Persuasion Scripts Blog

Melanie and I like good food. One of the great delights of my life and marriage is the continuing conversation we have over white linen or chipped formica as we wolf down haut cuisine or Al’s beefs.

What’s this got to do with persuasion scripts? Quite a bit, actually.

Last night I accompanied Melanie on a business dinner. Her department is interviewing candidates for a professor position and she took the current candidate out to dinner last night. She also dragged me along as the chaffeur and tag-along go-fer. (The candidate was a fine guy who’s got a great career ahead of him. My best wishes to you, Josh, in your search!)

We ate at a new place in Morgantown, Sargasso’s. (Real quick: good food, attractive room, good prices, but weak, poorly trained service. More on that later.) Inevitably, when I’m in a restaurant, I evaluate the place because I really like food and good eats. One place that Melanie and I both enjoy is Emeril’s in New Orleans. Not only is the food great and the room beautiful and the service outstanding, but the entire dining experience is clearly designed, planned, and choreographed to produce delight in the customer. Part of that planning is based in persuasion scripts.

One time, many years ago, Melanie and I made reservations at Emeril’s (at the Food Bar - you’ve got to do that if you really like food). We made the reservations for the first seating, 5:30pm, I think. And, because we’re always hungry, we arrived early. Somebody let us in even though the place was not officially open. As we stood in the bar area just outside of the main dining room and Food Bar, we could see and hear the staff finishing up a meeting. The person running the staff meeting had either read the Primer or else trained by somebody who’d read it. The leader ran a spirited, energetic presentation that described the evening’s specials with a focus on key terms to be used when offering the dish. The key terms were not simply a list of ingredients with jazzy modifiers, but rather were aimed at making the listener happy and interested. The key terms including “what’s new and different” and “why you would like this” ideas. Through it all the leader maintained that high energy and encouraged a similar feeling in the staff. The leader then concluded the meeting with what must be the Emeril’s cheer. (I couldn’t make it out because I’d just gotten my Martini at the bar - I just heard the staff roar during my first sip and knew that dinner was on.)

For the remainder of the evening I was struck by the repetition of key terms and energy from that meeting with the various servers and staff people that worked the room. I could overhear snippets from the servers as they described various dishes with those “new and different” and “why you’ll like it” suggestions. I could see the controlled bustle of every staff person whether out front serving or in the kitchen preparing (the Food Bar sits right on the kitchen and has an open view of the space).

And every time we’ve gone back to Emeril’s in New Orleans, we’ve had that same kind of experience even though we haven’t caught the staff rah-rah meeting that precedes service.

My claim is that the staff meeting is based in part on a persuasion script orientation. All of the staff completes a serious training session at a place like Emeril’s where the basics of the ingredients, preparation, and service are drilled. But, Emeril goes a step farther and also focuses upon the customer response to the experience and builds in ways of enhancing pleasure and satifisfaction. That’s where the script comes in. The staff meeting that precedes the evening provides some structure and a lot of content for everyone’s script that night. I suspect that if there have been problems with past specials (too spicy, too rich, too small, too large), the new script includes tactics to address those problems in a positive manner.

Now, back to my experience at Sargasso’s in Morgantown. There’s no reason why everyone in the restaurant business cannot deliver an experience similar to Emeril’s. Sure, Emeril has a particular and unique genius that is his alone, but that genius is not the key point here. His genius plus persuasion scripts (and other elements that go past our interest here) make for his success. Why can’t all servers be well trained in the basics of the business and also have persuasion scripts that enhance customer pleasure and satisfaction?

Our server last night clearly knew the business of serving at a good restaurant (although she was shaky on some of the techniques and styles of food and cooking). But she was only perfunctory, providing a bare bones attention to the most basic elements of service (what do you want, here it is, is it okay, anything else, here’s the check). As I scanned the room and listened to other staff people, the same kind of bare bones behavior was evident. Nice folks doing their minimum (for minimum wages?). No energy. No fun. No new thing. No excitement.

Persuasion scripts allow you to design communication that should produce desired outcomes in clients. With scripts you can change the way they think, feel, and act. And with scripts you get all the advantages that planning, control, and structure bring. You can train to criterion. You can measure. You can provide great, accurate feedback with a minimum need for punishment. You can see what works and what doesn’t, have a sense of why the success or failure occurred, and make specific, targeted changes. That’s the beauty of planning, control, and structure.

This is shooting fish in a barrel. You can do this. It’s easy. You’ll have fun doing it. More people will like what you do.

Write your own persuasion script!

Consider again the current use of “persuasion scripts” this time in a politics context (although the point goes beyond politics and into any situation where you’re using communication to persuade others). This example is from the Rudy and Sheila Wellstone foundation aimed at training and development for progressive politics. Here’s a snippet of their “persuasion script”:

Sample Persuasion Script:

“Hi, my name is (give first name), and I’m here tonight in regard to the upcoming presidential election. Do you have a quick minute?”

(Pause for a reply, and if the person says they are busy, tell them you have only two questions)

“Does it concern you that President Bush’s tax cuts went primarily to Americans earning more than $150,000 a year, yet they created record budget deficits that will take decades for our children to pay back?”

(Wait for an answer. If “yes”, go to Option A. If “no”, go to Option B.)

Option A: “It bothers me, too, especially since those deficits have also forced states to cut eligibility requirements for health insurance and raise co-payments and cut funding for schools - all of which benefit average middle-class families. Do you think this is right?”

(Wait for an answer and acknowlege it, engaging in a brief conversation, but do not get into a debate.)

“Okay, one last question: if the election were held today, who would you most likely vote for: John Kerry, George Bush, or Ralph Nader?”

(Let them volunteer “undecided”)

“Thank you very much for your time today”

Option B: “Okay, thanks. Does it concern you that these deficits have forced states to cut eligibility requirements for health insurance and raise co-payments and cut funding for schools - all of which benefit average middle-class families?”

(Wait for an answer and acknowledge it, engaging in a brief conversation, but do not get into a debate.)

“Okay, one last question: if the election were held today, who would you most likely vote for: John Kerry, George Bush, or Ralph Nader?”

(Let them volunteer “undecided”)

“Thank you vey much for your time today”

We can immediately note the obvious similarity to the Howard Dean script posted about earlier here. This is clearly a debate script aimed at direct argumentation with issues, stands, evidence, and reasoning. No doubt this can be persuasive and lead to changing the way someone thinks, feels, or behaves, but I suspect that such scripts are more likely to fail and in some case more likely to produce boomerang outcomes that serve to make things worse.

Realize that such an approach immediately triggers a high WATT, biased processor - someone who is actively involved, but responding defensively, knowing that someone is going to argue with them and against them. The Wellstone script here immediately forewarns receivers that they are in a debate even before the specific issues, positions, and arguments are made. This is certainly a sincere and authentic approach, but not likely to be effective.

The script in no way instructs or plans for the source to get any kind of “audience analysis” before launching into the debate. Note that the script doesn’t adivse to look at the house, the neighborhood, the people on the street to get a sense of what kind of people live here and how they might already be thinking, feeling, or behaving. There is certainly nothing in the script that guides the source in sizing up the person who answers the door. What’s their mood? Are they attentive or distracted? How are they dressed? How quickly do they respond to your questions? Nothing in the script assess the immediate mental state of the receiver at the door. Just bang away with the arguments and “if they say X, then you say Y.”

It is also worth noting that both “debate scripts” I’ve posted on have been connected with sources (Paul Wellstone and Howard Dean) who are associated with high intensity, in-your-face communication styles. (The fact that both are progressive Democrats is less relevant. I suspect that one day I’ll find Republican examples of such scripts and those sources will probably be just as intense and aggressive. It’s not the content of the politics, it’s the style of the politician that’s the point.)

I suspect that people using these debate scripts are more likely to find kindred spirits rather than actually changing anyone’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors in a positive direction. Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with attracting those who are attracted to you, but you’ve got to realize that attraction is not persuasion. And when you use debate scripts that attract those attracted to you and then label it an exercise in persuasion, you are misleading yourself about what you are doing, the impact it is having, and why things are occurring the way they are occurring. In other words, under the surface of your current success courses a deeper tide running toward failure.

Do you really want to change the world?