target into your way of doing things.

 When you break a complicated action or life style change into stages you make it less daunting and easier to consider adopting. Think about that for a moment. It would be a lot easier to get all the men in a village to agree to toss one shovel full of dirt a day, than it would be to get them to agree to move a mountain.

 It’s usually all in how you present something to people. Don’t scare them off, before they have a chance to try your way. Once they are in, and start to see the advantages then you can move to the next stage, and the next. Let one thing seem to naturally lead to another.  You will still get your mountain moved, but by using my method you will have a lot more people helping to shovel dirt.

 Now here is a really important factor that has doomed more bright ideas than any other. Is what you want people to do actually sustainable? Will it really make their lives better in a way they will want to adopt permanently? Those are very important questions that you must be able to answer in an affirmative manner if you are really serious about being helpful to your target audience.

 This is a difficult topic and one that only you can decide for yourself. When you start playing with peoples lives, whether you like it or not, you accept a certain responsibility for the out come of your efforts. Sure, using our bag of tricks, the proper “spin”, and a lot of money, we can convince people to do just about anything: But, there is also the question of responsibility for our actions.

 What separates us from the commercial advertising gang is that they do not have to be responsible to the public. They are only responsible to their clients and their bank accounts.

 In this business we are responsible to the public, who trust us to act in their best interest. They trust us, get it? If we betray that trust with silly projects that will not work or which are not sustainable: we loose that trust. This business is a lot like a love affaire. Once trust is gone it almost never comes back.

 The target of your affections listens to your pitch, decides they like it and let you close to them. They let you into their lives - enough to make changes. They trust you. But, if you ever loose that trust: it’s all over. The next time you want something it will be a hard long battle. Why, because they will no longer trust you.

 Your project should be sustainable. That is, if someone adopts your way of doing things - and like it - they should be able to continue for the rest of their lives doing it your way and still receive the same benefits you promised them, without any sudden surprises or hidden agendas. If you really want to draw a line between advertising and development then do it here. Be responsible to the public who trusts you to help make their lives a little bit better.