This is the fourth installment in the exclusive RCR five-part series highlighting the results of the 1997 National Wireless Opinion Poll conducted by TynanGroup Inc., of Santa Barbara, Calif., in December. Six hundred households were surveyed. The margin of error associated with the results is 4 percent. This article explores what is helpful and what is not helpful in convincing the public to support the expansion of the wireless infrastructure in their neighborhood.
Persuade to action
In public affairs, the carrier’s goal is to win in the court of public opinion. If your customers’ attitudes are positive toward broadcast antennas, that is a bonus. But if they have positive attitudes and do not act upon them-support you at a public hearing-their warm-fuzzy feelings won’t get your sites built.
Educating the public on the universal benefits of wireless technology will indeed alter a community’s awareness and encourage them to look more favorably on your project. But to persuade supporters into action, you need to make friends with them. If people understand you, it will be easier to get their attention. If they trust you, you’ll get their action. Every carrier must have a proactive community relations plan. Because, as we like to quote Mark Twain who said, “When you need a friend, it’s too late to make one.”
While results discussed up to this point in the previous RCR articles make it clear that without solid information, only a portion of users support the siting of wireless antennas in neighborhoods, other results indicate equally clearly that a significant portion of the public can be persuaded to support such antennas. When people are not educated, or lack strong feelings on a subject, they end up guessing how to act. And when you’re a neighbor guessing about wireless antennas, you usually end up opposing them.
Also, the survey was designed to show whether a community outreach program could be effective. The question, “Would you support a tower in your neighborhood?” was asked relatively early in the poll. We repeated the question late in the poll, after asking people a series of questions providing them with more information about the issue, and asking their reaction to a variety of messages.
This design is used frequently in persuasion campaigns, and tends to be successful in indicating whether attitudes can be changed.
The results show pretty clearly that the public can be persuaded. Support at the end of the survey was much higher than it was early in the survey.
Question: In view of the issues we have been discussing, would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose allowing a wireless broadcast antenna into your neighborhood?
Opinion Beginning End
of poll of poll
Strongly favor 10% 16%
Somewhat favor 26% 33%
Somewhat oppose 21% 16%
Strongly oppose 30% 26%
Don’t know 12% 8%
Whereas earlier in the questionnaire, we found that 36 percent of the public supported siting wireless antennas in neighborhoods, late in the questionnaire 49 percent supported this. While this shows that attitudes really are malleable on the subject, a few words of caution should be applied as well:
1. After hearing a number of positive arguments, a 49 (yes) to 42 (no) percent margin of support is not a particularly strong result.
2. The number of people feeling strongly on the issue is still skewed towards opponents-while only 16 percent strongly favor the issue, 26 percent strongly oppose it.
3. With political approvals, only the people who feel strongly seem to count or make a difference.
In addition to how much attitudes can be changed, it’s important to note which issues were most effective in increasing support for siting wireless antennas in neighborhoods. We asked two types of questions, one simply providing people with more information, the other testing statements in a slogan format. The following summarizes one set of informational items.
Question: Let me read you some of the details of the technology having to do with wireless technology and wireless broadcast antennas of the type that would be located in neighborhoods. For each of these, please note whether that issue is a good reason or a bad reason for allowing wireless antennas in your neighborhood.
Argument: Five thousand new people a day buy wireless phones-unless more antennas are built the wireless phone system will not be able to meet the needs of wireless users.
Good Reason: 57 percent.
Bad Reason: 35 percent.
Argument: Wireless technology is heavily regulated by the Federal Communications Commission and independent standards organizations.
Good Reason: 58 percent.
Bad Reason: 27 percent.
Argument: Wireless phones are used to place one-half million emergency calls per month to 911 numbers around the country. Good Reason: 87 percent. Bad Reason: 10 percent.
A second set of informational items was more specifically focused on features of the wireless sites themselves.
Question: Here are some specific features of wireless antennas that might be located in residential areas. For each of these, please note whether you approve or disapprove of that particular feature.
Argument: Wireless antennas are between 65 and 150 feet in height. Approve:
47 percent.
Disapprove: 43 percent.
Argument: Wireless antennas could be disguised as trees or made to look like a part of a building. Approve: 69 percent. Disapprove: 27 percent.
Argument: The wireless industry tries where it can to make antennas fit in with the character of the neighborhood in which they are located.
Approve: 76 percent.
Disapprove: 18 percent.
Argument: Wireless signals are low power radio waves.
Approve: 73 percent.
Disapprove: 15 percent.
Finally, the following displays the results of a series of agree/disagree items. These items were written to test possible themes, messages or slogans that might be used in a public relations campaign to support the siting of wireless antennas in neighborhoods.
For each of the following statements, please note whether you agree or disagree …
Argument: As long as it fits in to the character of the neighborhood, I don’t object to having a wireless antenna in my neighborhood.
Agree: 66 percent.
Disagree: 30 percent.
Argument: I am going to be opposed to having a wireless tower in my neighborhood until I know more about it.
Agree: 69 percent.
Disagree: 27 percent.
Argument: We need to do whatever it takes to keep up with demand for wireless technology.
Agree: 59 percent.
Disagree: 39 percent.
Argument: Wireless phones are important and a decline in service levels is just not acceptable to me.
Agree: 57 percent.
Disagree: 34 percent.
Argument: I support the need for good wireless service, but I just don’t want one of those broadcast antennas in my neighborhood.
Agree: 50 percent.
Disagree: 47 percent.
Argument: We should encourage wireless technology because it is a clean non-polluting industry that is an important part of the coming information superhighway:
Agree: 72 percent.
Disagree: 20 percent.
Argument: We need to allow expansion of the wireless antenna system because police, fire and ambulances depend on them:
Agree: 73 percent.
Disagree: 21 percent.
Argument: It is important to have a wireless technology that can meet demand because it may be the only way to get help if phone lines are down after a storm or in case of a power failure:
Agree: 85 percent.
Disagree: 13 percent.
W
e conducted a series of statistical analyses to find out which of these items, or groups of items, were most effective in persuading people to support siting wireless antennas in their neighborhoods.
The results indicate that the questions that were most related
with a positive shift in attitudes were those having to do with a description of the antennas themselves.
Winning argument
In other words, it appears that the strategy most likely to persuade people to allow antennas into their neighborhoods is the assurance that carriers won’t disrupt the character of the neighborhood. The persuasion is to disguise antennas or make them part of other structures. Also important in this regard is the fact that wireless antennas send low power radio waves. Finally, it appears that the emergency uses of wireless technology are persuasive to people, although not as important as the assurance that antennas will not disrupt neighborhoods.
A final issue we examined concerns spokesperson credibility. We asked a question specifically focused on the relation between health and wireless technology, and found that a local university professor, as well as the wireless industry itself, were the most credible spokespersons.
Question: One issue having to do with wireless technology is safety and health risks. To inform yourself about scientific studies on this subject, which of the following would you be most likely to trust:
A Harvard professor: 13 percent.
A government scientist: 7 percent.
A local university professor: 33 percent.
A wireless industry expert: 30 percent.
Interestingly, different groups had approximately the same reactions to these spokespersons. Although there were some differences, both supporters and opponents of siting wireless antennas in neighborhoods rated local university professors and industry experts as the most credible. In addition, when a tower is supported by authority-opinion leaders, police, emergency services and civic organizations-use that authority.
Incorporated in every winning public affairs campaign are keys to persuasion-tools of influence that can help motivate people to support a project and take action. We will discuss these tools together with proven strategies in the final article.
This article concludes the results of the 1997 National Wireless Opinion Poll. The last installment in this series will offer concrete strategies applying the findings from the poll to help achieve faster and easier siting. For a copy of the complete 200-page opinion poll including all questions, results and cross-tabs, or to receive a company profile, call TynanGroup Inc., 2927 De La Vina St., Santa Barbara, CA 93105, (805) 898-0567, fax (805) 898-9897.
