Three Things You Need to Know about Frames

[From Eastwick's Fall 2005 Newsletter]

When was the last time the art and science of PR made the cover story of The New York Times Magazine? It happened a few months ago, in one of the most widely discussed articles of the summer. The specific topic at hand was UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff's recent efforts to educate the Democratic Party on a communications theory called "framing." The article arrived at the height of Lakoff's popularity this year, following a groundswell of support for his bestselling political PR primer, Don't Think of an Elephant.

We're not sure about this, but the last time a theory from our world got this kind of airplay was the 1960s, when Marshall McLuhan was counseling the New York intelligentsia on how the "medium is the message." And how many of us are old enough to remember that?

Lakoff's mission is a pretty big deal, and not just because it may have a lasting influence on political PR. The very fact that the New York Times and several other leading publications (like this one which picked a fight with Lakoff, and this one which used the theory of framing to build a cover story) have devoted so much space to this story has made framing, if anything, a cultural artifact. We can safely predict that framing will become a commonplace term in the PR vocabulary. But there are several things that the recent coverage has obscured, and we would like to address them here. As with many a cultural phenomenon, with framing, there's more than meets the eye.

One: Hard Wires

Simply put, a frame is a mental construct that defines – and limits – the way people communicate and receive information. In our world – PR – frames generally come in three varieties (Eastwick's translation of Lakoff): concepts, containers, and stories. Great concepts that both define and limit are easy to recognize ("utility computing," "open-source," "Web 2.0"). Containers are a bit trickier because they are designed to convey "in this article, you are getting all you need" (e.g., anything titled "Three Things You Need to Know …"). As for story, as any good PR person will tell you, this is the single most important communication tool of all. A great story, well told, will certainly define who and what are important, and exclude who and what are not.

If Lakoff had stopped right there, we wouldn't have much to talk about. The science of framing – whatever one might say about its merits – has also introduced the notion that frames are hard-wired, a part of our neural anatomy. What that means, practically, is that frames may be harder to make and harder to break. According to Lakoff and other cognitive scientists, the only way to break a frame is to make a new frame. It's simply not enough to tell someone they are wrong. You need to convey the new data in the context of another compelling idea. Anyone who has ever called a reporter to tell him that he "got the story wrong" will know that. Reporters trade in stories, not corrections.

Two: Customer Research

But what makes a compelling idea? Here's something that was almost completely obscured in mainstream coverage of Lakoff's work. The best and brightest framing pros do not rely on their imaginations. They are devout practitioners and pioneers in the field of customer research. Reporters who have written about the war of the political framers (George Lakoff on the left, versus Frank Luntz on the right) have glossed over the true role that quality primary research has played in successful, mass communication campaigns; the war-of-the-propagandists frame, perhaps, is sexier. But in Silicon Valley, where a surprising number of companies shun customer research – in product design, in sales, and, yes, even in PR – no one can afford to ignore this lesson from the trenches. If you care about frames, you need to speak with your customers. With new media, there are so many new and creative approaches to doing that.

Three: Bridges

There's at least one more thing that has been lost in all the sensational coverage. Framing, even in its hardest form, is not the invention of Professor Lakoff. Several writers have incorrectly identified Lakoff as the "father of framing" (the father frame is tough to break). But framing has been understood and practiced for many years in the world of negotiation and labor-dispute resolution, where legal professionals and laypeople are constantly challenged to break down assumptions that keep two sides apart. The world of ADR – alternative dispute resolution – has a rich history captured in articles and case studies that can greatly educate marketing pros on the practice of building communities. This is important. Community-building, in a frame-fatigued world, may in fact be the next frontier in PR innovation, and it is one reason that Eastwick has spent time developing expertise in collaborative media tools.

Our Own Community Frame

When drafting this article, we were reminded of a recent project at the agency, where we were forced to put aside our differences to work toward a common cause. The client, a research group at UC Berkeley (no connection to Lakoff), found an alarming discrepancy in the Florida vote in the 2004 presidential election. After several initial consultations, we advised the Berkeley team to use the study to influence the debate on electronic voting, rather than challenge the 2004 election. We didn't quite realize it at the time, but we were framing the debate in a way that encouraged many people – on the left and the right – to listen. In fact, at Eastwick, the new frame inspired both donkeys and elephants to join the effort. We're proud to say that we recently won kudos for this effort. But we are even more proud to talk about the Berkeley project as a case study in community-building. To paraphrase the celebrated-but-misunderstood Professor Lakoff, the community frame at Eastwick got "activated," and it is even stronger today.