I’m continuing to explore what it takes to launch regulatory/public affairs campaigns quickly. Over the last few weeks, I’ve explored new frameworks and concepts I’m stitching together that would let me launch a campaign within 72 hours, not 72 days. If you have skipped over my recent posts on the topic, let me get you caught up in three bullets. To launch a minimum viable campaign, you need:
The Win Theory (Define the win and how you’ll get there)
The Arena Map (Assess which game you’re playing, how to get in, and how to win)
The Yes Math. (A person-by-person accounting of who you need to win over)
What comes next? The case. The message. Here, a well-known framework works very well when you have little time: The Message House. You’ll want to scroll down to step four to see what I add to this common framework.
The Message House
I’ve written about the Message House before, when I laid out a series of prompts you could use with AI to develop your message house quickly. But in the spirit of building on this series and keeping things in good order, allow me to revisit this concept for newer subscribers.
Your campaign always needs a crisp, repeatable story that makes your ask as easy as possible to say yes to. A message house is a simple framework you can use to ensure your messaging is clear, consistent, and effective across all campaign channels. It has three components:
Roof: one sentence that captures what you want + why it helps the public + why it’s workable now.
Walls: three to four short, proof-backed pillars a decision-maker can repeat.
Foundation: three to five auditable proofs (numbers, examples, pilots) that sit under the walls.
Developing your Message House
Time Needed: 1 hour
Step 1: Write the Roof
A great roof is specific, public-minded, and operational. It’s tempting to sell your company, but avoid that temptation, as it will turn decision-makers and the public away. Instead, you need the roof to make the decision-maker’s job easy. Aim for 15-25 words. Kill any adjectives you can’t prove.
Formula:
Ask + Public benefit + Workable now
“Adopt [exact change] so [group] gets [clear benefit], and do it [in a way that’s feasible now].”
As you build out the roof, stress test your draft with the echo test:
A skeptic can restate it accurately
No jargon, no hedge words
One concrete public benefit
Specific action and timeline
How this would look if you’re in the hypothetical hot seat of the food and beverage company:
“Phase the ‘High in Sugar’ warning from 12 to 10g/100ml over 24 months, and allow a 10mm icon on bottles of 350ml and smaller, so families see a clear warning and small retailers can relabel without waste.”
This passes the echo test because it:
Is specific and clear about what's being requested (changing sugar warning threshold from 12 to 10g/100ml over a specific timeframe).
Avoids jargon and uses straightforward language
Includes the public benefit (families see clear warnings)
Addresses workability (allows 24 months for transition and accommodates small retailers)
Step 2: Erect the Walls
Walls are the three or four reasons your ask is sensible. Each wall is a single, short sentence that pairs a claim with a proof you can show on a chart. Good walls should be easy to quote or recite by decision-makers. And while you can spend time designing your own walls, you can save time by using one of these reliable, pre-fabricated walls:
Clarity/Outcomes: This wall focuses on the tangible results your proposal will achieve. Use specific metrics when possible: "Our plan will reduce sugar consumption by 15% among children under 12, preventing an estimated 2,000 cases of childhood diabetes annually."
Feasibility/Execution: This wall addresses how realistic and implementable your proposal is: "The 24-month phase-in period gives manufacturers sufficient time to adjust labels and reformulate products, with 92% of companies reporting they can meet this timeline based on our industry survey."
Fairness/Proportionality: This wall emphasizes how your proposal distributes benefits and burdens equitably: "The adjusted warning threshold creates a level playing field for all manufacturers while giving smaller businesses flexibility with the 10mm icon option for products under 350ml."
Accountability/Proof: This wall showcases your commitment to measuring progress and making adjustments as needed: "We will publish quarterly compliance reports showing adoption rates across the industry and collect consumer feedback to ensure warnings are having the intended educational impact."
Consistency/Precedent: This wall highlights similar successful implementations or examples that support your approach: "The 10g/100ml warning threshold has already been successfully implemented in three neighbouring markets, with manufacturers reporting minimal disruption to their production processes and distribution chains."
Step 3: Strengthen the Foundation
Your foundation is three to five auditable proofs that sit under the walls. Each proof is a chart + one-line takeaway + source. If you can’t trace a number, it doesn’t go in.
Use specific numbers: "Implementation costs drop by 42% when companies can phase in label changes over 24 months instead of 12, according to our 2024 supply chain analysis."
Include validated research: "A 2023 manufacturing efficiency study shows gradual implementation reduces production line downtime by 67% compared to rushed compliance deadlines."
Cite real examples: "When Chile adopted a phased approach to sugar warnings, 94% of small manufacturers met compliance deadlines without disrupting their distribution chains."
Show broad support: "Our industry survey reveals 81% of retailers support the stepped implementation plan, with stronger support (92%) among small businesses with limited resources."
Demonstrate public benefit: "Consumer research shows the 24-month approach maintains the same health awareness benefits while preventing temporary product shortages that occurred in markets with rushed implementation."
Add footnotes to for all your sources, specify methodology where appropriate, and keep your visuals clean. Every proof should map to a wall.
Step 4: Pre-bake rebuttals
Many teams will stop at step 3 and lock in their Message House. I personally think a Message House is useless if it can’t handle contact with adversarial messaging. Every single campaign will have its message attacked. Rather than get caught flat-footed, take the time now to write the five most likely attacks, and answer them with a tight, repeatable pattern:
Flip —> Frame —> Fact —> Finish
Flip the attack by acknowledging the concern without accepting the premise
Frame the issue on your terms, shifting to your preferred terrain
Fact to back up your frame with a specific proof point
Finish by returning to your primary message and solution
Keep each to two lines, and pair each with one validator who can say it credibly.
How this would look if you’re in the hypothetical hot seat of the food and beverage company:
Attack: "This is just the industry trying to avoid stronger regulations."
Flip: We all want effective warning labels that protect public health.
Frame: This proposal actually strengthens consumer protection by ensuring warnings are consistent, visible, and implementable across all products.
Fact: Our consumer research shows 94% of shoppers will see and understand these warnings, compared to only 78% with the current inconsistent approach.
Finish: This phased implementation gets us to better public health outcomes while preventing supply disruptions.
Validator: Public Health Association representative who supports practical implementation
Attack: "Your plan weakens standards and delays implementation."
Flip: Everyone wants timely, effective implementation.
Frame: This approach actually ensures wider compliance by creating an achievable timeline.
Fact: When similar warnings were rushed in Brazil, 31% of small producers couldn't meet deadlines, creating market gaps.
Finish: Our plan ensures consistent warnings across all products without market disruption.
Validator: Small Business Federation representative
Attack: "Small warning icons are too easy to miss."
Flip: Warning visibility is indeed crucial.
Frame: Our proposal maintains visibility while accounting for physical constraints.
Fact: Eye-tracking studies show the 10mm icon on small containers receives 96% of the attention of standard warnings.
Finish: This solution ensures warnings work effectively across all package sizes.
Validator: Consumer Research Institute director
What comes next? Your Coalition Spine. I’ll be back in a week with more details.