Embracing the Narrative Reversal
A Powerful Storytelling Strategy Dominates the Social Media Age
Embracing the narrative reversal is the strategy of designing your story to acknowledge and address criticism, counter-narratives, and misperceptions while validating your audience’s participation.
At Starlight Runner, we advise our clients that their stories are no longer one-sided and so those narratives must be strong enough to stand up to critics, opponents and misunderstandings.
In the age of pervasive communication, it is no longer prudent to obfuscate information, attack critics, or ignore negative consumer messaging. Stories must acknowledge, embrace and engage opposing views.
What is the Danger?
Our stories now flow through rivers of interconnected narratives. They must stand up to scrutiny from all sides, the impact of exterior narratives, and crisis situations. As discussed in People Will Talk, we’ve all seen how easily criticism can go viral, valid or not.
Audiences place plot points under a microscope, politician’s statements are parsed to find outrage, offhand celebrity comments can damage a movie’s box office and a college professor’s statement can tank a university’s enrollment.
Companies must accept the fact that consumers now dominate any conversation by vast percentages, and misplaced messages can result in real brand damage.
What Storytellers Can Do
So, we must identify and take ownership of the narrative reversal. Doing so means we’re going to have to stand by them and live by them even as we acknowledge different perspectives and interpretations of the underlying facts. These “reversals,” must be addressed proactively through engagement and with transparency.
Addressing Criticism
When we embrace the narrative reversal, we accept from the start that someone somewhere is not going to like our story. We are taking any observer’s conclusion into account. While not every complaint warrants mobilization of all our resources, it’s best not to stick our heads in the ground and hope it goes away.
These days it almost never does. Instead, we have to be courageous and address the issue.
What many successful brands have in common is that they engage in productive dialog with their customers, leveraging customer relationship management services outside the “customer complaint” silo.
For example, entrepreneur and digital marketer Gary Vaynerchuk attributes much of his success to the fact that he actively seeks out criticism, because it may point out blind spots in his communication efforts or business model, information that not always relayed to senior management for numerous reasons.
But some still go it the old-fashioned way. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton rarely addressed strongest criticisms against her. She did not explain why she needed to be silent about aspects of Benghazi or where the lost emails went or discrepancies surrounding the Clinton Foundation.
Instead, for many, the impression was that she dismissed these attacks as nonsense. While the attacks may or may not have been warranted, her audience found her answers to be muddled and incoherent and the issues festered on.
Clinton’s personal narrative was steeped in 20th century unidirectional broadcasting. She failed to understand or navigate the complex systems of 21st century storytelling. Not to say she needed to be entirely forthcoming — but she needed to address negative attacks openly and directly, providing clear, plausible explanations why mistakes were made, or why the attacks were unwarranted.
Clinton’s opponent Donald Trump was and remains a master at this skill, always using plain, simple language to tell his audience what he will and will not discuss, and why.
In fact, with a handful of short sentences and slogans, Trump was able to vilify Clinton’s non-responses, driving suspicion and deeply negative associations with her. Even those squarely on her side were daunted, many viewing her as the lesser of two evils.
We can fortify ourselves, exuding strength and compassion by embracing the narrative reversal. By creating a narrative that we (and all of our stakeholders) are willing to explain and stand by, it becomes easier to accept and deal with another side to the story. A yang to our yin, so to speak.
In short, we are confident enough in our story to allow for an engagement with differing points of view.
Instead of fearing attacks, this strategy allows us to listen for other perspectives, and watch for patterns in how they are expressed. Because we fundamentally know our story, we are well prepared for the anti-story, and all stories in between.
Listening is the Key
In my post about regenerative listening, we learned that the age of the one-way broadcast storytelling model is coming to an end. Because of the rise of social media, all storytelling has now become a dialog. So, if we are to be perceived as authentic storytellers it behooves us to listen to our audience, validating and even celebrating their participation in our communication.
A narrative reversal is part of the conversation. We cannot ignore it or sweep it under the rug.
By starting with a strong, clear story, and embracing the narrative reversal, we are acknowledging the power of this two-way street (or multi-lane freeway), and we become capable of addressing the three kinds of attacks our stories can experience.
When we embrace the narrative reversal, here are the three kinds of listening we need to do:
1. They are criticizing you and they’re mistaken!
You learn a certain number of audience members are criticizing or even attacking your story, but after investigating you realize this is the result of a misunderstanding. You haven’t communicated clearly enough, or there is an outside influence or circumstances beyond your control bending your story.
You respond candidly by acknowledging the problem, describing it clearly from their perspective. You are reiterating back to them what they told you.
Then briefly you offer an explanation, and whether or not you can actually do something about it, you must do something about it (e.g., make up for it). Even if it takes you time to clarify or fix the problem, the acknowledgement has bought you good will.
Once you’ve fixed it, point out the fix and credit the audience as if they are members of your team…because they are.
Case Study: Disney Star Wars
The Walt Disney Company and its Lucasfilm division failed to do this. They seemed caught unawares by the intensity of the criticism leveraged by a relatively small subgroup of Star Wars fandom that did not like what they saw as progressive liberal changes in their beloved franchise.
Key franchise stakeholders dismissed this subgroup as inconsequential, either ignoring these criticisms or taking the offensive. At various points, Lucasfilm executives, the films’ directors, and even the stars attacked the fans as moronic, racist, homophobic, or fascist.
This signified to this subgroup that there was indeed a fight to be had. Using these retorts as grist for the battle, the fans generated hundreds of hours of YouTube videos and blog posts. Thousands were recruited to their cause, many of whom would have likely shrugged off their ambiguous feelings toward the new Star Wars films and moved on. Disney’s counterattack sparked a war.
Instead of embracing the narrative reversal by listening carefully and addressing these concerns (as a Jedi Master would), the problem metastasized. The results arguably have negatively impacted box office, press coverage, public perception of the franchise, and the reputations of the stakeholders.
What could Disney have done? They could have stood by their story — the entire story of Star Wars — which has always been progressive and liberal. But they also could have acknowledged the necessity to strike a balance with the so-called Dark Side.
Disney’s marketing could have better engaged fans around the evolving changes in tone and attitude of the films. By establishing a code of decorum around social media exchanges, they could have turned their directors and actors into recruiters rather than combatants.
The very act of hearing critics out with empathy most often calms friction and can well inform how the next message — a message designed for everyone in the world in the case of Star Wars — might be better delivered. In this case, the franchise’s future depends on it.
2. They are criticizing you and they’re right!
A certain number criticize or attack your story, and after investigating you realize they’ve got valid points. Chances are, your narrative has somehow drifted from the foundation that created resonance between you and your audience.
Time to fess up. Communicate your understanding of where this section of your audience is coming from, and acknowledge, briefly, that they’re right. Apologize if the situation calls for it. Then explain how you’re going to move to correct it and stay true to your word.
It can take a while, and it can be costly to course correct in this way, but the acknowledgement has bought you good will.
Be sure, again, to validate your audience for their contributions. They’ve made you better for their participation.
Digital marketer Jay Baer describes many examples of this in his book, Hug Your Haters.
Case Study: Pepsi
When massive criticism was directed at Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner commercial, Pepsi was wise enough to embrace the narrative reversal almost immediately.
The commercial was taken off the air (at great expense to the company), and Pepsi acknowledged that it was mistaken for the spot’s misconceived messaging (that offering a gift in the form of a can of Pepsi in the middle of a tense protest march can be equated with the gift of love, which can resolve deep fissures in society).
Pepsi also wisely publicly apologized to Kendall Jenner, who’s following did not understand how she can stand for such a message. Pepsi took responsibility for their garbled story, exonerating Jenner. This led to all-around acceptance, and the brand quickly recovered.
3. They’re directly opposing you!
A certain number may criticize or attack your story, and after investigating, you realize they want to take you down. They stand for the opposite of your values, your aspirations, your message — and those, in fact, of the vast majority of the community you’ve been building.
Your job then is to reiterate your story, placing an emphasis on the elements that distinguish your narrative and your community.
Make it clear that the attackers don’t seem to agree with those values, or seem to be trying to subvert the message in some way. You can be bold with them: That is not who we are, but feel free to go and find what you’re looking for somewhere else.
But also welcome their return. If you maintain a sense of certainty in the underpinnings of your story, there’s no need to wage rhetorical warfare. You may yet find ways to convert your attackers into allies.
Case Study: Al Gore & Climate Change
With An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore failed to embrace the narrative reversal. He felt that by presenting compelling scientific arguments, illustrated by striking images, the entire world would come to realize the dire facts of global warming and rally to a solution.
However, by doing so, he set himself in direct opposition with all those with something to lose by altering their businesses to accommodate the fight against climate change. By not considering or integrating the narrative reversal, the results of Gore’s work was to trigger a war, where the opposition was far better funded and stronger willed.
If Gore had embraced the narrative reversal, he would have told a story that focused on how our universal needs and values supported environmentally friendly approaches (this is how pollution in the USA was tackled and brought under control in the 1970s).
He would have delineated how profitable a phased movement toward addressing climate change can be for those currently benefiting from fossil fuels. This would have recruited powerful allies. Instead, his story polarized his audience, generating an army of climate change deniers.
Case Study: Trump
Trump always embraces the narrative reversal. He acknowledges it, and integrates it into virtually every communication as an oppositional force that his audience must see as a villain.
This is why he doubles down on his stories, drawing upon the language of his critics and crushing it with his own language and emotional temperament, which is almost always reflective of his base. This makes him real to vast numbers of people, even if his narrative does not always align with the facts.
Both yin and yang, he criticizes his attackers, along with the various media that deliver his attackers’ message, even as he masterfully leverages every one of those media platforms.
There is no Trump without The Enemy, and he thrives on inciting and aggravating them. Throughout his life, there has been a rogue’s gallery of opponents, but now that Trump’s story has become pervasive and all-consuming, it no longer matters what villain or issue stands in opposition. There’s room for all of it, and then gleefully stomps on those views as only an iconoclast can.
In the case of Donald Trump, the narrative reversal is actually an integral aspect of his story. It’s become a signature to his success.
The Danger of Inauthenticity
With the rise of concerns surrounding fake news, clickbait, and the growing technological capability to present falsehoods (take a look at some of those slick flat-Earth videos; small wonder the number of believers is growing) and flat-out deceptions, look for a growing demand for authenticity and ways to scrutinize story. Around the world, efforts and tools are also on the rise to meet this vital need.
If we’re truly interested in leveraging the power of this strategy, we must make our narratives strong enough to stand up to scrutiny. If we’re lying, if we are hiding selfish intent beneath a mask of benevolence or populism or woke-ness, then we are eventually going to be found out.
Even after embracing the reversal, a fraud discovered will have a hard time making a comeback. It rarely ends well.
Special thanks to Alan Berkson, Chrysoula Artemis, and David Baczkier for their help in preparing this post.
The strategy of embracing the narrative reversal is a vital building block in a concept we call Collective Journey. Read more about this dynamic new story model for the digital age here:
The Collective Journey Series:
Intro: Why is This Happening?
A New Narrative Model Explains it
Part 1: The Hero’s Journey is No Longer Serving Us
Classic Storytelling Models Are Faltering in the Digital Age
Part 2: When It Comes to Story, You’re Not Getting It
Narrative Models Must Evolve in the Digital Age
Part 3: The Collective Journey Story Model Comes to Television
Thrones, Dead, Orange & Others Are Subverting the Hero’s Journey
Part 4: Big Brands and the Awakening of the Docile Consumer
In the Collective Journey the Peoples’ Voice Now Levels the Playing Field
Part 5: Story Can Assert Control Over the Masses
The Power of Propaganda and Multilateral Narratives
Part 6: Regenerative Listening
Collective Journey Narratives Require Genuine Engagement
Part 7: Superpositioning
How Digital Communication is Blowing Us Back to the Stone Age
