Friday, 3 Aug 2001

PHILADELPHIA, Pa

I was in Philadelphia yesterday, sitting behind a one-way mirror listening to ordinary people talk about what national parks mean to them. It was fascinating.

One of the things we worry about at the National Parks Conservation Association — and other environmental groups — is whether our “message” is being conveyed in a way the general public responds to. This is a crucial question, because we depend on public support for our financial survival and political successes.

At NPCA, it is not so much a question of whether the public supports protecting national parks — everyone pretty much does, at least in theory. Our concern is about the phrasing of our message. We use the word “resonate” a lot. As in, “Which resonates best: ‘Parks preserve our historic legacy’ or ‘Parks preserve the past?’” I know that mi
ght seem like a ridiculous distinction, but these fine shades of meaning can translate into the difference between an NPCA member becoming engaged and calling her congressional representative, or throwing our letter in the trash.

Periodically, we commission some “message testing,” often through focus groups. This is a fairly common practice, not just with environmental groups but throughout American industry. Can’t you just see the Kellogg corporation doing a focus group on whether Captain Crunch works better with an eye patch or without? It is so common that some people in our Philadelphia sample had been chosen to participate in focus groups multiple times.

As I said, NPCA’s “protect national parks” message is fairly simple and does resonate with a large percentage of people. But sometimes, like when we are starting a major new campaign, we need to get a better understanding of the nuances of what that means to different people. Right now, NPCA is launching a campaign to win public and political support for a major increase in funding for the National Park System. We have done detailed financial analyses that show national parks do not have nearly enough money for the basic jobs that are necessary to preserve these places. NPCA has estimated that the parks need an additional $600 – $700 million dollars annually from Congress to really make sure the parks are protected, well-maintained, and educational for visitors. Right now, their budget is about $1.4 billion every year, so they need half again as much. And the worst funding shortfall is in the two most important areas for parks — resource protection and visitor education.

Personally, I think this ought to be a no-brainer. Our national parks represent an incredible public treasure and $700 million is relative pocket change in Washington. From farm subsidies to Stars Wars, the government spends billions of dollars more than that on programs of questionable benefit. The problem is that the 286 million people who visited national parks last year are not an organized political force. National parks are not a recognized political constituency in Washington, so they get short shrift when it comes time for appropriations. (I should note that the other public lands, like national forests and wildlife refuges, are even more overlooked.)

In Philadelphia, we had two focus groups: one of NPCA members, one of non-members. They sat in an ordinary conference room — except it had a big mirror at one end and microphones dangling from the ceiling. We sat in a room behind the mirrors, trying to be quiet and not move around too much. The focus participants were told we were there. Usually, people looked toward the mirror and even waved, but after that they seemed to forget all about us.

We had a wide range of people and professions — a banjo player, a travel agent, a school bus driver, a movie critic, a nurse, a history teacher, a mechanic. Some had kids, some did not. All had been to at least a few national parks; one had visited more than 150 (behind the glass we all cheered silently). There was a very dramatic difference in the levels of detailed knowledge about national park issues between NPCA members and nonmembers. That made our membership and magazine departments very happy, because it showed that people do read all the mailings we send out.

After introductions, the facilitator asked for a free association of what national parks meant to them. “Beauty” and “solitude” were common themes. But so were “overcrowded” and “cheap vacation.” There were very few strong negatives associated with parks, which is good news for our campaign.

The facilitator then began to probe their reactions to various messages, all of which ended with a request to write their congressional representative and ask that national parks be given more funding. These sample paragraphs tried to test recognizable themes. Sample A began, “National parks provide us with opportunities for personal challenge, adventure, fun, and pleasure.” B was “Our national parks provide an educational experience unlike any other.” C was “Our national parks provide a home for America’s diverse populations of plants and animals.” E was “Our national parks are the legacy we leave our children.” F was “Our national parks provide us with some of the most beautiful, majestic, and awe-inspiring places on Earth.”

The samples were five to six sentences long, and people liked or disliked various wordings, but both groups picked the same top three overall messages. First was “F,” second was “E,” and third was “B.”

“F” seemed to be so popular because it painted a word picture of what a national park should be. “That’s why we are going there,” one man said. “E” touched people’s senses of continuity and responsibility. One quote was, “We don’t want to be the generation that screws it up.” And “B” seemed to get at the historical significance of many parks. “General Lee stood right here,” one person said about Gettysburg. “It gives me shivers.”

Just as interesting was what was not picked. The message that works best for me is “C,” saving endangered plants and animals. That was not a big winner with the focus groups. One person said that environmental groups are “always overreacting.” “A” was roundly dismissed. “It makes national parks sound like a substitute for your local gym,” one woman said.

This week we have done similar focus groups in San Francisco and Nashville. I have not seen the reports yet, so I don’t know what messages worked there. Maybe there will be some kind of national consensus; maybe we will have to target our message for regional differences. But the overall good news is that people love national parks, and there is some general agreement about their basic purposes. For our funding campaign, the best news is that people said they would take action, that they would call or write their congressional reps. But only if we get the message right.