Because the goal of advocacy-oriented genres is to change the laws of the land, they have to address those people best able to take the right actions and make those changes. In a democracy like the U.S., there are a variety of possible target audiences, and each one changes the kind of writing we have to undertake. Nearly all audiences have to be convinced that the social problem addressed by a specific law is important, which is why most advocacy-oriented writing starts off with some facts and figures about a social ill, and who suffers from it. However, if our audience is “legislators themselves” (as in an advocacy letter or email) or “voters in this district” (as in a position paper or editorial) we will need to speak as quickly, clearly, and simply as possible. These are people whose attention we cannot keep for long, and we will have to work hard to get and hang onto it—so sometimes a quick anecdote (a very short narrative) about a personal experience or example client case can establish human interest, and keep the audience reading. By contrast, if our audience is “legislative staff-members” or “other social work academics engaged in advocacy work” (as in a policy analysis) we can—and should—take longer to build up our case, working more meticulously with the available data, and avoiding using personal anecdotes to get attention. In all cases, we will want to write with specificity and precision, and use reliable factual information to support arguments about what is happening, or what is wrong.