Research Report

Annual Report · Q1 2026

The State of
Persuasion 2026

What moves voters, members, and donors, a synthesis of 500+ message tests across campaigns, unions, advocacy, and nonprofits.

500+ Studies synthesized
18 pts Avg message lift
4 Sectors covered
2 years Of data
Download Full Report (PDF) →
Annual Report · Q1 2026

The State of Persuasion 2026

What moves voters, members, and donors, a synthesis of 500+ message tests.

Grow Progress

Message lift by frame type
Report cover

What's inside

Five chapters. Five years of lessons.

The full report digs into what the data actually says, not what campaigns assume.

  • Frame performance by sector, what works for labor, advocacy, nonprofits, and political campaigns
  • Subgroup variance analysis, how much lift diverges across age, race, partisanship, and geography
  • Inoculation research, new data on pre-empting attacks before they land
  • Speed vs. accuracy tradeoffs, when to test fast and when to go deep
  • 2026 cycle recommendations, five actionable principles drawn from the full dataset

Key findings

5 key findings from 500+ tests

01

Dignity frames outperform transactional frames 3:1 across labor and nonprofit audiences

Messages grounded in dignity, respect, and inherent worth consistently beat messages focused on transactions, benefits, or incentives. The effect holds across age groups and across both member mobilization and donor persuasion contexts. Campaigns anchoring on what people deserve, rather than what they'll receive, generate significantly stronger movement.

+24 pts avg
02

Economic security messaging lands harder with persuadables than economic opportunity

The conventional wisdom says voters want to hear about upward mobility and opportunity. The data says otherwise, at least for the persuadable middle. Security framing (protecting what you have, stability, not being left behind) wins consistently with low-partisanship audiences. Opportunity framing tends to activate base voters without moving the persuadables campaigns actually need.

67% of tests
03

Inoculation pre-treatment reduces attack ad effectiveness by an average of 11 points

When audiences receive a pre-emptive "weakened" version of an expected attack, along with a brief rebuttal, that attack loses significant persuasive power when it actually lands. Grow Progress tested this across 14 studies in the 2025–2026 cycle. The effect is robust across partisan identities and holds even when the inoculation treatment is delivered several days before the attack exposure.

-11 pts
04

Subgroup variance is larger than most campaigns assume, one message rarely wins everywhere

The top-line winner in a message test often masks dramatic differences underneath. In 42% of our studies, the subgroup that responds best to the winning message is also the subgroup least moved by a second message that performs strongly elsewhere. This means one-size-fits-all communication strategies are leaving significant persuasion on the table, especially across racial and generational lines.

42% diverge
05

Speed of testing correlates with campaign performance, orgs that test in-cycle outperform those that don't

Organizations that run message tests during the active campaign period, rather than only in pre-campaign planning, outperform peer organizations by a substantial margin. The ability to pivot messaging in response to new developments, shifting news cycles, and emerging opposition frames is a compounding advantage that builds throughout a campaign cycle.

+31% win rate

By the numbers

Data highlights from the report

Message performance

Top 3 message themes by average lift across all sectors

Dignity +24 pts
Values +19 pts
Stakes +14 pts

Average lift score across all qualifying tests in the 2024–2026 dataset, controlled for sector and audience type.

Testing gap

Campaigns going to air with zero message tests

38%

of campaigns in our dataset ran no message testing before their first major media spend.

"We can fix that."

Organizations that skip pre-cycle testing spend on messages that underperform by an average of 14 points compared to organizations that test before launch.

Method accuracy

RCT vs. focus group, winner prediction accuracy

RCT (randomized controlled) 94%
Focus group (qualitative) 47%

When the predicted winner from each method was matched against RCT field outcomes, RCTs correctly identified the more persuasive message nearly twice as often.

Ready to read the full report?

500+ tests. 4 sectors. 2 years of data. Free to download.