Persuade Me

Persuasion and Pay Raises

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:14:14 +0000

You work hard and you are underpaid, dammit. You deserve a pay raise and here's how you get it.

Walk into you boss's office right now, RIGHT NOW!, and tell you boss, "the PersuasionGuy at Psychology Today just told me that I work hard AND am underpaid. He told me to tell you: Give me a raise!"

Then hold out your hand to collect the big bonus your boss will give you. And then the boss will say, "And I'm ordering an immediate 50% increase in your pay!"

. . . isn't that what you really want to read? You want magic with no heavy lifting in an air conditioned office - not a cubicle, dammit - and no spy software on your work computer so you can surf or search what you want.

Well, as my first Rule of Persuasion states: There are No Laws of Persuasion, and if there were, Why Would I Tell You? Thus, if you want to use persuasion to get a pay raise, you're gonna have to stop looking for a Fairy GodBlogger to wave his Magic Persuasion Wand. You're gonna have to work for this.

Ready?

1. You don't get pay raises with Cues on the Peripheral Route. Of course, somebody may get dumb lucky one day by wandering in and catching the Boss in a distracted frame of mind, handing her a little piece of candy, and getting a big pay raise in return (Reciprocity: When the sources gives you something, give something bigger back in return!). But, as a regular persuasion strategy, it will fail most of the time.

2. Remember the Rule: It's about the Other Guy, stupid. When you think about strong Arguments for your pay raise, you usually think about them from your point of view - how hard you work, all the "extra" things you do no one notices, all the times you didn't say or do what you really wanted to say or do. But, those Arguments are compelling to you, not necessarily your Boss. Think like your Boss. Create Arguments from your Boss's point of view.

3. Make sure your Boss is High WATT when you deliver the strong Arguments for your pay raise. If your Boss is distracted, bored, annoyed, anything except focused upon you and what you are saying, stop. Say something like, "I appreciate you taking the time to listen with me about this important business decision." Or, "We can talk about my work at another time and solve another problem now." Or, anything that throws the dimmer switch for your Boss and gets High WATT heat. Don't deliver strong Arguments to a Low WATT processor. It won't work.

4. When your Boss considers your strong Arguments for a pay raise, make sure your Boss really thinks about them. Ask your Boss, "I've not missed a day of work this quarter, how does that help our Bottom Line?" You want your Boss to have that long conversation in the head, thinking on and elaborating upon your strong Arguments.

Get it?

You get a pay raise by delivering strong work performance Arguments to a High WATT boss who then elaborates over those Arguments.

If you don't want to do this, you can always just stomp into the Boss's office and declare: "The PersuasionGuy told me to tell you to GIVE ME A RAISE!"

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if the world worked like that?

P.S. You might want to compare the persuasion play for pay raises against the plays for getting tips, here and here. While both situations involve you getting money, the situations are very different and demonstrate the Rule: All Persuasion Is Local.

Increase Tips with Persuasion Strategy

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:53:37 +0000

In the prior post, “Increase Tips with Persuasion,” I outlined a Cue-based approach for servers to increase their tips. That post describes simple action examples of the CLARCCS Cues. The nice feature is that the information goes beyond the common and widely used practices that focus upon various Liking and Authority (Expertise) moves many servers already know and use. I’ll extend my thinking about persuasion and tips in this post by thinking not about a specific persuasion play, but the strategy and planning for persuasion plays.

A Persuasion Strategy is not a particular Cue or play, but rather a way to organize and plan how you do plays. Think about three: Teams, Scripts, and Ding Dongs.

1. Consider a team approach to all of this. Coordinate tactics with other servers in your immediate area and help each other. Remember the Comparison play? Well, when one server sees a couple having a great experience, that server tells all the other servers that there’s a great Comparison Model in the room. Then in a coordinated fashion that server goes over to the Great Experience couple and makes a noisy observation about “Gee, you are having a great time!” or “Gee, looks like this is going great!” Other servers in the area now have an obvious positive model and they can make the Comparison play.

A team approach obviously requires coordination and cooperation from several different people. You also have management in on this. Team Persuasion does not require a financial investment, but does require time for people to sit down with each other and think about this. Better organizations do this as a matter of course. Before servers hit the floor, everyone gets together for a few minutes and goes over the latest dishes, prices, policy changes, etc. We’re just giving you a new agenda item for these planning meetings.

I’d recommend that everyone read and discuss the CLARRCS Cues, then talk about specific examples they’ve seen of the Cues happening in the bar or restaurant. Once everyone understands the Cue and how it works, then start developing Team plans. It could start with the “Greet and Seat” function where folks doing this set up persuasion plays with key phrases or observations of customer characteristics. This gets shared with the service function that takes orders, serves, and bills. And, it concludes with the “Bye, Y’All” function. Think about it. The opportunities are boundless.

2. Think about making simple Tip Scripts. A script is a written sequence of dialog and action that describes a persuasion scene. You make make detailed scripts with Sighs, Gasps, and Worried Looks with instructions for movements, props, and lighting effects. You can make a simple Script with just a brief line describe each CLARRCS Cue. The crucial thing here is that you write it down first.

Scripts make you think about your work and how you can make persuasion a routine part of it, just like your greeting, recitation of specials, and any other standardized palaver. You can practice your Script before you execute it. If you’ve written it down, you can erase, underline, or modify it after you’ve tried it out.

But write it down. Begin with . . .

. . . a customer enters my station . . .

And go from there.

3. Something I have not found in the research lit (but I’ve read ideas in popular press) is what play to make at the crucial moment: When the customer is paying the bill. That’s when your tip is on the line and we know that the closer you play the Cue to the desired behavior the more impact the Cue has. And given that we’re dealing with Low WATT processors, we are talking about just a few minutes here. You need to develop a killer Cue near the end of the meal, but just moments before the check arrives.

A smart strategy here would be to use a preplanned set of Cues during service and associate each with a Ding Dong. The Ding Dong is, of course, classical conditioning where a previously neutral signal is able to elicit a response as in that most famous of instances, Pavlov’s dog, whom Professor Pavlov conditioned to salivate when a bell rang. As a server you could do several of the previous Cues and each time you enact them successfully, you offer a catch phrase like, “This is good for you!” or “Happy to be here” or “That makes it right!” or some other phrase that is friendly, simple, and functionally meaningless. Then when you provide the bill, you offer the same catch phrase.

Assuming you have delivered good service that produced a positive attitude in your customers with each Cue, that catch phrase acts as an accumulator that adds up each instance into one memory – the server’s doing a good job. Then when you present the bill and run the Ding Dong, you should trigger that positive accumulation across all the Cues.

Let’s hit the Outro with this long post.

1. CLARCCS Cues provides a wider base of operations for servers. Learn the Cues.

2. While any one Cue may be effective, your persuasion plays become more powerful when you combine them in a strategy. Whether you use Teams, Scripts, or a Ding Dong Close, you can plan ahead to reap largers tips.

3. Sit down and write this out. Think about it. Talk with another server. Plot. Plan. Strategize. Remember the Rule:

Persuasion is strategic or it is not.

Six Ways to Get More Tips

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:06:45 +0000

I've read through the research literature on factors that affect tipping for service workers, particularly in the food and beverage industry. It confirms one simple and obvious conclusion: Persuasion skill affects tips. What we know generally about persuasion can be applied specifically to tipping. Thus, there is no New New Thing, no Special Sauce, no Magic Words that only apply to tipping. Or stated as my Rule: There are no Laws (of Tipping) and if there were, why would I tell you?

If you want to pursue the literature, start with Professor Michael Lynn at Cornell. If you have access to PsycNet, you can easily search on his name and a key word like, "tipping." What you'll find are several well done studies, many in actual work settings at bars and restaurants where service personnel agree to participate in the study, receive specific training on something thought to be useful, then the waitress or bartender follows a specific script for using the action, and everyone reports their tips to the researchers. The research definitely qualifies as science.

The good news here is that the information you read in this blog or my Persuasion Guide or other good science based work (like Robert Cialdini's book, "Influence") can be directly applied to your work situation. The bad news is that you'll have to figure out exactly how to make that information work in your specific case. (Remember the Rule: All Persuasion Is Local - it depends upon the immediate situation you face right then and there.)

To help you on your way, I'd like to develop CLARCCS Cues in specific ways that could apply in a variety of food and beverage service situations. I'll detail out some dialog and moves to illustrate how to make the Cue work. You'll need to add details for your situation. Let's begin with a quick overview of persuasion Cues and how they work.

Realize that Cues operate as a persuasion play with Low WATT processors moving on the Peripheral Route. Most often customers are Low WATT because they are distracted on so many other things going on besides your service. Many are there at your place because they do not want to think hard about things and just want to have a good experience. Most of the time in your interaction with customers(not if they are alone - that's another case) you see clear signs of the Low WATT distraction. People repeat themselves, ask about something that you've already said, they contradict themselves and each other. That's what happens when you overload the cognitive capacity of folks who are also trying to have a good time.

When people are Low WATT, they are much sensitive to Cues, persuasion plays that do not require deep thought, but rather lead to quick choices. Cues are persuasion plays that operate through our social training, culture, experience, and expectation. Whenever you are with people, these Cues can work.

Most of the research on Cues falls into one of six types which I call CLARCCS. They come from the aforementioned Cialdini work and are:

Comparison - If other people are doing it, you should, too.

Liking - If you like the source, do what they suggest.

Authority - If the source is an expert, do what they advise.

Reciprocity - If the source does something for you, you must do something nicer in return.

Commitment/Consistency - If you take a stand, you must stay consistent with it.

Scarcity - If it is rare, it is good.

Let's take each in order with examples and fine points.

1. Comparison - If others are doing it, you should, too.

Observe your customers then match them with other similar customers nearby. If it is an attached couple (married or dating), look around for other attached couples in view. If it is a family with small children, look around for others. When you see something good happening with that other table, you get the attention of your customer, indicate that other table with a wave or a nod and say something like "Must be a good night for couples!" or "Families having fun at dinner!"

The goal is to get your customer to observe other, similar people who are having a good experience, then make a positive comparison. You don't have to make this a case of formal logic as in,

Premise: This other customer is having a good dining experience.
Premise: You are like that other customer.
Conclusion: Therefore, you must be having a good dining experience.

Just point out the other similar person, note the positive quality, and move on.

Another way: You can hear the conversation at your customer's table and when they start talking about other establishments, tune in. If you hear them remark on a positive feature from a prior experience, see if you can make a positive comparison to what's going on right now. Did they like the napkins or the music or lighting or something the server did? If you can match it, make the comparison in a friendly way. On the other hand, if you hear a negative experience, try and contrast against it. "We tried that a long time and as you noticed, it doesn't work. That's why I don't do it."

2 and 3. Liking and Authority Cues dominate the tipping literature and probably your own personal experience. For example, Liking plays include: Introduce yourself, appropriately touch the customer, smile, if you're female put a smiley face on the bill, and squat or sit beside the customer to take the order. Authority plays include: making private recommendations about specials or dishes or values or providing "inside" information. Most servers either know these things or learn them quickly. I've got nothing new to suggest here other than reinforcement. If you aren't using Liking and Authority as a server, you are a completely out of school, not even close. Of course, you need to adjust your friendliness, competence, and trustworthiness to the place where you work (probably don't need a smiley face if you're working an upscale Bon Appetite! venue), but if you think it's all slinging plates, think about a career change.

4. Reciprocity - When the source gives you something, you must give more in return.

The important element of this Cue is not simply knowing this norm of conduct applies. From childhood we experience the rule of returning after receiving. The trick here is noting that for many people, when they get something, they often feel compelled to give more in return, not to simply match one for one.

The standard play of providing a candy with the bill is a good illustration of this. The candy is "free" in the sense that it was not on the menu, the customer didn't order it, and you are providing it. Thus, in the face of this gift, many customers tip more to close the Reciprocity play. It's a good play and do it. But what else?

Listen to your customers and look for opportunities. Here's a personal illustration.

My wife and I were once quietly celebrating our anniversary at a nice upscale restaurant in Mexico while on vacation. We hadn't mentioned the event when we made the reservation. Our waiter, an older man of great experience and charm, served us our predinner drinks and as he walked away and was out of earshot, my wife and I clinked our wine glasses and quietly toasted our anniversary. We were very low key, but not low key enough. Our smart server had somehow observed our toast. Later at a very appropriate time, he brought out the strolling house band (guitars and voices) and wrapped Melanie in a traditional wedding serape, placed a huge ornate sombrero on my head, then affixed a multitiered candelabra on the table as the band sang, "Oh how we danced on the night we were wed." Melanie and I were weeping with emotion at this surprise. Normally I despise these kind of public surprises and hate being the center of attention, but this slayed me. And, you can imagine the tip. Our server gave us this "free" treat, but I still had to reciprocate and I gladly did.

5. Commitment/Consistency - When you take a stand, you must stay consist with it.

As you greet your customers ask them why they are there - fun? food? get out of the house? Make them commit to a position about what they want. You can even push this commitment with your own direct statements. "You look like you are hungry and want some good food." They nod their heads and smile in agreement. "Well, then I'm going to get it for you!" Then throughout the meal, make reinforcing statements like, "You seem to like that dish, is it tasty?" Or, "You said you were hungry (or "wanted fun" or "get out of the house") and it looks like you're getting what you want!" Then when you get to the end of the meal, you need to close the loop, but returning to their original commitment (good food, fun, relaxation, etc.) and say, "It looks like you got what you wanted and I hope I helped you along the way."

6. Scarcity - When it is rare, it is good.

At first thought, scarcity sounds like a bottle of water in the desert, but others events create scarcity. People under a time deadline. People who are stressed. People who are overly excited. All of these moments create the opportunity for scarcity of time, relaxation, or satisfaction. You have to think of scarcity in a Big Way.

"I think we're out of that menu item, but let me check" then dart away, come back huffing and say, "I got the last one for you!"

A couple is anticipating a concert after the meal and they're on a tight schedule. Every time you serve them make a comment about how you're saving them time. "I got the chef to put this at the front of the list."

Let's get to the Outro.

Persuasion principles are general and apply with all faces, places, times, and rhymes. The trick is figuring out how to apply those principles to your unique situation, like tipping. I've given you six well established Cues that operate with Low WATT processors on the Peripheral Route. And, I provided action examples to get you going. You now need to think exactly about how you can use them. You might want to write them down in a script and actually practice them with a coworker so you get the feel for it.

Hey, persuasion isn't easy and if it was, you'd already be doing it. Spend a little time and effort on this and you can actually make more money.

Beatles Music as Persuasion Play

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:34:29 +0000

Got another great prosocial persuasion play for you. Get your boombox, load it up with Magic Music, then ask for help. And, you'll get it. Here's how.

Tobias Greitemeyer randomly assigned participants in four experiments to listen to either neutral songs (Octopus's Garden by the Beatles; Vertigo by U2) or prosocial songs (Help! by the Beatles; Feed the World by U2), as part of a "marketing study." After that study was "completed," Greitemeyer changed the scene so that participants thought they were free and doing what they wanted. Then Greitemeyer did the real test. Consider these situations.

1. A woman walks into the room and accidently knocks over a container of pencils, spilling 20 on the floor by the participant. She mutters under her breath and waits 5 seconds to see if the participant will help.

2. A confederate for the study asks the participant to volunteer for another experiment by signing up and choosing how long they could volunteer.

3. A confederate asks the participants if they'd be willing to volunteer for charitable actions, then gives a list of actions to select.

4. The participant plays a money game that allows you to leave your winnings for the next player. It's only pennies.

Interestingly, in each of the four experiments Greitemeyer found that people who had listened to "helpful" music compared to "neutral" music were always more likely to help on the following "unrelated" task.

1. 5.6 pencils versus 1.2 pencils for a windowpane of 20/80.

2. 68% volunteers versus 28% for a windowpane of 30/70.

3. 4.3 willing score versus 3.3 for a windowpane of 25/75.

4. 7 coins left versus 5.3 for a windowpane of 30/70.

Consider what we've got here. Expose people to prosocial music with lyrics that describe people helping other people - not happy music with a great beat; it's the lyrics. Then in the immediate situation make a request or a play for assistance, help pick up a mess, volunteer, make a small contribution. And, you will get large effect size responses.

Greitemeyer did not run a Full Monte ELM study here with a manipulation of WATTage and a condition with Argument quality, so to interpret this we have to make some inferences.

This looks like an obvious Peripheral Route play with a Low WATT processor following Cues to immediate, simple action. It is entirely consistent with the CLARCCS Cue of Liking (When you like the source, do what they ask). The music generates positive affect with a particular orientation of helpfulness and that Cue drives action. And the comparison with the neutral music group tells us that the helping situation was not overwhelming. The effect sizes alone are so large that clearly the neutral condition people were never falling over themselves to be nice.

It is also important to note that Greitemeyer made sure that the participants heard the music. He didn't play it merely as background, but rather made the participants listen to it as part of the marketing cover story, for example. If you were to set up a booth with a loop of prosocial songs as busy people walked by, the effect would likely be much smaller.

This is a nice study that makes a good contribution the the prosocial research literature and also provides an excellent and practical Cue.

Angry Persuasion and the ELM

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:41:40 +0000

"You did what? I can’t believe you did that! Again! You did that again. I told once, I told you twice, a thousand times, don’t DO THAT! I’m so angry I’m gonna eat my own head and then I’m gonna eat yours. This is unbelievable! And, then this lame explanation. You didn’t think it applied here? What? It didn’t apply here? So, an umpire tells you it’s a rule you can’t hit the batter in the head with a ball and you hit me in the head with a ball and you think the rule doesn’t apply?!? Aaaaooowwwrgh!!!

Angry people are so engulfed with emotion, they cannot think straight and either respond in a wild Cue-driven fashion, or else in a wild Biased Processing fashion. But, no Objective Processing from angry people.

Right?

You need to consider this research from Wesley Moons and Diane Mackie. They did what appears to be the first real dual process experiments on angry people. Instead of relying upon the common sense from my first paragraph and earlier anger and persuasion research that did not do a Full Monte ELM analysis, Moons and Mackie just got busy in the lab and did what your supposed to do. And their results surprised me. To do the Full Monte ELM, you need three things, WATTage, Arguments, and Cues.

First, you have to make people (university students) angry. Here are two ways these researchers employed: 1) a peer gives harsh criticism of your life experience and goals, or 2) recall a prior event where you got really angry and now write a detailed account of it. These manipulations turn the dimmer switch of WATTage from a neutral emotional state (didn’t get the angry treatment) to the angry emotional state (did get the anger treatment). Both approaches have a long citation path in the research lit as manipulations that reliably make people seriously mad.

Second, we need both strong and weak Arguments and it would be nice if we used different topics to push generalizability. So the researchers developed and pretested strong and weak Arguments on the topic of Financial Responsibility and also employed a common, familiar, and widely used topic of Comprehensive Exams. The researchers thus had and delivered proven Arguments on different topics.

Third, prior research indicates that angry people are Cue-driven, but these earlier studies did not include the Argument comparison. We’re handling that Argument problem, but we need to connect back to that earlier research and see if we can produce Cue effects along with (any) Argument processing effects. Moons and Mackie handled this with an expertise Cue.

You see the ELM template here right? We’ve got the Elaboration Moderator of emotion (and I call an Elaboration Moderator the “dimmer switch”) which affects Elaboration Likelihood (which I call WATTage). We’ve got Argument quality with both strong and weak versions on different topics. And, we’ve got Cues. You cannot understand what’s going on if you don’t have at least WATTage and Arguments or WATTage and Cues and it’s even nicer when you’ve got all three.

And, of course, you do this in a lab where you can get seriously scientific with randomization, control, comparison, and counting. This is good stuff. When Moons and Mackie made people mad in the lab (or not), then had them consider Arguments (strong or weak), and then sometimes added a Cue to the mix, what happened?

Angry people ran screaming down the Central Route as the followed Argument quality to change while the emotionally Neutral folks ambled along the Peripheral Route, missing the difference between a strong Arg and a weak Arg. And, the effect sizes were at least medium (36/64) for these attitude differences. In all three experiments, situationally angry participants clearly responded to Argument quality with strong Arguments producing considerably more change than weak Arguments. And, Moon and Mackie replicated the Cue effect (using expertise) found in prior research. The key, as they demonstrated, was running a Full Monte ELM experiment and not just a study that varied emotion but kept Argument and Cue constant.

Of course, we’ve got the Usual Criticism here: hey, the science of the college sophomore play acting in a computer lab. Okay, the internal validity is pretty good (really?), but the external validity, I mean who does this generalize too beyond spoiled wealthy frat boys and sorority girls, and ecological validity, like sure, this is a Real World Test of Anger! The reply is easy: The literature, baby, read the literature.

When you read widely in persuasion you see how the weaknesses and limitations of one study are mitigated in another study. You understand that one study, even a great one like this, never Proves the Point, but as a thread in the fabric of the great quilt of knowledge, it connects, binds, and holds this piece with that piece and that one over there, and then you’ve got a Research Literature, a Body of Knowledge that makes sense (even if I’m mixing more metaphors than a bartender mixes drinks in a hip bar).

Let’s get to the Outro.

First, this research establishes that anger can easily function as a dimmer switch that engages High WATT processing and propels people done the Central Route. This is news in the persuasion literature and for common sense.

Second, this research is a great demonstration of the importance of the Full Monte with dual process studies. If you want to understand persuasion, you need to always have at least two categories of WATTage and at least two categories of Argument quality (or two categories of Cues). If you vary only one element of the WAC without including the others, your results will be ambiguous, incomplete, and potentially misleading.

Third, as always, I’m not reporting all of the details. Moons and Mackie also ran manipulation checks and path models that buttress the conclusions you can draw from their work. Lots of data, statistics, tables, and graphs that only a propeller head like me enjoys – like that triple WAC interaction in Experiment 3. Wow! And they played it smart by having a large sample of over 200 people participant in this to increase the power. Just great work.

Fourth, realize that in all three experiments, the anger and the persuasion topic were not closely related. In the real world this research is akin to a situation where you get ready to walk in the boss’s office to present a new idea and you hear your boss hollering into the telephone. Common sense would suggest that you should find a way to reschedule that presentation, but this research advises that if your boss’s anger is not relevant to you or your idea (she’s mad at her husband, for example, and not your last job evaluation), you should march into the office – if you have strong Arguments.

As a related, but tricky persuasion play, you might bring up topics with a persuasion targets that you know will make the targets angry, then deliver your strong Arguments. But, you’d better have the strong Arguments, right?

My hat’s off to Moons and Mackie. This was fun to read and think about.

Picking Up Chicks, Guys, with Persuasion

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 01:16:03 +0000

Today, guys can access the accumulated Wisdom of the Ages in the form of an iPhone app, courtesy of Pepsi to hype sales of their Amp Energy drink. As detailed in the Wall Street Journal article, the app has a plan for guys with chicks. In the name of science and persuasion, I downloaded it.

Not only is it funny, it is also probably useful. The app takes a strong marketing approach. It segments the chick market into 24 chickagories (Aspiring Actress to Women’s Studies Major) then offers a variety of explicit verbal tactics within each chickagory. (”Chickagory” is my term, coined here for the first time – a Google search of the term reveals no hits. Can you believe that? Thus, “chickagory” is my trademark and my lawyers will enforce it to the fullest extent of the law. You may make fair use of it as long as you cite me – Steve Booth-Butterfield. Hey, Pepsi guys, how did you miss this?)

For example, with the Trouble chickagory, the app suggests Lines, Plausible Warrants For Your Arrest, Why Don’t You Have Any Tattoos, FBI Most Wanted, and a GPS locator for nearby tattoo shops. In the Married chickagory, the app provides assistance with Suggested Alibis She Can Use, Lines, How Rich Is Her Husband (size of the diamond), and a GPS locator for nearby motels. For Goths, you can learn Dreary Quotes, Lines, You Know Your Vampires, and Goth Bands To Know About.

You can hit iTunes and visit the App Store to download this little gem, but realize its limitations. It’s a marketing approach, not a persuasion approach. If you’d like that app – not available just yet, I’m looking for a partner – let me give you a preview.

We’ll start with a dual process analysis and, down boy, we’re not talking about twins. At least not with this post. Maybe later. Still doing research on the problem. Promising leads, but the marriage thing is slowing it down, you know? Melanie has final say.

On with the opera!

First: There Are No Laws of Persuasion and If There Were Why Would Anyone Tell You?

Anyone who claims the killer chick-picker-upper app is lying. If you knew the Persuasion Laws, you’d have all the chicks, right? And since the chick market is not cornered, ergo, There Are No Laws.

Second: What’s your TACT?

A TACT is a precise statement of the behavior change you seek and it specifies the Target (Who) the Action (What) the Context (Where) and the Time (When).

Do you want to obtain contact information?

Do you want to dance or drink or talk?

Do you want to leave this place to hit another bar?

Do you want to make hot monkey love with her tonight?

Do you want to marry her?

Each of these TACTs require different persuasion plays and you need to start with the TACT or else you’ll look even more lame than usual. Put down your beer, look at her, and think about it for a minute. What’s my behavior goal with her?

Third: What’s her mental state?

Mental state is on a dimmer switch and varies from High WATT to Low WATT. When chicks are High WATT they want Arguments, information that bears on the central merits of the attitude object (you, here and now). If you have strong Arguments, they will Elaborate on them then generate positive change and you’ve hit your behavior goal. When chicks are Low WATT they want Cues, anything that influences without much thinking. The big Cues are Comparison, Liking, Authority, Reciprocity, Commitment/Consistency, and Scarcity (CLARCCS Cues).

Monitor her mental state by observing her nonverbals. If she’s paying attention to you, answering questions, leaning in, then she’s High WATT. If she’s not, then she’s Low WATT (and maybe bored to boot). Read the nonverbals, then launch either Arguments or Cues.

Fourth: What are strong Arguments?

Strong Arguments are strong from her point of view not yours, so you need to do a quick Vulcan Mind Meld a al Mr. Spock to learn what she thinks is compelling. Argument quality varies across chicks (some like Brad Pitt while others prefer Bill Gates) and within the same chick across context (you might look like Brad Pitt at last call or be mistaken for Bill Gates if you pick up the tab at last call). This variability is what makes persuasion so interesting and chick picking up so humbling. You never know and you have to either think quickly or else accept rejection gracefully.

Also remember, the Arguments are aimed at the behavior change you want. If you just seek a telephone number, then wealth, income, and job status may not be as important as the right appearance, friendly demeanor, and appropriate interest. If you’re aiming at toujours l’amour, tonight for sure, you better have the kind of heat she seeks and your mileage will vary for sure on that one.

Finally, always remember: It’s About the Other Guy, Stupid. Or, in this case, It’s About the Chick, Guy. Always generate your plays from her point of view. Nobody cares what you think is a strong Argument or a good Cue. What does she think is a strong Argument or . . . our next point.

Fifth: What are positive Cues?

The Amp app uses a lot of humor with its pickup lines and other suggestions which is another way of saying the Liking Cue. You say and do things that make her have positive affect. And, a lot of pickup lines aim at the Authority Cue trying to make you look like her kind of expert. These are the most common plays, which means you’re missing the other big four. Consider them.

Comparison – if other people are doing it, you should, too. Wait until you see other people around her clearly hooking up, then mosey over to her. Better still, wait until somebody picks up her best friend at the table, then move in. If she’s alone, get a conversation going with her, then talk about what’s going on in the bar, focusing on couples who look like they are in the middle of a pick up. If you cannot figure out what to do next, stop reading this and visit your favorite porn site, because you’ll get more action.

Reciprocity – when somebody gives you something, you must give in return. The obvious plays here are to buy her a drink or dinner or a play at a game. Chicks are immediately hip to this Cue with these ploys, so you need to find other ways to “give” her something. Is a light shining through a window in her face – close the shade for her. Somebody joins her table and needs a chair – get one for her. She can’t get the attention of a server – flag somebody down for her. Then, later, start a conversation and give her a chance to do something for you.

Commitment/Consistency – when you take a stand, you must stay consistent with it. You need to have a conversation going with her for this. Start asking questions about her beliefs, values, and strong interests. Get her to commit to stands that are related to your TACT with her (the behavior change). Want her number? Talk about free speech and an open society. Want hot monkey love? Talk about free love and start humming “If You Can’t Be with the One You Love, Love the One You’re With.”

Scarcity – when it is rare, it is good. This Cue should explain why most guys never pick up chicks. You think your package is rare when from her point of view it’s just one in a long line she can pick from. You’ve got to make something about you scarce, rare, singular, or unique, but not odd, weird, strange, or scary. The line between scarce and scary varies from chick to chick and from moment to moment.

What’s the most unusual “good” thing you’ve done or seen or experienced. I made a movie with Michelle Pfeiffer (after I got married). Women seem to find this interesting. And especially when I tell them that . . . “Michelle really wasn’t THAT hot, I mean, heck there are lots of women, even in this room right now (look around with a quick gesture and finish with hard eye contact on your chick) who are hotter than her.”

Let’s get out of here with some Wisdom from Steve.

1. Yes, this is a sexist topic and approach. It assumes men are guys and women are chicks and this is insulting, demeaning, and crude. We are well beyond this kind of sophomoric foolishness and if you are a smart, independent, and thoughtful woman, I feel your pain. It’s not easy having to tolerate this, but somehow you do and I admire you for it. It shows your maturity, depth, and just plain wonderfulness and I tremble in the presence your beauty and grace. (Is this working?)

2. The Amp Energy app is funny and fun and maybe useful with a good marketing approach. But, alas, not my kind of persuasion.

3. The dual process models are useful for picking up chicks, guys, as they are for any situation where you’ve got talking people. You just need to think before you act and that’s hard to do in a bar, isn’t it?

4. A tip of the persuasion hat to the Pepsi persuaders who created this app. Well done. It is fun and helpful to guys with the eternal pursuit. And, hey, you got national press on this for your brand. Hubba-hubba. Doing good and doing well at the same time.

5. I was awful at picking up chicks, guys. So, take all of this with a shaker of salt – and a pitcher of margaritas!

Practical Persuasion with Facebook

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:38:18 +0000

Raise your mouse if you belong to Facebook.

I thought so. Any more the question isn't who's on Facebook, it's who isn't. (And that's got implications for the Cool Table, but that's another post.) Everyone is hooked into some Web 2.0 social media app and why not? It's cool, it's popular, it's easy, and it's free.

And given that free thing, how do they make their money? Yeah, there's advertising and some sites have apps that make money through sales or subscriptions. But, when you look at the ads, most of them look like those cheap-o Google AdSense boxes that earn pennies. Facebook is estimated to be worth in the billions. It can't be from the ads.

Psst. Come here. Let me tell you how.

Marketing information.

Yeah, information about you, how you live, what you wear, who you have sex with, where you travel, what you eat and drink and where you like to do it, and, best of all, you also tell them who your friends are so they can combine that information into larger categories. Facebook knows you better and has much more interesting information about you than your Mom or Uncle Sam does.

Think about it.

Remember all that profile information you've filled out with school and movies and TV shows and religion and sexual orientation and availability. And, all those pictures! Think about the marketing information in those pictures. You even name names in some of the photos. There you are with your posse at the Stadium for the big football game - what's everyone wearing, what are they drinking, what kind of haircuts and styles, any tattoos? Oh, and some wedding pictures. How many guests? Sitdown dinner or buffet? And think about all those silly What Famous Movie Character Are You Most Like or My Favorite Precious Stones or fill in the blank with a consumer preference questionnaire disguised as a game?

And, best of all, you tell me your network. I can link you to your "friends" and see how similar and how different you are from each one. I can determine which ones you talk to the most and those you don't and then look at the pictures to see if something's going on - maybe you don't play with "friends" who are older than you or who went to high school with you, but then went to a different college.

Now, all of this strikes you as fairly innocent and innocuous. So what? So, they can see the pictures from my graduation party. Big deal.

Yeah, big deal. Marketing companies are paying millions of dollars for profiles of Facebook (and other social media sites) users and their demographics and psychographics, plus a ton of social network information that was not available in the past. They can target you with the precision of a laser guided missle.

As an old persuasion guy I can tell you that I wish I'd had Facebook 10 years ago or longer when I was doing large scale persuasion campaigns on a wide variety of health and safety behaviors. If I could have operated with Facebook-based marketing information it would have been shooting fish in a barrel.

See, Facebook gives me information with both great detail and great organization. I can get a virtual movie of your life from all the information you've posted on it over the years and I can combine your movie with movies from your friends and their friends and their friends . . . and you get the picture.

Now, think about the hip Web 2.0 operation President Barack Obama has been running. He's been letting you connect with him and share a lot of information about yourself for a long time. He really appreciates your financial contributions, but if you don't, that's okay. With all the marketing information he's collecting on you, he'll find another way to solicit money from you. He might even share your information with other kindred spirits.

And, the best part of all of this is that you gave Facebook permission to use your information this way for free.

The web is an interesting, new, and different communication channel. Sure, like all the old channels - print, radio, TV - it connects people, source and receiver, so it's nothing new in that regard. But, it's a channel that allows receivers to push and share so much of themselves without realizing it is all being saved, collected, aggregated, and analyzed.

And you thought you were just having fun with your friends.

Sex Sells! Like This?

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:34:13 +0000

If you patronize this blog (and Lord knows I needs to be patronized) you know that I read widely, the unmistakable mark of either an open or unstable mind. Persuasion is always in the air, you just have to stick your nose in some dark rooms to sense it. Or in this case through open windows.

Like this.

Meet the hotel Standard in New York City. Look at all the windows. Look at the people in the windows. Wave at them! Watch them wave back . . . hmm . . . what are they waving, OMG. Are they naked? Are they doing THAT?

Yes. They are doing IYFSH! And the hotel is encouraging them!

On the hotel’s Facebook page, The Standard encourages patrons to let it all hang out, according to the paper.

“We encourage you to exercise your inner exhibitionist. Please share your intimate and explicit photos with us — those floor to ceiling windows aren’t just for the views,” read the post, which has since been changed, according to the Post.

Okay, pervs, here’s the hotel’s FB page. I’ll wait while you check it out. Geez, the things I do for instruction.

Back?

Apparently, guests at the Standard don’t need much encouragement to share their intimacies through an exterior window in their hotel.

“I’ve seen a few porn shoots — three dudes walking around a hotel room with cameras and lights filming a couple,” Joe, the manager of the nearby Brass Monkey bar told the Post. “I’ve seen at least 10 different people having sex. Saturday nights are the best time for the show.”

Okay, so what have we got here, besides your fevered imagination and an evolving plan for a quick trip to NYC?

Well, let’s be good persuasion boys and girls and do a dual process analysis (and, no, Beavis, “dual process” is not persuasion slang for bisexual and “analysis” is not about . . . that).

Persuasion variables may function in one of three ways: WATTage, Arguments, or Cues. So, a hotel offers as a persuasion claim - our guests have public sex - how does it work (not the public sex, you know how to do that, the claim of public sex)?

It certainly gets attention which is good for the Cascade, but does it make your dimmer switch zoom from low WATT to high WATT (down, big fella, didn’t mean it the way that came out)? Does the idea of public sex make you think more carefully and effortfully about choosing a hotel? That seems . . . limp.

And, assuming you are already high WATT for other reasons, would reading that “You’re encouraged to have public sex in the hotel” be an Argument that you would elaborate upon and engage in that long conversation in your head? Sure, for some of you persuasion crazies, but for most folks I can’t imagine that they pick hotels because the hotel encourages you to have sex in their front windows. “Gee, honey, look how clean those windows are. We’ll look like we’re in High Def. And, boy, that’s a wide window, too. I’ll definitely fit in that frame.”

So, maybe public sex functions as a Cue, especially the Liking Cue: When you have affection for the source, do what they request.

As we noted in an earlier Sex Sells! post, sex sells with men almost all the time, but such blatant appeals often offend women. So, maybe the Hotel Standard is aiming at male guests?

Makes some sense in the short term. I’m a guy and I’m guy enough to get this story. Good grief, I’m blogging it, aren’t I? So, hey, the next time I’m in NYC why not, huh?

Except if you think about it just a little bit other ideas might spring to mind. Like . . . what do I tell Melanie? (No, kids, she’s not going to want this booking.) And, what kind of clientele might this attract? (Maybe commercial sex workers and law enforcement personnel?) How much will this cost? (I grew up in the 1960s “free love” era, but have since learned that this kind of love is never free, cheap, or even cost effective.)

And besides the killjoy, bluenoses are on this.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn told The Post she wants the peep show to come to an end. “The alleged actions of The Standard are unacceptable,” she said in a statement.

Of course, there’s no such thing as bad publicity, so maybe the Standard will be hopping even with the City Council talking about it.

Let’s close with the Rules.

More is the enemy of less.

Persuaders can either be famous or effective, but not both.

There’s a difference between persuasion, and smoke and mirrors; with persuasion the illusion persists.

Change That Isn't Persuasion - Texting and Driving

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:36:39 +0000

This blog focuses upon all things persuasion and to a casual reader it might seem that “all things persuasion” includes “everything.” A great story illustrates that not all changes come from persuasion and highlight the difference between word-based change and other forms.

Hey, didja know that driving and texting is dangerous?

Of course, you did. And, to a lesser extent, driving and using a cellphone. And, just about anything that distracts your attention, especially visual, while driving. Yet, people persist with distracted driving despite a lot of yada-yada talk-talk (some of it even persuasion) from all the Gang of Usual Suspects (see bottom of this post for a great bad example). So, persuasion seems to have limited impact.

Any alternatives?

Consider this from two stories in the Wall Street Journal.

Key2SafeDriving, a Windows Mobile service that deactivates the cellphone screen when the car is in motion, was created after its inventor was run off the road by a cellphone-using teenager, said Mike Fahnert, chief executive of Safe Driving Systems, the company producing it.

Safe Driving Systems Corp. is building a system that takes over a cellphone’s display when its owner starts driving. Calls and text messages are received but can’t be accessed, though users can place emergency calls. The system includes an electronic “key” that is installed in the car and emits a Bluetooth signal that disables the keypad while the car is running.

Another start-up, Vancouver-based Aegis Mobility Inc., is developing DriveAssist, a software program that uses a phone’s GPS to detect when it is moving at driving speed and intercept incoming calls and texts. It also blocks outgoing messages, though the owner can override it to make emergency calls.

Notice that the change intervention does not use persuasion in the way I blog about it, but instead employs an engineering solution. Put a kill switch on a key function and an automatic sensor that identifies a dangerous situation that automatically activates the kill switch.

I am wildly in favor of these engineered change solutions for a variety of reasons even though it replaces my beloved persuasion. The point is the change, not the means of the change, right?

To illustrate, let me now mock foolish persuasion efforts to address the problem of distracted driving.

CBS News runs this dramatic story of a “terror on the highways” safety video shot in Britain, south Wales.

Its writer and director - who cast his own son Henry in the video - makes no apologies.

“Yes it is violent, but the reality of a fatal road accident is much more gruesome, is much more violent,” said writer-director Peter Watkins Hughes. “My position on this is that if you are old enough to drive, if you are old enough to want to drive, you are old enough to be aware of the real and serious risks one places yourself in every time you get behind the wheel.”

And, you ask, does this slasher film actually change people? Here’s the proof!

“As you know, this video has been viewed around the world now by 1.5 million people, and we have had e-mail after e-mail after e-mail from people saying, ‘I will never ever text and drive again’ - from young people,” said Gwent police chief constable Mick Giannasi.

Yeah, right. Gory shock films (fear appeals) sure are effective. Everyone knows that. Except if you look at anything remotely approaching a scientific standard of testing, you know that these persuasion tactics have little or no effect on actual behavior leading to fewer accidents and deaths. They just make the folks doing the scolding feel good about themselves - “There, now I’ve scared the little buggers and THEY’LL NEVER DO THAT AGAIN!”

Even without a zillion dollar outcome study, just consider the common sense evaluation between Katic Couric’s choice - fear appeals in Wales - versus the WSJ stories on engineered solutions. Even if there was great evidence of a sustained, enduring, and large behavior change from those silly fear appeals, how could it compete with an app in the device that always senses speed in a vehicle and shuts itself off? Which approach will always “remember” to work: the device or the driver?

Not all change is the same and not all change is produced by the same method. Work smarter. Sometimes persuasion is the smart play and sometimes something like engineering is the smart play.

WACky Persuasion Tricks

Steve Booth-Butterfield, Ed.D. — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:43:34 +0000

You remember our Persuasion WAC: WATTage, Arguments, and Cues. If it moves the dimmer switch of your mind, it is WATTage. If it is information of crucial importance, it is Argument. If it influences with little thinking, it is Cue. High WATT minds want Arguments on the Central Route while Low WATT minds want Cues ambling along the Peripheral Route.

Now, smart people make a dumb mistake when they think that everything can be classified into one and just one of the three WACs. Take a classic advertising example: The pretty blonde with a hot body. A Cue, right? I'm mean all you do is take one look and your mind stops working and all the illumination you need is coming from that hot blonde and not your WATTage.

Let's work on this. You'll need to fantasize, but it's okay. I won't tell if you won't tell. All in the name of science!

So, imagine the hot blonde of your dreams (and it doesn't have to be blonde hair, it could be any color, blonde just works for me and I'm writing this and you promised not to tell.) Now, add unusually long hair. Long, lustrous, blonde hair. Let the wind blow and see that long blonde hair attached to that face, that face, that fabulous face, and that body, don't even get started on that body, just see that long blonde hair flowing in the wind . . .

. . . while the blonde of your dreams holds the wheel of a surging red convertible. Blue skies, red metal, hot blonde hair, flowing, going, blowing in the wind.

And now a caption: For Beautiful Hair.

A classic auto ad. Take your car, add one hot blonde, label with a clever slogan, and boom, we've just saved Detroit. And we did it on the Peripheral Route with Low WATT thinkers and that lovely hot blonde Cue. And it's gotta be a Cue not an Argument because how can a car make hair beautiful and besides why would you buy a car to make beautiful hair? You wouldn't . . .

So, imagine now, that hot blonde of your dreams with the long hair, flowing, going, blowing in the wind . . .

. . . while holding a bottle of shampoo with the same caption: For Beautiful Hair.

What's your hot blonde now? A Cue? Really? Wait a minute. If the shampoo helps make that long hair look that good, that's an Argument, not a Cue. If my hair will look better because of the shampoo, then those hot blonde tresses are an Argument.

The WAC is not as simple as it seems. The same persuasion element - in this case long, blonde hair - can function as either an Argument or a Cue. It depends upon how it is used. If the persuasion element is something that a High WATT thinker will consider, mull, weigh, elaborate upon, add to, embroider over, then it is an Argument. By contrast, if a Low WATT thinker stares in slack jawed wonder at that shiny, bright thing wiggling and jiggling with promise and delight, then it is a Cue. Same object, but different function.

And, "function" is the key to the WAC. Observe function, not appearance. Function marks the WAC category. When you know what it does, you know WATTage, Argument, or Cue.

"But, Steve, how does blonde hair function as that dimmer switch for WATTage? I get the Argument and Cue difference, but blonde hair turns the dimmer dial?"

It does for me. I married a hot blonde who also happens to be smart, sophisticated, and experienced. My married life taught me to turn up the dimmer switch when the (blonde) girl of my dreams starts talking. I need to go High WATT with her because she often says interesting, useful, and enjoyable things.

Of course, your mileage with blondes may vary!