Occupy Wall Street is close to entering its third month of protest in downtown Manhattan, though as of this writing the protesters have been cleared out of Zuccotti Park (incidentally, the park is now as clean as we have ever seen it). The movement has spawned parallel gatherings in cities around the world, ensuring continued media attention. Despite lack of organized leadership, it has raised enough money to buy national television airtime.

For those who market to the affluent, it’s wise to understand the dynamics at play here. Nearly four years after the recession began, the economy continues to suffer: Continued high rates of unemployment, a volatile stock market, underwater real estate, and an increasing lack of trust in financial institutions and the political system fuel both pessimism and skepticism among consumers. Regardless of what you think about the street theater, OWS reflects and amplifies widely held beliefs. Polls consistently show that a significant number of Americans support the movement: The United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll found that 59% of Americans either agree or mostly agree with the goals of OWS.

To paraphrase Mayor Michael Bloomberg, it’s time for the protesters to occupy Wall Street with their ideas, not their tents and sleeping bags.

To drill deeper, we at HNW wanted to ask the most affluent Americans—the top 1%, in the parlance of the protesters—what they thought of the OWS movement and its message. In this fast WealthPulse poll, we surveyed 100 individuals, all of whom make more than $350,000 (putting them, statistically, in the top 1% of income earners) and who hold investable assets of $1 million or more. (If measured by net worth alone, it would require $9 million in assets to be considered the top 1%. While a portion of our respondents fit that criterion, we are basing our definition on income, as do many of the OWS protesters.)

The portrait that arises is clear: The affluent are hard-working professionals made wealthy by their own efforts and talents, and they feel the rich are being unjustly demonized in the rhetoric surrounding the OWS protests. At the same time, their faith in financial institutions has been shaken, but their faith in the government to fix what ails this economy is almost nonexistent. They still maintain that the financial services firms they work with can be part of the solution, if those firms can make more of an effort to communicate and engage in the ongoing debate and respond to their critics, as opposed to turning a blind eye and taking their clients and customers for granted.

WHO ARE THE WEALTHY?

Only half the respondents consider themselves part of the 1%, an even split that remains regardless of levels of affluence: Those with $10 million in investable assets were just as likely to say the same thing as those with a mere $1 million. Almost all (95%) are either somewhat familiar or very familiar with OWS, while 71% say they have been following it moderately or very closely. Yet two-thirds (65%) consider it a flash in the pan that will go away.

THEY DON’T SYMPATHIZE, BUT . . .

More than two-thirds (68%) don’t sympathize with the movement, based on everything they’ve seen and heard.

Yet while they clearly don’t hold the protests themselves in much regard, the members of the 1% hold some of the same views espoused by the protesters—namely, half think the power of large financial institutions should be more heavily regulated, and the majority think the corporate and financial leaders who bear responsibility for the financial crisis should be prosecuted.

The affluent feel, as do many Americans, that some Wall Street banks have yet to face a full reckoning for creating the kind of complex financial products that, were it not for the U.S. taxpayer, would have brought down the entire system. Wealth marketers may find that when communicating to their primary target audience, an undercurrent of humility may be more appreciated than aggressive bravado.

THEY ACKNOWLEDGE A WEALTH GAP

Also in agreement with the OWS movement in spirit, if not in posture, the affluent understand there is a wealth gap. Almost 7 in 10 think it exists, as defined by a “disparity in the distribution of assets and income among individuals.” This acknowledgement of the gap, regardless of whether they think it is a problem, points to awareness among affluent clients and customers that the U.S. is not a “classless” society; rather, there is a financial elite. Of those who believe there is a wealth gap, 61% believe it is a problem for our society.

Yet, in contrast to the OWS protesters, 69% think that members of that financial elite, or “those who have done better financially,” are “unjustly demonized.” In other words, there may be a wealth gap, but it’s not the fault of the wealthy.

FAITH IN FINANCIAL INSTUTIONS IS BRUISED; FAITH IN GOVERNMENT IS ALL BUT DEAD

Six in 10 of our respondents use a financial advisor, and half say the advisor works for a regional or national firm that could be considered “Wall Street.” Yet only 30% believe their primary financial services firm is “part of the perceived problem.”

Yet almost 6 in 10 (57%) say that these “Wall Street” firms should be making more of an effort to respond thoughtfully to the complaints of groups like OWS; almost 2 in 10 say these firms should be making more of an effort to refute the messages of the OWS protesters. Clearly, the affluent hold little hope for the government to solve our economic doldrums. Only half (46%) think the government needs to do more to stimulate the economy; a full 61% say they would be unwilling to pay more in taxes because “the government would fail to put it to good use.”

There are contradictions in the attitudes and beliefs of the one percenters, and wealth marketers have an opportunity to lead and help shape the ongoing dialogue. While the presence of individuals in city centers across the country may dissipate over the winter months, in some cases with the assistance of the police, the underlying frustrations and issues likely will not. That could damage national financial services brands further, or it could provide an opportunity for a fuller, more sympathetic and fruitful engagement in the public debate.