Distribute at a pace and volume you could defend in public
How do you put it in front of people at a pace and volume you could defend in public?
This chapter covers putting approved products in front of people: a written schedule with contact limits, paid amplification that is labelled as paid, and rules for staff and supporters that rule out manufactured volume and pile-ons. It also has you set up the correction procedure before the first error appears.
All stages
Set a cadence you could show the audience
Phase six produces, distributes, and disseminates what was approved, and only what was approved. Before the first item goes out, write the schedule: which product, on which channel, how often, to whom, and for how long. Set a limit on how many times any one person is contacted directly, and honour every request to stop. Repetition helps people remember a time and a place. Research on the illusory truth effect shows that it also makes statements feel truer whether or not they are, which is a reason to repeat only what you have sourced and to stop well short of saturation. Ask of the whole schedule: if the audience saw this plan, would the pace and the volume look like information or like a siege?
Time the launch for when the audience can act, not for when they are least able to think. Do not attach your message to a local tragedy or to a moment of public fear.
Paid amplification, labelled
Paying to reach more of the right people is legitimate when the payment is visible. Every advertisement carries its paid-for-by line and runs from the organisation's own identified account, with the platform's sponsorship label and advertising-library entry in place. Creators or community figures who are compensated say so in the post itself. Use only the targeting criteria you settled in stage two, and record spend by channel so that it can be published.
For election-related work the disclaimer wording and reporting duties are set by law. Use the exact form counsel approved, and publish nothing about voting procedures that you have not checked against the election authority's own notice.
No brigading and no manufactured volume
The covert variant of dissemination manufactures the appearance of scale: many accounts posting in step while presenting as independent, automation dressed as people, or supporters mobilised to swamp a critic's replies. It exists, and platforms and researchers have caught it repeatedly; the long-running Spamouflage network posted at very high volume and drew little genuine engagement. It is off limits here for two reasons. It lies to the audience about how many people agree, and when it is turned on an individual it is harassment.
So the rules for staff and supporters are short. Speak as yourself and say that you are involved. Do not post supplied text as your own. Do not organise replies to, reports against, or pile-ons upon any person. A critic is answered once, by the campaign's own account, with the facts and a contact.
A correction procedure before you need it
Errors will get out. Decide now who can issue a correction, how quickly, and where. The standard is that a correction travels by the same channels as the error, with at least the same prominence, says plainly what was wrong, and is entered in a public log. Name who watches the inbox and the comments, who can pause distribution, and what triggers a pause: a factual error, a sign of harm to a group, a partner's veto.
Then keep the approved list closed. Anything new written during the campaign goes back through the gate in stage six before it is used.
Techniques at this stage, and where the line is
A reasonable repeated presence builds familiarity with a service, a time, and a place.
The line: Saturation meant to wear down resistance, instead of informing, uses familiarity as a substitute for reasons.
Repeat only claims you have sourced, and cap how often any one person meets them.
The line: Repeating a contested or false claim because repetition will make it feel true is the manipulative use.
Reach is extended through labelled advertising and through content people find useful enough to pass on.
The line: Engineering outrage, or coordinating engagement, to make ranking systems treat content as organically popular deceives both platform and audience.
Time messages for when the audience can act: when the service is open and the decision is live.
The line: Timing a message for moments of grief, panic, or exhaustion, to catch people with their guard down, exploits a vulnerability window.
State real deadlines plainly, together with what happens after them.
The line: Invented or exaggerated deadlines are false statements used as pressure.
One reminder to people who asked for it, with a frequency cap and an easy way to stop.
The line: Following people across channels after they have declined, or ignoring a request to stop, turns reminding into pursuit.
There is no honest use. The honest counterpart is supporters speaking individually as themselves while the campaign answers critics once from its own account.
The line: Any organised mass response aimed at a person or a thread is over the line.
There is no honest use. Plan your volume so that other voices, including critics, can still be heard.
The line: Volume intended to drown out competing information manipulates what the audience is able to find.
Worked example
Fictional example, continued. The Riverside Health Partnership has approved products and runs its campaign from 16 June to 22 August.
- 1The schedule is published on the coalition page: one school-nurse letter to the 1,720 households of the 2,140 children; one text reminder to the 940 households that had opted in to clinic texts, with a second only if they reply asking for times; 12 radio spots a week on two local stations; a parish bulletin notice every fortnight.
- 2Paid: 9,000 dollars of social advertising runs from the county health department's own page, labelled as paid for by the department, targeted by zip code and language only, and capped at three views per person per week. For the first five weeks it runs in two of the three zip codes so that the third can serve as a comparison, and the coalition page says so.
- 3The 14 parent volunteers post in their own groups, in their own words, with the voucher disclosure. Their briefing asks them not to argue in threads and to pass questions to the nurse phone line.
- 4Day 9: the flyer gives the wrong address for the North Quay Saturday clinic. Within 24 hours the flyer is reprinted, a correction goes out by the same channels, the error is entered in the public corrections log, and a staff member stands at the wrong address the following Saturday to redirect families.
- 5Week 4: a local blogger writes that the campaign is the county tracking families. Some supporters want to fill his comments. The lead says no. The official account replies once, explaining what registry information was used, how to stop further letters, and whom to contact.
- 6A volunteer drafts an image mocking parents who refuse vaccines. It is not on the approved list, goes to the approver, and is rejected as contemptuous.
Outcome. Ten weeks of distribution inside the published schedule, one correction logged, 14 requests to stop contact honoured, and nothing released that had not passed the approval gate.
Distribution plan
Write this before launch and publish as much of it as you can. Saved in this browser only.
Each product, its channel, how often, to whom, and for how long.
The most times any one person is contacted directly, and how a request to stop is honoured.
Spend by channel, the label wording, the account it runs from, and the targeting criteria.
Tick each rule that is in the written briefing.
Who can correct, how fast, by which channels, and where the public log is kept.
Tick each event that will pause distribution, and name who decides.
An honest judgement of how the pace and volume would look to them.
Ethics gate: Phase VI, production, distribution, and dissemination
0/8If any of these is not true: Pause the affected item or channel until it is fixed. If a tactic only works when its coordination or its funding is hidden, drop the tactic.
Common mistakes
- ×Raising frequency when the numbers lag, until the schedule no longer resembles the one you approved.
- ×Putting advertising money behind a volunteer's personal post and letting it run without a paid label.
- ×Fixing an error quietly and hoping nobody noticed.
- ×Telling supporters to get into the comments.
- ×Improvising new content in the middle of the campaign that never went through approval.
Is this volume and timing organic, or manufactured?
Related
References
- Department of the Army (2013). FM 3-53: Military Information Support OperationsProduction, distribution, and dissemination as the phase in which only approved products are released.
- Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: GeneralRepetition increases the perceived truth of statements even when people know better, which is why only sourced claims should be repeated.
- Paul, C., & Matthews, M. (2016). The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model: Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It. RAND CorporationHigh-volume, multichannel repetition as a defining feature of a manipulative model; the cautionary contrast for this stage.
- Meta (2023). Adversarial Threat Report, Second Quarter 2023The Spamouflage network was large, cross-platform, and detected, and largely failed to reach authentic audiences.
- Federal Trade Commission (2023). Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (16 CFR Part 255)Paid or compensated promotion must carry a clear and conspicuous disclosure.
- Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., et al. (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020Corrections should be prominent, lead with the fact, and explain what was wrong.