Persuasion isn't dead

When Matt Miller wrote his article asking if persuasion was dead, the country was in a very different political climate than the one we are in today. The nation was divided over many issues and that was emphasized in the 2004 presidential election. It seemed like no one could be convinced to believe anything opposite of what he or she already thought and it wound up being a very close race. However, in order to persuade, someone has to be persuasive to begin with and that’s where both presidential candidates failed. Neither John Kerry nor George W. Bush were very persuasive themselves during the campaign. Bush had the reputation of being a terrible speaker and Kerry wasn’t a strong one either, so it was the people around them and their parties stood for shaped public opinion about them. Yet even in that election persuasion wasn’t completely dead. A group outside of any political party called the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth was able to convince a substantial amount of Americans that Kerry wouldn’t be able to lead as president. Whether the evidence the group had was verifiable or not it did succeed in persuading where the candidates could not.

But with the next election the candidates did the persuading because they didn’t have a choice. Both Barack Obama and John McCain started out their campaigns with very little support and had to work convince not only the American people but members of their own parties to support them. Obama proved to be the more persuasive of the two for example by reaching out to a wider audience via the Internet. One of McCain’s persuasive tactics was to attack Obama based on a weak acquaintance with a former domestic terrorist, but this didn’t work. Ultimately it was the more persuasive candidate that convinced the most people.

Overall, the ability to persuade is largely up to the speaker himself. Some people can present a weak argument so affectively that even if the evidence isn’t true many people can be convinced of that person’s point. Persuasion definitely isn’t dead, it’s just that we don’t always hear the important arguments delivered by persuasive people.

The New Face of Persuasion

During winter break, I went a short road-trip with some friends, and along the way we talked about everything from the latest gossip to current affairs. All four of us share similar views, so at first the conversation went off without any glitches, until the subject of the Middle East came up. A friend of mine and I had a different opinion about the role of Iran in the past decades. The battle seemed endless, with neither of us making concessions, until one of the other guys interrupted us and told us to stop. Although I was happy the conversation was over, I was curious as to why my friend stopped our conversation. He told us that whenever discussions of the Middle East came up, he is immediately annoyed. When I asked him why, he preceded to tell us that it didn’t matter which side was right, because no one was going to give any concessions. He was right, as our conversation had gotten nowhere in the last twenty minutes. Neither of us even entertained the notion that the other could be right. Thus, even though we were trying to persuade each other on our view, it wasn’t going to happen. Although this represents a time when persuasion cannot flourish, I do not think persuasion is dead. Instead, the dominate form of persuasion has changed, and the pure persuasion has become more difficult. The difficulty of persuasion has increased exponentially because of the tendency to surround ourselves with like-minded people and our social behavior.

The people we chose to surround ourselves with tend to have the same beliefs and opinions. From the beginning of our lives we are taught different attitudes from parents, teachers and our communities. In many cases, where we grow up has a profound influence on our future beliefs. These beliefs that are installed at a young age may change as we get older, but then so do the people we surround ourselves with. It may no longer be parents and teachers influencing our every move, but instead it is the media we watch, people we spend our time with, and even where we go to school. All of these groups tend to coincide with our beliefs. For example, many people that choose to come to Madison come for the liberal atmosphere it provides. But the people that are attracted to the liberal aspect, most likely will be liberal. I am not saying that everyone shares the exact same opinions on every subject, but it is probable that there will be some common ground. So even in an institution that is supposed to provide an atmosphere for persuasion, there is no need for persuasion. Likewise, a person who considers themselves to be democratic or liberal is probably not going to be listening to a Republican talk show, and if they do it is more of a joke. Instead people are going to listen to the media sources that most agree with their own beliefs. Even if persuasion is attempted it will be much more difficult. When an outsider tries to persuade a group of like-minded people, the second group has the upper hand. They are not going to be persuaded because there are many other people that will back their up the opinion in question. Even though this is the norm, there is a possibility that someone in the audience will be persuaded to switch their views, but this is not all that common.

This inability of one group to persuade the other, gives rise to the new prominent form of persuasion. Instead of persuasion as a means to join a particular side, persuasion is used as a means to call or rally a group to action. The most prominent example of this is in presidential debates. Instead of the candidates trying to appeal to both sides, they are just going to appeal to the people that are already behind them. Going into debates, it is as if there is no need for them to persuade, instead they want the people to make sure they vote and rally for them. Therefore, persuasion is not dead; it has just changed its form.

I have to say that this ad doesn’t appeal to me at all, which is exactly what Nike wanted. It has a target audience and I’m not in it. To me it’s boring and really doesn’t capture my attention since I’m not a runner and not in the market to buy running shoes any time soon. If I saw it in a magazine I’d probably glance over it and turn the page without giving it a second thought. The fact that I could never run long distance probably has a lot to do with how I feel about running in general. Getting people who aren’t in the target audience to largely ignore the ad and not get upset, offended, or confused by it is a good marketing strategy. It allows the company to say exactly what it wants to say directly to its target audience.

The product is designed for runners but the audience for this ad is narrower. The target audience seems to be current costumers who have bought running shoes from Nike before. The phrase “old and the same” is used because Nike wants its current (and satisfied) customers to know that this shoe has whatever they liked about Nike’s other shoes. “New and improved” reassures them that this shoe is better than what they made before and it also convinces them that they should buy it.

The juxtaposition of words that are the opposite of each other (new and old, improved and the same) is a play on the idea that people like what they have and don’t want to change (or buy something else), yet always want something new and better. This appeals to all of the potential buyers Nike is targeting. I’m probably not the best judge of what a runner likes or wants in a shoe, but this ad seems like the target audience would like it.

Darn those Burger Munching Cellphone Talking Drivers!

Print advertisements are the most unreliable forms of public argument. An advertising company has to be able to create an entire appeal to a perspective buyer within the flip of a page. To make matters worse, advertisements are inconvenient for the reader; they interrupt articles, and there are too many of them. Consequently, it is very difficult to create an advertisement that creates a solid argument based on ethos, pathos and logos. Many advertisers are forced to rely heavily on emotional appeals to draw the reader’s attention and then in smaller print, add the logistics. The advertisement that we chose does not stray from this idea.

At first glance, this ad had a pathetic appeal in the form of confusion and humor. My eyes were not drawn to the bracelet in the corner or the large runner to the left, but instead the large warning sign off in the distance. I read it and wondered what was meant by “Burger munching cell phone talking driver one mile ahead.” Clearly, I am not part of the target audience for this advertisement, as I could be classified as such. In reality, there is a large majority of people that could fit into this category. Still, it is interesting to note that it is easy to distinguish who the target audience is, and where this ad might be from, just from first glance. Without ever seeing the magazine of origin, I can deduce that it is from a fitness magazine; otherwise RoadID would not have separated the runner from the burger munchers. My confusion came from the meaning of the sign, but my confusion gave rise to humor. It is just bizarre to make a reference like this. Also, it is not very often that people are called, “Burger munching cell phone talking drivers.”

Aside from the humor, this sign does not seem to be logical in context of this particular runner. Even after taking the whole advertisement into perspective, I am still confused as to what the actual warning that this sign is supposed to yield. The RoadID is supposed to identify the runner in case of an accident, which is logical, considering most runners do not carry a wallet or have their name tattooed to his/her body, but I still didn’t see the value of this warning. The runner is on a seemingly deserted road in the middle of nowhere, running to who knows where. My first thought was that this runner might pass out from heat stroke or dehydration and then the driver would have to report the accident. In that case the sign is calling the person who is supposed to help the runner, lazy or irresponsible. Later, I realized another potential reason for the warning; that the runner is going to be hit by the driver. Still the reasoning for the sign is invalid. There are other ways to prevent being hit by the supposed irresponsible driver. Perhaps the runner doesn’t need to run down the middle of the road or maybe after seeing the car, the runner could move aside. It seems simple, but the advertisement argues that it is important by adding, “RoadID…because these signs don’t exist.” I immediately felt further alienated, yet could not help but laugh, because again this warning sign is pointless. The entire advertisement is a hyperbole. I do not see why anyone would need a sign for this. Nonetheless, I wanted to see if the information at the bottom of the page could give me any insight into the reason for the RoadID.

The paragraph is filled with rhetoric; however it is seemingly unsuccessful as a means of persuasion. RoadID attempts to add some logistics to their advertisement, the only problem is they don’t have any sound evidence in support of the RoadID. Instead, the ad uses vague terms to describe the necessity of the RoadID, such as: “Each year, runners who thought it would never happen to them end up in the hospital as a John or Jane Doe (…).” This statement really tells the reader nothing, it is important to have statistical data for how many people actually end up in the hospital each year. I do not have any reason to believe that there are a lot of runners that have ended up in the hospital. The lack of statistics makes me doubt the exigence for this specific kairos. It seems to me that there is little motivation to promote the RoadID. The whole situation seems infeasible; I know plenty of people that fun without needing their id. The ad also uses exaggerated terms in the form of this hyperbole; “The most important piece of running gear that you’ll ever own.” Somehow I have a hard time believing this to be true. There are some core elements a runner needs, before he can even think about getting in an accident. Continuing on, the advertisement does not give anymore hard evidence or details about the RoadID other than that it is “Comfortable.” There are only more emotional appeals, in a sense trying to create a sense of distress. As if to try and get the reader to think, “What if this happens to me?” This is summed up in the last sentence. When the ad uses a paronomasia, “It’s not just a piece of gear, it’s a piece of mind.” This advertising company used emotional appeals, to try and make their audience feel a need for this product.

Personally, I don’t think that the ad succeeded. This is most likely because I am not part of this ad’s demographic. Perhaps runners have felt a need for such an important asset to running, I however have not. The ad relies too heavily on emotional appeals. I would expect to see more logistical data to support the claim that this product is needed, and I that it would enhance any argument made for the RoadID.

Establishing Credible Ethos

Although I do believe that Aristotle’s quote that ethos, “should result from the speech not from a previous opinion” is based on sound reasoning, it seems impossible for today’s society. Our technology driven society seems to be more concerned with the intricate details of the person’s life rather than what the person is saying in a certain rhetoric moment. Our current age of technology supports the need for us to know every detail regarding the speaker’s life. Due to this, I think that a person’s reputation supersedes their speech or their opinion on a particular topic. A particular speaker could deliver the most eloquent and exigent speech ever, but there is bound to be some bias toward the speech, that effects the outcome of the message received. Aside from my observations of our society, I think that there is a time and a place for the inclusion of reputation.

In general, there are some circumstances where reputation should be taken into account, and other’s where I think that it is important to forget the past. The reputation of a speaker can really harm the result of the speech. In certain situations, the speaker could actually have important contributions to help advance a particular argument, even if he/she had been deemed unreliable or untrustworthy in the past. I am definitely not one to criticize, as I have judged someone based on previous opinions, before actually listening to what they had to say. I think the most recent evidence of this is with the former president, George W. Bush. Looking back at my previous judgments, it seems important to discount his reputation and listen to his speeches without any bias. The past president has a bad reputation with many citizens of this country, most frequently based on the decisions he made during his presidency. Apart from his actual decisions, his speeches also added to the bias of listeners including myself. I have listened to some of the speeches from George W. Bush, and his constant use of fillers and terrible use of language, annoyed me enough, that I stopped tuning in to hear him speak. Nevertheless, he is the most well-known person in America and possibly the world, and I should have listened to him. Obviously, he held the power to make important decisions for the future, and I should have ignored my biases to hear what he had to say, as to be better informed about the future of this country. In his last few speeches he may have informed the world of very important changes, but I will never know. In this context, it is important to ignore reputation and let the speaker’s ethos be formed from the speech.

On the other hand, I think there are times when a person’s reputation is vital for understanding and interpreting the speech. Understanding the background of a person may help the listener understand the speaker’s stance. For example, a person who grew up in a war torn country has more credibility talking about what to do for people in a war torn society, then say someone who was born in a quiet suburb of Milwaukee. Understanding that the person has been through a certain circumstance, provides a sense that they may have some insight into the situation, thus establishing a credible ethos and pathetic appeal with the listeners. If the ethos is established by the listener without knowing the past experiences or expertise of the speaker, it will be biased.

Overall, there has to be a balance between reputation and the current speech when judging the speaker’s ethos. From the examples given, I would conclude that if the speaker’s reputation is bad, it may need to be ignored. However, if the reputation of the speaker is good and relevant it should be advanced. However, this in itself is very biased. Who is to judge whether the reputation is good or bad? And finally, the only way that a person’s reputation will not affect the ultimate message, is if the listener or the speaker are unfamiliar with one another. Otherwise it is impossible to ignore the reputation in today’s age of technology.

-ms

Ethos and the listener

I think the reputation and the argument of a speaker are both important things to consider as a listener. However when someone is advancing an argument there are more things to consider than just what that person has to say and what their reputation is. I think it’s up to the listener to listen and try and understand what’s being said, consider the speaker’s credibility and reputation, but also try for him or herself to learn more about the argument from other sources. Many people who hear several opinions and arguments every day spend some time finding out more information any way they can. That task has become easier to do via the Internet and television and has become a habit for anyone who has access to these sources.

Regardless of what someone’s reputation is, all listeners should be critical of what that person is saying to some degree and verify the facts themselves. If someone’s argument is weak to begin with (i.e. filled with logical fallacies) it shouldn’t matter what his or her reputation is, it’s still a poor argument. Still the listeners should research it themselves to check if their own opinions are correct. There are many combinations of the quality of the reputation and of the argument a person can have but what listeners do with it after hearing it is crucial.