Tag Archives: persuasion

The First Step Toward Persuasion is Getting Someone’s Attention – The Idea Behind those Quiet John Hancock Commercials

In my classes (I teach speech) I teach that persuasion is to change someone’s mind, attitude, or behavior.  Of course, I can never change anyone’s mind, attitude, or behavior.  And neither can anyone else.  The best we can do is to provide the message so that an individual can change his or her own mind, attitude, or behavior.

And persuasion is the whole ball game.  In a marriage, in a family, in a job, in sales and marketing, I am always trying to get the other person (my wife, my children, my boss, my customer) to agree with me.

You may have noticed – we have a lot of messages thrown our way.  A whole lot.  And the message clutter is perpetually overwhelming.  Getting someone to pay attention to “my message” over the noise of all the other messages is a great step toward persuasion.  But this is no small task.

Quiet in the midst of noise -- from John Hancock

Which is why this is really interesting.  Slate.com has an article about those quiet, understated John Hancock ads: Soft Sell:  Why quiet, understated TV ads are so effective by Seth Stevenson.

These ads have been airing for almost two years now. They continue to be the quietest moments you’ll find anywhere on television (save for the occasional CBS Sunday Morning segment consisting solely of static wheat-field footage). “The reality is that very few people only watch TV today—they watch while they’re reading a magazine, looking at email, or answering a text,” says Jim Bacharach, vice president of brand communications for John Hancock. “What we have found, and confirmed in our tracking studies, is that the quiet of our ads makes people lift their heads and look up.”

Getting someone to look up, to listen, is a great first step.  And until that happens, persuasion is simply impossible.


The Long View vs. The Short View; or, the old “Forest for the Trees” issue – A Reflection on Learning from Reading Books

I have actually read a fair amount of Aristotle.  Not in the original language (although, a little bit of that too).  But in my graduate work in rhetoric, we had to read Aristotle.  And he is really, really important.  But, now, centuries later, his main ideas are usually summarized by others.  And the summaries are accessible, make sense, and are profound.  For many, a good summary is enough – enough information, enough to launch the thought processes that lead to real-world ideas and changes for the better.

From Aristotle, for example:  to be persuasive (rhetoric is all about finding the available means of persuasion), you need logos (a good logical argument), ethos (a good ethical case/argument — true credibility on the part of the speaker/writer), and pathos (a good emotional argument – an engaging “this matters to me” by the speaker/writer).  And a few others back from around the time of era of Aristotle add the power of a fourth element, mythos (the narrative appeal – this rings true to our story as a people/nation/company…).  Now Aristotle wrote on many other themes, but you get the point.  A person writes a book.  Others read it.  And with the passage of time, they are able to summarize, really effectively, the truths and principles and insights from books.  And it helps us understand.

I thought of all this as I read this excellent summary of a series of recent books on the financial crisis. What Caused the Economic Crisis?  The 15 best explanations for the Great Recession by Jacob Weisberg.  (from Slate.com and Newsweek – I read it on the Slate site).

Though the crisis is recent, there is a large number of books proposing explanations for the economic crisis with clear themes and explanations proposed for consideration.  Weisberg summarizes many of these, dividing the suggested explanations into themes and explanations, and concludes with this phrase:

But if we haven’t at least learned that our financial markets need stronger regulatory supervision and better controls to prevent bad bets by big firms from going viral, we’ll be back in the same place before you can say 30 times leverage.

I think the article is worth reading.  I have perused a few of the books mentioned, and the article does a good job summarizing the key explanations.  And learning these is important – we would really like to dig out of this crisis, and certainly to avoid similar crises in the future.

But the purpose of this post is more about the process of reading books and then learning something important from what we read.  None of us (ok – very few of us) can remember all that we read.  But we can remember key points, extract the most important principles and themes, and then allow these to inform our thinking and direct our practice.  That is why we read (at least, why we read nonfiction and business books) – to learn, to keep learning.

I have learned this from my own experience from reading, and presenting synopses of, business books.   In the last few months, I have read Outliers (Gladwell) and Talent is Overrated (Colvin), and learned that it takes 10,000 hours to get really, really good at something, and that those hours have to be spent in deliberate practice – practice for the purpose of getting better.  I have read 10-10-10 by Suzy Welch, learning that decisions can be better made if we look at their impact in the next 10 minutes, 10 months, and 10 years.  I have read The Opposable Mind (Martin) and discovered that to make the best decisions we need to hold two opposing ideas in our heads at the same time.

These are just a few of the “summaries” that I think of just from the last few months.  Are these books worth reading in their entirety?  Absolutely.  But with all of the stories, supporting information and data in the books, it is the key principles that matter, that shape my thinking, and that I remember most from reading these books.

More on Persuasion — a Follow Up to Bob’s Q #122: How to become more persuasive?

(Note to our readers — normally I would simply leave a comment on Bob’s blog post, but this one needs more room).

I really liked Bob’s post, Q #122:  How to become more persuasive. There is nothing I disagreed with, but here are some thoughts I would like to add to the conversation.

Much of what he said is confirmed by the great thinkers in rhetoric.  Aristotle spoke of the three primary means of persuasion:  logos (the logical appeal), pathos (the emotional appeal), and ethos (the ethical appeal).  Bob spoke of four critical factors, including (in shorthand form) credibility, pathos/passion leading to a deep emotional connection between speaker and audience, and other great bridge-building traits that connect speaker to audience.

At the heart of ethos is the idea of, the centrality of, credibility.  Here’s a simple and compelling illustration.  Normally, the better speaker (i.e., the more dynamic speaker) is the most persuasive.  But if the subject discussed is airline safey, no one could match the current credibility of Chesley Sullenberger (the pilot who landed a plane successfully in the Hudson River).  Though he is also a clear and compelling communicator, his credibility is so far off the charts that his persuasive abilities in the arena of airline safety would truly be unmatched.

But, as persuasive as these factors are, there is a step that comes before them all.  This step is what the ancients described by the word stasis:  bringing the audience to a complete standstill in their thinking.  In order for anyone to be persuaded to change in any way — in their thinking, their attitude, their behavior — the audience member has to understand:  “something is wrong about my current state. My thinking is off; my behavior is not working; my attitude is contributing to the problem.” As long as a person thinks all is ok as it is, no persuasion is possible.  Stasis is that moment when a speaker helps the individual stop and think:  “I have got to make a change!” When that happens, and only when that happens, will persuasion then become possible.

Bob’s post provides great tools to help that happen — to bring the person to that moment of standstill, and then to point to a new direction.

But bringing the audience/the person to a moment of true stasis — to a true moment of standstill, and the acknowledgement and realization that something has to change — that is the great challenge of persuasion.