Made to Stick

Over the years, polls have shown that the majority of
Americans think the federal government spends too much on foreign
aid. The ratio has dropped toward fifty/fifty since 9/11, but half of
Americans still think we overspend. Let’s look at two arguments that
try to persuade people that we spend too little, not too much.
• • •
M E S S AG E   1 :  
Here is a message from the Intercommunity Peace and
Justice Center, a Catholic advocacy group:
Americans persist in thinking we spend too much on foreign aid
despite honest efforts to inform the public by the State Department
and other government agencies. Even President Bush’s proposed in-
creases, though welcome, will not make the United States generous
in its foreign assistance. In fiscal year 2003, the Bush administration
will spend about $15-billion in foreign aid, but over $7-billion of this
amount—almost half—will be military, not economic assistance. The
$8-billion in foreign economic assistance is, according to a recent es-
timate by the Congressional Budget Office, less than the cost of one
month of war with Iraq. Of all the industrialized nations, the U.S.
spends proportionally the least amount on foreign aid, and has for
many years. All of sub-Saharan Africa receives just over $1-billion of
economic assistance, about the cost of a B-2 bomber. Our foreign
aid programs do not support our belief that we are a nation known
for its good works around the world.
C O M M E N T S   O N   M E S S AG E   1 :  
First, notice that the lead has been buried.
The last sentence is the most effective argument. Americans’ schema
C L I N I C
U N E X P E C T E D
77

---

of the United States is that it is a generous, caring country—“known
for its good works around the world.” The way to break that schema
is to lay out the blunt fact that the United States “spends proportion-
ally the least amount on foreign aid, and has for many years.”
The numbers in billions are unlikely to stick—huge numbers are
difficult to grasp and hard to remember. One effective part of the
message, in combating this “big-number problem,” is the analogy
comparing our sub-Saharan Africa aid to the cost of a single B-2
bomber. We really like this comparison, because it puts the reader in
a decision-making mode: “Would I trade one B-2 bomber for the
chance to double aid to sub-Saharan Africa?”
To make this message stickier, let’s try two things. First, let’s just
reshuffle the great raw materials that are already there while down-
playing the numbers in the billions. Second, let’s choose a concrete
comparison that has a better emotional resonance. Some people
might think B-2 bombers are a reasonable expense. Let’s try to create
a comparison that would be more unexpected because it’s clearly
frivolous.
• • •
M E S S AG E   2 :  
Our foreign-aid programs do not support our belief that
we are a nation known for its good works around the world. The pub-
lic believes we spend a great deal more money helping other coun-
tries than we actually do. Polls suggest that most Americans think the
federal government spends about 10 to 15 percent of its budget on
foreign aid. The truth is that we spend less than 1 percent, the lowest
of any industrialized nation.
All of sub-Saharan Africa receives just over $1 billion in economic
aid. If everyone in the United States gave up one soft drink a month,
we could double our current aid to Africa. If everyone gave up one
movie a year, we could double our current aid to Africa and Asia.
78
M A D E   T O   S T I C K

---

C O M M E N T S   O N   M E S S AG E   2 :  
Here’s what we tried to do to make this
message stickier: First, we built interest by quickly and directly break-
ing our schema of a “generous America.” We also shifted the conver-
sation to percentages, which are easier to understand than billions.
Second, we tried to make the B-2 analogy more concrete by re-
placing it with soft drinks and movies. Soft drinks and movies are
more tangible—does anyone really have a “gut feel” for what a B-2
bomber costs, or what it’s worth? Soft drinks and movies, because
they are frivolous expenses, also provide an emotional contrast to the
critical human needs present in Africa.
S C O R E C A R D