To build on these early impressions, we tested a series of communication prototypes to explore what kinds of messaging best support awareness, trust, and personal relevance. The prototypes we used moved from national messaging to more local and personal invitations (see the ‘What did we do’ chapter to view the prototypes). 

Across interviews, several themes emerged about what helps (or hinders) confidence in the introduction of a clean heat transition. The insights map closely to the signals we were tracking: trust, comprehension and appetite. In this section, we unpack how different ways of introducing the idea shaped people’s reactions.

Prototype 1: national campaign poster – “What is this?”

At this early stage, the signal was awareness. The poster introduced clean heat neighbourhoods at a macro level: the idea that change is coming. But on its own, the message landed with uncertainty. Many participants struggled with the terminology or intent: 

“I see that and wonder what does ‘clean heat neighbourhoods’ mean?” “There’s a sense of it being a mandate rather than opportunity. Almost feels like an enforcement.” “Sounds futuristic…should I be concerned?”

Several noted that without context or explanation, the phrase ‘clean heat’ raised questions: What does clean heat mean? What’s being proposed? “It’s telling you that clean heat is coming – but a lot of people might not know what that means.”

Trust, however, was supported by the messenger. Government logos conveyed some credibility: “Seeing a government logo would give me confidence in whatever the scheme was.” “Feels reassuring and comforting that it’s a government initiative.”

Still, most expected more clarity from the outset, not just legitimacy: “Nothing stands out from this advert, needs more information really.” “I would expect much more information. I would expect communication to come from the local council. I don’t think it’s something for me to go and find out about, I think it’s something I should be contacted about and informed of.”…something I should be contacted about and informed of.”

Some version of engagement started to form when participants viewed the video ad, when the message hinted at practical relevance, particularly around energy bills: “I connect more with this as it mentions ‘bills’ and I’m definitely interested in saving.” “When it says managing your bills and heating your home, it immediately pulls you in, economic situation isn’t great.”

Prototype 2: local council leaflet – “Is this for me?”

The second touchpoint shifted scale and messenger, simulating a more local message from the council. The aim was to deepen the message, bring it closer to home and clarify participation. This stage helped in several ways. Participants welcomed the added detail: “Good to see details without having to guess.” “Makes me curious…it’s more than just an idea.”

In addition, having the local council as the sender improved trust: “Wouldn’t feel bad if it came from the local council, they’ve done their research.” “People don't have much trust in the government either, but you wouldn't have any trust in an external company, because you wouldn't really know who they are. So maybe that's why you would expect council.” “It should really only come from the council.”

However, clarity remained uneven. Some still questioned the intended audience, and the confusion increased for others with the introduction of the council logo: “Is this just about social housing?” “I am getting the impression that the new houses will have this new system in place.” This shows that while legitimacy and locality matter, so does specificity. Without clear eligibility, people may exclude themselves by assumption. 

Some expressed they’d take action to find out more: “If it had a QR code I would scan to find out more”, but for others, there were lingering questions about next steps: “No idea what to expect next. You don’t see any sort of timeline.” “I don’t think the onus should be on me to go and find out about this. I expect the council to come to me about it.”

And finally, even though added detail was appreciated, information gaps began to show. Participants wanted to understand practicalities: What does installation involve? How much will it cost? “I'm thinking what does it mean for me, how long will it take to switch over, what's the digging around the system, how much is it going to cost me.” “How can I get involved, what’s the commitment from me, what am I giving, what do I expect.” “Can everybody afford this change?” “How can I get involved, what’s the commitment from me, what am I giving, what do I expect?”

Prototype 3: letter through the door – “This is for me”

The final touchpoint zoomed in further, simulating a letter addressed to the household. This grounded the message in individual experience – and in many cases, marked the first moment participants felt the initiative applied to them directly: “Now that our home has been included…I know it’s for me.” “Happy that the letter is addressed to me.” “This would tell me that the local authorities are serious about this.”

By this point, confidence shifted towards action. Participants described what they would do next – talk to neighbours, visit the website, contact the advisor: “Would want to talk to neighbours about it and see if we want to do it together.” “I’d do my own research.” “I’d contact the advisor.” 

At the same time, the need for detail didn’t go away. The questions got sharper: “What does ‘group savings’ mean?” “I’d be curious how everyone is brought together, whether it's something that we'd have to do ourselves or if it's something that's taken out of our hands by someone and made easy?” “My home is included, what does good look like? At what point is this going to be introduced and what is the cost as a homeowner? Is it free to us or is there a cost we need to consider? And also, are we able to opt out because we can't afford it? What are the payment options? What incentives do you have?”. 

Participants also showed much greater appetite when benefits were clearly spelled out. Most focused on the bullet points in the letter – highlighting cost, coordination and support. “The bullet points were very helpful – especially ‘group savings’ and ‘dedicated support’.” “The letter gives you the opportunity to do something you thought was way too expensive.” “This letter will be more relevant to encourage most people to take action, from seeing that there’s cost savings.”

Finally, cost was still a major concern for people, who were asking about grants and incentives, and seeking examples that show this will be financially better for them: “I would expect to see some sort of grant." “I’d want examples on how it's going to be financially better for me as well.” “How is it any different if there's not a grant or financial incentive with something to get you to do it. It's something you can do on your own, it's not anything new.” “Some people are used to the way they do things, and because of that they're not willing to change. What sort of encouragement are you giving to them to make them understand this is the best way forward?”