The mosque & the brewery: What the US election can teach us about media relations and group identity
All of this Trump-Kamala US election analysis reminds me of a story from our past.
A story about a mosque and a brewery.
A story that ended up being the largest driver of awareness of our brand for many years.
In fact, over a 5-year period, nothing we did peaked regional search results of "Good Robot" more than this story.
Our original brewpub location in Halifax is situated next to the Centre for Islamic Development (CID). In 2016, the Centre attempted to revoke our liquor licence, largely due to noise complaints.
A neighbour complaining about the noise of another neighbour isn't very interesting. And yet, when news broke about this story, it went viral(ish).Both Good Robot and the CID faced backlash.
They were called various slurs and labelled as fundamentalists, anti-business, tax-avoiding religious zealots, and anti-Canadian immigrants trying to impose their way of life.
We were accused of being bigots, racists, drug dealers, capitalist pigs, and supremacists. We were even blamed for attracting gun violence and paedophiles to the area.
Within a day or so, we were on dozens of media, spreading first across Nova Scotia and then Canada and even the US.
All over a noise complaint.
What the hell was happening?
In the book Made To Stick, Harvard professors Chip & Dan Heath explore group identity as one of the primary contributors that define whether an idea, story, or product catches on and sticks.
One example they highlight is the "Don't Mess With Texas" campaign, where popular Texan athletes spread anti-littering messages in a rugged, cowboy-esque manner. When Texans saw these icons cleaning up highway litter while projecting a tough-guy image (because any true Texan wouldn't litter), the message resonated deeply.
As a result, littering was reduced by 72% within 5 years.
Various group identities were at play in our story:
Business
Religion
Community
Canadian
Immigrant
Islam
Secularists
Drinkers
Teetotallers
Liberal
Conservative
Caucasian
Black
Brown
Based on the commentary surrounding the incident, it became easy to identify who was siding with whom based on their group affiliations.
Group identities made this story stick. Anger made it spread.
Anger is a high-arousal emotion—like excitement, anxiety, awe, and fear. High-arousal emotions trigger a fight-or-flight response, prompting actions such as liking, commenting, sharing, reposting, etc. Therefore, high-arousal emotions help drive the virality of content. Dr. Jonah Berger and others have published multiple studies on this phenomenon and concluded that one of the most predictable emotions for driving virality is…
Anger.
We saw similar dynamics during this recent election—and in every election. We attach ourselves to our group(s).
We are assigned—and in some instances choose (consciously or not)—our group identities:
Poor
Rich
College educated
Working class
Conservative
Liberal
Young
Old
Male-identifying
Female-identifying
Rural
Urban
Black
Straight
Queer
White
Third-generation citizen
Recent immigrant
Business person
Community leader
Artist
Student
Tradesperson
In the way a tribe demonstrates in-group favouritism, we show preference to those who share our identities, whether based on politics, culture or other factors.
And, in the way classic tribes demonstrate out-group hostility to potentially threatening outsiders, we develop negative sentiments towards those who don’t share our identity.
So even when we’re discussing two neighbours resolving a noise complaint, when an article headline reads:
“Islamic Centre Wants Brewery’s Liquor Licence Revoked,”
we tend to process it as:
“Group 1 Is Attacking Group 2.”
And we get angry.
We click. We share. We retweet. We comment. We upvote. We like.
Public relations—and media relations in general—are challenging. Any headline can be tweaked and interpreted as pitting one group against another. Just take these three headlines from the front page of CBC today:
"Ukraine can fire U.S. missiles into Russia." [Group 1 can fire Group 2 missiles into Group 3]
"Windsor landlord says tenants who haven't paid 16 months of rent have now paused eviction order." [Group 1 says Group 2 hasn’t…]
"Veterans' group 'deeply concerned' about missing former Canadian Forces officer in Afghanistan." [Group 1 concerned about missing Group 2 in Group 3]
And so it spreads.
The primary difference between where we are today versus our tribal origins is that now membership in certain groups is sometimes voluntary (whereas previously it was typically assigned at birth and based exclusively on geography). Additionally, tribal membership was usually a singular, all-encompassing identity; today we can belong to multiple groups simultaneously.
Regarding the issue between Good Robot Brewing and the Centre for Islamic Development: we brought two groups (and many identities) together.
We met for five hours. They toured us through their facility and explained their frustrations. We countered where we felt unfairly scrutinised and proposed solutions where we believed there was common ground.
Today, we maintain a respectful coexistence.
Group identity is a byproduct of our evolution—one that likely won’t dissipate before we disappear as a species. It impacts all facets of modern life—from the products we consume to the information we digest to the people we cohabitate with.
Tribal traits aren’t inherently bad; group behaviours are necessary for our social connection and ability to relate to one another.
However, if you wish to combat groupthink, one avenue is to seek more information from groups you’re not hearing from.
