Understand the audience by listening, and segment by need
Who exactly are you trying to reach, and what do they already believe and need?
This chapter shows how to analyse a target audience in the open: its conditions, beliefs, current behaviour, needs, trusted sources, and how it can be reached. It sets two rules that hold for the rest of the cycle: nobody is selected because they are vulnerable, and you collect the least data that will do the job.
All stages
Describe the audience by its situation
Target audience analysis is the second phase of the doctrine cycle and the one civilian campaigns most often skip. Its questions are plain. What conditions shape the current behaviour: cost, time, distance, habit, rules, past experience? What does the audience believe about the issue and about you? What are they doing now instead? Could they do what you ask if they wanted to? Doctrine also uses the word vulnerabilities for the motives and needs a message can address. In this manual read that word as needs: what the audience lacks that you can honestly supply. It never means a weakness to press on.
Narrow the audience until those questions have one answer. The general public has no shared conditions and cannot be analysed. A group defined by its situation can be: parents of children who missed a scheduled visit, or tenants in buildings affected by a proposed rule.
Research by listening
Find out by asking, in the open. Hold listening sessions hosted by people the audience already knows. Run a short survey with neutral wording. Have conversations in the style of deep canvassing, where the canvasser asks about the person's own experience, listens without arguing, and exchanges stories instead of delivering a script. Field experiments by Broockman and Kalla found that conversations of this kind can shift attitudes for months, and they are also the best audience research available to you. In every case tell people who you are, who is paying, what the answers are for, and that they may decline.
Expect to be surprised. Teams tend to assume the audience disagrees with them when the more common obstacle is practical. Ask what would make the behaviour easier before you ask what people believe. Record objections in the audience's own words, including objections to you.
Segment by need, never by weakness
Tailoring works: messages that address a group's actual barriers are more relevant and more likely to be read (Kreuter and Wray). Segment by barrier and by need, for example people who intend to act but have not, people with unanswered questions, and people who have decided against. Do not select anyone because they are easier to move while grieving, lonely, in debt, cognitively impaired, acutely stressed, or under age. If a list or an advertising platform offers you those categories, decline them, and screen your own lists so that people in those situations are not reached by accident with pressure they cannot weigh.
Decide in advance how you will treat people who have considered the question and said no. They are owed accurate information and an open door, not escalating contact.
Map trust and access
For each segment write down who they already trust on this subject, because stage four depends on it, and how they can be reached in practice: language, literacy, disability, working hours, internet access, and the channels they actually use. An audience you cannot reach in a form they can use is not yet your audience.
Collect less
Gather the minimum. Use aggregate figures where they will do. Do not buy or infer sensitive traits such as health conditions, immigration status, religion, or financial distress. Keep research notes separate from contact lists, set a deletion date, and check which privacy rules apply to any records you hold, especially health and education records. Profiling individuals to find the argument each one is least able to resist is a covert practice even when the message itself is true. It is described on the defensive side of this manual and has no place in this one.
Techniques at this stage, and where the line is
Target by situation (who missed a visit, who lives in the affected area) so that relevant people get relevant information, on a basis you would be willing to print on the item.
The line: Targeting on sensitive or inferred psychological traits, or telling different groups incompatible things because they will not compare notes, is manipulation.
Use aggregate research to understand a segment's barriers and questions. The unit of analysis is the group and its situation.
The line: Building a psychological profile of each individual in order to find a personal pressure point crosses the line, whatever the cause.
Learn which identities the issue touches so that your message never forces people to choose between the facts and their group.
The line: Deliberately tying the issue to an identity so that disagreement becomes socially costly exploits the same mechanism.
Check it in your own team: assume the audience does not share your premises until the research says otherwise.
The line: Telling the audience that everyone like them already agrees, when your own data does not show it, is a false claim of consensus.
Design research so people can say unpopular things: anonymous surveys, neutral wording, hosts they trust.
The line: Reporting polite answers as real support, or wording questions to produce the answer you want, misleads partners and funders.
Find out which of your everyday terms the audience does not use, and note their words for the same things.
The line: Leaving jargon in place because confusion suits you turns an honest blind spot into obstruction.
Resist treating everyone who has not acted as one block. Separate delay from doubt and doubt from refusal.
The line: Describing a whole segment by its most extreme members, in order to justify harsher tactics against it, is where analysis becomes enemy-making.
Worked example
Fictional example, continued. Before writing anything, the Riverside Health Partnership spends four weeks and 6,000 dollars of its 48,000 dollar budget finding out why 2,140 children are behind on school-required vaccines.
- 1Aggregate registry figures show the children are concentrated in three zip codes, two of which lost their nearest clinic to a five-month renovation last year. No individual records leave the health department.
- 2Three listening sessions, hosted by the Eastbank Parents Association and the St Brendan parish health ministry, draw 41 parents. Each session opens by saying that the county health department is paying and that notes carry no names.
- 3An anonymous survey in English, Spanish, and Somali, handed out through school offices, gets 312 replies: 71 percent say they intend to catch up and have not managed it, 18 percent have questions about safety or about several shots in one visit, and 11 percent have decided against. One item asks whether parents who do not vaccinate are bad parents (21 percent agree), so that it can be asked again after the campaign.
- 4Trained volunteers hold 60 doorstep conversations in the deep canvassing style. The main obstacles are clinic hours that clash with work, worry about cost, and transport. Several parents believe, wrongly, that clinics ask about immigration status.
- 5Asked who they trust on children's health, parents name their own child's doctor and the school nurse first and county government last.
- 6Data decisions: the lead refuses an advertising platform's ready-made segments for financial hardship and recent bereavement, keeps the survey nameless, and sets 30 September as the deletion date for research notes.
Outcome. Three segments defined by need: intending but delayed (primary), have questions (offered a conversation with a nurse), and decided against (one factual letter and no follow-up). Because the main obstacle is access, the Partnership adds evening and Saturday clinics before it writes a word of messaging.
Target audience analysis
Complete one sheet per segment. Use the audience's own words wherever you can. Saved in this browser only.
A group narrow enough that its members share the same conditions.
What they do now, and what makes the wanted behaviour hard: cost, time, distance, habit, rules, past experience.
Include what they say about the issue and what they say about you.
What would make the behaviour easier, and which of those things you can honestly supply.
People and institutions named by the audience, not by your team.
Tick what you actually did.
Tick each need you have confirmed you can meet.
What you collect, what you refuse to collect, where it is kept, and the deletion date.
Ethics gate: Phase II, target audience analysis
0/7If any of these is not true: Stop. If the research is missing, do it before drafting messages. If a segment depends on a vulnerability, drop the segment. If you hold data you cannot justify, delete it.
Common mistakes
- ×Analysing the audience from a desk and calling the result research.
- ×Assuming the audience disagrees when the real obstacle is practical, then spending the budget on persuasion that nobody needed.
- ×Accepting a platform's sensitive audience category because it was offered and seemed efficient.
- ×Keeping research data in case it is useful later.
- ×Treating people who have declined as a problem to be solved with more contact.
Why am I seeing this, and what does the sender think they know about me?
Related
References
- Department of the Army (2013). FM 3-53: Military Information Support OperationsTarget audience analysis as a distinct phase: conditions, accessibility, and the audience's ability to carry out the behaviour.
- Kreuter, M. W., & Wray, R. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. American Journal of Health BehaviorMessages matched to a group's characteristics and barriers are more relevant to their recipients.
- Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. ScienceListening-based doorstep conversations produced attitude change that persisted for months.
- Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2020). Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: Evidence from three field experiments. American Political Science ReviewThe non-judgemental exchange of narratives is the active ingredient in deep canvassing.
- Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Rothman, A. J., Leask, J., & Kempe, A. (2017). Increasing vaccination: Putting psychological science into action. Psychological Science in the Public InterestPractical barriers often matter more than beliefs; interventions that make the behaviour easier have the strongest evidence.
- World Health Organization (2017). WHO Strategic Communications Framework for Effective CommunicationsCommunication should be accessible, actionable, credible, relevant, timely, and understandable to the specific audience.