Messaging Through Conflict and Growing a City Despite Fear
Updated: 6 days ago
Key takeaways
|
How do you message growth when the people you're talking to are afraid of what growth will cost them?
This is Mayor Webster Lincoln's daily challenge in East Palo Alto. He's advocated for business incubators and technology partnerships, the kind of economic development that could transform the city's tax base and create opportunities for residents. But he's also argued passionately against displacement, because the growth East Palo Alto needs must not come at the expense of the community that makes it worth growing.
On Magnetic, I asked Mayor Lincoln how he navigates this messaging tension. And I was clear that I wasn't asking about public policy. I was asking about the communication challenge of balancing conflicting objectives while remaining authentic.
What does messaging through conflict mean?
Messaging through conflict means communicating a change to an audience that has good reason to fear it, by naming that fear specifically instead of talking around it. Rather than leading with benefits, you acknowledge what people stand to lose, show you understand it from their side, and then explain how your plan protects them. Credibility comes from the acknowledgment, not the pitch. |
His answer is one of the most practically useful segments in the entire episode, because this isn't a problem unique to local government. Every B2B company navigating a platform migration faces it. Every SaaS product that's sunsetting a legacy feature faces it. Every organization going through a digital transformation faces it. The message is always some version of "change is coming, and it's good for you", delivered to an audience that has every reason to be suspicious.
Why can't you message around fear?
Mayor Lincoln's insight is that you can't message around fear. You have to message through it. Acknowledging the fear isn't weakness. It's the only path to credibility. The moment you dismiss or minimize the concerns of the people you're trying to move forward, you've lost them. The guide to brand narrative strategy goes deeper.
But if you can name the fear specifically, demonstrate that you understand it from the inside, and then show how your approach addresses it, you build the kind of trust that actually enables change.
How do you apply it to migration and change messaging?
For product marketers, this translates to how you handle migration messaging. Don't just sell the benefits of the new platform. Acknowledge what customers are giving up, the risk they're taking, and the disruption they'll experience during the transition. Then show them how you've mitigated each one.
For change management communicators, it translates to how you frame organizational transformation. Don't just paint the vision of the future state. Honor the legitimate attachment people have to the current state and the real costs of change.
What is the four-step framework for messaging through conflict?
Mayor Lincoln's approach breaks down into a sequence you can use on any change announcement. The order matters, because each step earns the right to deliver the next one. Online reputation management for AI covers more.
Step one is to name the fear in the audience's own words. Not "some customers may experience a brief adjustment period," but "you're worried this migration will break the integrations your team spent two years building." Generic acknowledgment reads as a disclaimer. Specific acknowledgment reads as understanding. Pull the language from support tickets, sales call notes, and community threads, because that's where people describe the fear honestly.
Step two is to prove you understand it from the inside. Explain why the fear is reasonable. If a previous migration went badly, say so. If the old feature is the reason some customers chose you in the first place, say that too. This is the step most companies skip, and it's the one that decides whether the rest of the message gets heard.
Step three is to answer each risk you named. Every fear needs a concrete response (a timeline, a rollback option, a dedicated contact, a guarantee). If you can't fully mitigate a risk, say what you're doing about it anyway. A fear you leave out of the message doesn't disappear. It just gets discussed without you in the room.
Step four is to make the case for the change. The benefits come last, not first. By this point the audience knows you see what they're giving up, so the upside lands as a reason rather than a sales pitch.
What are the common mistakes when messaging change to a skeptical audience?
The failures follow a pattern. Leading with the vision before acknowledging the cost. Using softened words like transition or evolution that tell people they're being managed. Burying the hard news in a FAQ nobody reads. And announcing once, then going quiet, which leaves the rumor mill to fill the silence. Mayor Lincoln's approach works because it treats the audience's concern as information, not resistance. Learn more about messaging across personas.
The same principle runs through the rest of our conversation. It shows up in how he handles messaging across personas when the audience spans a 40-year experience gap, and in his executive buy-in strategy for rooms that start out skeptical. If a message still isn't landing after you've acknowledged the fear, his framework for deciding when to pivot or persist is the next tool to reach for.
Why does it work in the highest-stakes context?
Mayor Lincoln has lived this in the highest-stakes context imaginable, a community where growth doesn't just mean adopting new software, it means potentially losing your home, your neighborhood, and your culture. If he can message growth to that audience with authenticity and credibility, the principles he shares can work in any context. The guide to competitive positioning lessons from an upset win goes deeper.
Want to watch the clip?
Watch this clip before your next migration announcement, product sunset, or organizational change communication for tips on messaging through conflict.
Planning a migration announcement or a sunset your customers won't like? Book 30 minutes with me and we'll work through the message.
Frequently asked questions
What does messaging through conflict mean?
Messaging through conflict means communicating a change to an audience that has good reason to fear it, by naming that fear specifically instead of talking around it. Rather than leading with benefits, you acknowledge what people stand to lose, show you understand it from their side, and then explain how your plan protects them. Credibility comes from the acknowledgment, not the pitch.
How do you announce a product sunset without losing customers?
Tell customers early, name exactly what they are losing, and give each risk a concrete answer (a migration path, a timeline, and a person to call). Lead with the acknowledgment and save the benefits of the replacement for last. Customers forgive a hard decision far more readily than they forgive feeling managed.
Should you acknowledge customer fears in marketing copy?
Yes, when the change is real and the fear is reasonable. Naming a concern specifically signals that you understand the audience's situation, which is what earns the credibility to make your case. Dismissing or minimizing it does the opposite, and the concern spreads anyway, just without your answer attached.
What is the difference between messaging around fear and messaging through it?
Messaging around fear avoids the concern, softens the language, and leads with benefits in the hope nobody raises the objection. Messaging through it puts the concern at the front, explains why it is legitimate, and shows how the plan addresses it. The first protects the message. The second protects the relationship.
How does change management communication apply to B2B marketing?
Platform migrations, pricing changes, feature retirements, and rebrands are all change management problems with a marketing deliverable attached. The same rules apply. Honor the attachment people have to the current state, be specific about the cost of change, and show the mitigation before the upside.
Why do softened words like "transition" backfire?
Audiences hear them as a sign they're being managed. Words like transition or evolution blur what's actually changing, and people fill the gap with their worst assumptions. Naming the change plainly, including what customers lose, builds more trust than any euphemism.
