This resource is the product of a consultative process that the GII facilitated between August and October of 2005. A cross-section of the peace and security community contributed to this resource, including policy analysts, direct lobbyists, grassroots organizers, field directors and communications experts.

Drawing in part on the communications guidance offered in U.S. in the World: Talking Global Issues with Americans, the participants in this process identified a set of “big ideas” and overarching themes – like “doing what’s in America’s interest” or “setting a good example” --that could help frame the space weapons issue for non-expert audiences, and that are likely to resonate with the persuadable public (i.e. the vast majority of the American public who have not formed a strong opinion for or against space weapons). Building messages around such big ideas:

• provides a coherent framework within which to make specific arguments to specific audiences;
  
• equips our existing supporters – our base – with the messages they need if they are to be better liaisons with the persuadable middle of the American public;
  
• highlights values and concepts that represent potential common ground for reaching out to new allies; and
  
• creates space for diverse parts of the community to work together toward common goals.

These big ideas answer the audience’s need to know “what is this message really ‘about’?” Research shows that people are wired to look for clues that help us connect new information to stories we already know, or values and ideas we care deeply about. Communications are more effective when you help your audience understand what you are “about” at the start of your argument.

Note that big ideas like “fairness” or “competence” or “farsightedness” are distinct from policy “asks” (e.g., “eliminate funding for weapons that would harm or destroy satellites”). And they are not the same as slogans (e.g., “keep the heavens a place of peace.”)

Big ideas, policy asks, slogans and related tactics are distinct. But they should be consistent. Aligning all of them makes them all mutually reinforcing. As more and more messengers use messages that align with one or more of the same set of big ideas, it helps create a steady drumbeat. Linking various policy asks to the same big ideas makes it much more likely that we can meet near-term policy goals AND lay the groundwork for success in achieving longer-term goals.

NEXT: Why is this kind of coherent and consistent messaging important?