See a photo of Thaler, her bio, Part 1 of this Q&A, and Part 2.

Q: Are there any current uses of storytelling that repel you or that you feel are inappropriate?

A: Advocates must take care to share stories that further their true agenda; it’s too easy to share stories that result in quick fixes as opposed to systemic change and sustainable support. Stories that elicit a purely sympathetic response can ultimately distance people from deeper, societal problems.

I want people to embrace my client’s solution because it is the right thing for them to do, because the solution my client is offering makes perfect sense given their value system. This will elicit a much more profound and lasting response than their doing something because they feel they have to. People don’t want to be told what to do; they want to discover it on their own.

I go into some depth about this in my article, “Framing for Advocacy Communications”, available on the Tools page of my web site.

Also, if non-profit organizations are going to share compelling stories and elicit emotional responses, I implore them to please remember to give the listener something to do!

Too often, audiences are engaged — and then dropped; the story sharer fails to invite the listener to be a part of the solution. I see this, especially, with visual storytelling: too many videos offering up compelling stories but failing to invite the viewer to participate in the solution.

This is the “hand” part of my practical Heart, Head & Hand™ approach to persuasive communications: place something in the listener’s hand at the close of the communication. Invite them to be a part of your solution. For example, ask them to donate, purchase, volunteer, visit, call their Senator, or, simply, think about the issue.