News
What we’ve learned from chatting with active audiences about the wildfires and climate change
At Komons, we’ve been working for several months on a new tool designed to make the complexity of digital conversations easier to understand. Its goal is to help us better grasp how narratives are constructed, which stories dominate, and what emotions are driving engagement.
Over the past few weeks, we tested the tool in a highly sensitive context: the conversation around wildfires in Spain and their connection to the climate crisis.
Although the tool is still evolving, it’s already showing enormous potential to improve social communication, explore narrative disputes, and enable collective learning.
1. Thank you for using the tool
More than 100 interactions so far show that the tool is already delivering value. You’ve used it to:
Compare narratives and contrast different viewpoints.
Seek explanations about causes and responsibilities.
Explore collective emotions around the climate emergency.
Even test campaign messages to see how they resonate across different audiences.
2. How we used the bots
Each bot represents a distinct active audience — for example, Forest Guardians, Progressive Watchdogs, Conservative Bloc, Frustrated Citizenship, Concerned Communicators, or Outraged Patriots.
From the questions asked, we identified three main motivations behind using the tool:
A. Understanding causes and contrasting narratives
Many users asked questions like:
“Are the wildfires caused by climate change?”
“What role does the climate play in worsening fires?”
The responses varied significantly depending on the audience:
For some, climate change is a central factor driving the intensity and frequency of wildfires (Progressive Watchdogs, Concerned Communicators).
Others focused on the lack of prevention and forest management (Forest Guardians).
Meanwhile, some considered climate change an “excuse” used for political gain, blaming institutional negligence and arson instead (Conservative Bloc, Outraged Patriots).
📌 Key takeaway: The chatbot helps reveal where consensus exists and where disputes arise. For example, while some audiences discuss “climate justice” (Concerned Communicators), others denounce “political abandonment” (Outraged Patriots), guiding us toward better-adapted messages.
B. Seeking solutions and assigning responsibilities
Another recurring theme was who should act and how:
“What should the government do?”
“Who holds more responsibility — the central or regional governments?”
“What role can citizens play in prevention?”
Despite different narratives about the causes, we found strong consensus on solutions:
More investment in prevention, forest cleaning, and resource allocation (Forest Guardians, Concerned Communicators)
Stronger support for firefighters and local communities (Frustrated Citizenship, Progressive Watchdogs).
Better coordination between administrations (Conservative Bloc).
📌 Key takeaway: Even with opposing views on why fires happen, audiences largely agree on structural solutions: prevention, resources, and coordinated management.
C. Testing campaign strategies and messages
One of the most surprising findings was how many users used the bots to test campaign messaging before launching it.
For example, someone asked:
- “Give me five messages to convince you that wildfires are increasing due to the climate crisis.”
We found a clear pattern: most testing focused on adapting messages for conservative audiences (Conservative Bloc). Key insights:
Messages work better when they highlight local prevention and community action (farmers, ranchers, firefighters), avoiding overly alarmist tones.
Narratives focused solely on climate change trigger rejection among more skeptical audiences.
Adapting tone and vocabulary to each audience significantly increases receptivity and reduces confrontation.
📌 Key takeaway: The tool acts as a narrative experimentation lab, especially valuable for designing effective, audience-specific messaging in polarized contexts.
3. Key insights
After analyzing all interactions, here are the five main takeaways:
The chatbot reveals narrative disputes — for example, Progressive Watchdogs prioritize the climate frame, while Outraged Patriots reject it.
Emotions drive engagement — frustration dominates among Frustrated Citizenship and Outraged Patriots, while Concerned Communicators emphasize solidarity and hope.
There’s a shared demand for solutions — diverse audiences (Forest Guardians, Conservative Bloc, Progressive Watchdogs) converge on calls for more prevention and resources.
Bots enable quick message testing — highly useful for adapting narratives to conservative audiences without escalating conflict.
The data creates collective intelligence — sharing these insights helps the entire community communicate more empathetically and strategically.
4. Looking Ahead
The most valuable part of this phase is seeing how collective interaction generates shared intelligence. Tools like this help us:
Understand how narratives are created and spread
Refine our strategic communication in complex contexts.
Learn together, responding more effectively to crises and polarized debates.
As we continue developing the tool, your feedback will guide new features and help unlock its full potential — driving creativity, collaboration, and collective learning.