The document discusses how industries and activist groups use direct-to-public persuasion to influence voters on policy ballot initiatives. It finds that strong arguments benefit both sides but strong activist arguments have a greater impact. It also finds that suspicion of activist arguments negatively affects outcomes more than suspicion of industry arguments. Additionally, it notes that industry tends to use financial arguments that are seen as stronger and less suspicious, while activists use societal arguments seen as stronger and less suspicious. The document concludes by recommending that industries take an offensive approach using financial arguments, while activists take a defensive approach focusing on societal arguments.

1. How Industries Use Direct-to-Public
Persuasion in Policy Conflicts:
Asymmetries in Public Voting
Responses
From: Seiders, Flynn, and Nenkov (2021)

2. Direct-to-Public Persuasion
A strategy used by industry
and activist groups to
convince the public that the
marketer’s stance is the
objectively correct choice.
Persuasion is meant to lead
to voter support for the issue
on state ballot initiatives.
From: Seiders, Flynn, and Nenkov (2021)
Example of Industry Side Argument for
CA Proposition 61 (2016)
Example of Activist Side Argument for
CA Proposition 61 (2016)
Industry Side
Firms that produce a certain class of goods
or services
Activist Side
Organizations that represent the public or
collective good

3. Strength & Suspicion
The authors study 2 important dimensions of policy arguments,
argument strength and argument suspicion.
Argument Strength: perception that an argument is persuasive.
Argument Suspicion: perception that an argument is
implausible or has a hidden intent.
From: Seiders, Flynn, and Nenkov (2021)

4. Financial vs. Societal Arguments
Industry and activist groups can choose between making financial or societal
arguments to voters
Financial Argument: A financial argument emphasizes how the proposed
policy will impose or reduce financial benefits or costs.
Industry side example: “Proposition 25 will hurt people in our state financially
because it would increase the prices of other needed medicines.”
Societal Argument: A societal argument emphasizes how the proposed policy
will inhibit or promote shared societal goals or values.
Activist side example: “Proposition 25 will save patients’ lives because it would
provide better access to life saving drugs.”
From: Seiders, Flynn, and Nenkov (2021)

5. Based on a two-wave field study in the 2016 California
election and lab experiments examining behavioral
(i.e., voting) and attitudinal outcomes.
• Strong arguments benefit both sides, but strong
activist group arguments have a greater impact than
strong industry arguments.
• Suspicion of activist group arguments negatively
affects outcomes, but suspicion of industry
arguments has limited impact.
• Industry arguments with a financial focus are
perceived as stronger and less suspicious; activist
group arguments with a societal focus are stronger
and less suspicious.
Takeaways
From: Seiders, Flynn, and Nenkov (2021)

6. What should the industry side do?
Be on the offense
• Develop campaign arguments focused on
diminishing the strength of activist
arguments.
• Take an offensive approach, raising
skepticism of activist tactics, but avoid
triggering a backlash.
• Focus on a financial argumentation
strategy based on factors related to
imposing or reducing financial benefits or
costs.
What should the activist side do?
Be on the defense
• Develop campaign arguments with iron-
clad strength and the potential to
preempt industry arguments.
• Take a defensive approach, preserving
the legitimacy of activist group practices
and arguments.
• Focus on a societal argumentation
strategy based on (nonfinancial) factors
related to inhibiting or promoting shared
societal goals or values.
From: Seiders, Flynn, and Nenkov (2021)