Persuasion Scripts Blog

Burger King is running a funny and successful new ad campaign, the Whopper freakout.  You’ve probably seen the ads on TV.  They show real-life customers at a Burger King restaurant being told that Whopper’s are no longer on the menu.  What follows is a classic rendition of Reactance.  The customers react with shock and outrage that is clearly unfaked.  These folks are really disappointed.  They want their Whopper and they can’t believe it’s been taken away from them.

In other words, they show the reactance response.  Whenever people perceive an unfair restriction on their choice and action, they react (hence the name) with umbrage.  The persuasion news in this obvious element of human nature is that you can use this natural response to your own devices or in our case, your own persuasion script.

Burger King capitalized on this fact of persuasion to create a clever, attention getting ad campaign that appears to work.  Morningstar noted,

Unlike archrival McDonald’s Corp. (MCD), which last week said its U.S. comparable sales were flat in December, Burger King reported Thursday that sales in the U.S. and Canada rose 4.2% last month. January’s performance remains on that track. “We have not and are not seeing a slowdown,” Chief Executive

John Chidsey said on a conference call, after the world’s second-largest hamburger chain reported fiscal second-quarter earnings that beat Wall Street expectations.

Shares of Burger King were trading recently up $1.39, or 5.8%, to $25.55 at about three times the normal volume.

Sales got a boost from promotion of the 50th anniversary of its flagship Whopper sandwich. Its comparable sales were up double-digit, in part, the company said, because of what it labeled its “freakout” TV commercial showing customers’ shocked responses when told the Burger King they were visiting wasn’t selling Whoppers any longer. (One restaurant actually did that temporarily while hidden cameras recorded reactions.)

That last parenthetical comment illustrates the persuasion scriptyness of the Burger King effort.  They knew they’d get a response (although they may not use persuasion mumbo-jumbo terminology).  And they knew if they could capture it on video, that it would move viewers in a positive way.

See, you can take dry persuasion theory and make it work for you.

I’ve created an idea called, “persuasion scripts,” that converts persuasion theory and research into practical action plans. A well written and properly implemented persuasion script should produce desired changes in the way other people think, feel, and behave.

“Persuasion scripts” as a term, however, is not unique with me. A web search conducted before PersuasionScripts.com launched found several existing web pages (although fewer than 20 which is surprising to me) that employ the label. In my reading of them, my sense of “persuasion scripts” swerves away from these other uses in a way that makes my idea different, independent, unique, (peculiar?). Of course, your opinion matters more than mine here and you might want to review those older pages for yourself.

Here is another example of how you can find the same label, “persuasion scripts,” but find a different product. Once again we’re in the realm of politics where organizations are using their “persuasion scripts” to affect elections. One is from a consulting group, the Campaign Concierge, and the other from an advocacy association, the International Association of Fire Fighters. (Full disclosure alert: I collaborated with the IAFF during my tenure as a scientific administrator at NIOSH on a fire fighter safety project from a Congressionally mandated initiative. As part of the project research for the communication element in the initiative, I recall that we paid the IAFF for assistance with focus groups and surveys through regular Federal contract procedures. I have no idea who runs Campaign Concierge.)

The “persuasion scripts” that both groups provide are remarkably similar. They are telephone based scripts that only have the caller ask the respondent questions about whether the respondent is going to vote for or against a candidate or issue. It is essentially a polling script. Both scripts look fine to me and would be effective in field use for collecting poll (for me or agin me) information.

My quibble is with the label. Where’s the “persuasion” in voter position? How are you trying to change, influence, sway, motivate, manipulate, swerve, bend, alter, whatever your synonym for perusasion, anybody with a polling script?

Okay, so these are not really “persuasion” scripts. There are polling scripts and we call them “persuasion scripts” because somebody typed that label on the first Word doc file. What’s the big deal?

You mislead yourself when you mislabel. If you call a “polling script” a “persuasion script” then sometime later when somebody asks, “Hey, are we doing anything to influence or persuade voters?” then you’ve got an answer. “Yeah, sure. We’ve got persuasion scripts, so we’re okay on that one.”

Except you’re not okay on that one. You are polling and you are not persuading. And you’ve lost not only the opportunity to change the world, but you’ve also fooled yourself into thinking you’ve already got that covered when you don’t.

Please realize that I am not criticizing the content of these scripts and saying that they are bad or stupid. The Campaign Concierge looks like a useful website and the folks at IAFF are a fine bunch of people dealing with a dangerous occupation.  My concern here is that there’s more to the word “persuasion” than these scripts use and if you open the word to its wider meaning, there is a large world of potential good for you.

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?

About a year ago I began a persuasion seminar with 14 smart and interesting people in Charleston, WV for a WVU Corporate Communication program. During our discussion of CLARCCS cues, one participant, John, shared an interesting observation he’d made on a shopping trip that, at the time, didn’t seem quite that meaningful, but upon learning about the cues, he realized he’d discovered a very powerful persuasion tactic.

See, John was shopping for a new computer at one of those large office and equipment chain stores. During checkout, the sales clerk left John alone and while John was waiting, he noticed a small printed sign taped to the cash register that had several typed lines of instruction in sequence. Being curious and left alone, John read the page. In essence, the sign describe a team approach to persuading customers.

When a customer entered the store, Employee1 would make a friendly greeting and unless there was an immediate request, the Employee1 would walk away. Shortly thereafter, Employee2 was directed to contact the customer and point out current sales and again unless there was an immediate request, Employee2 would then walk away. Employee3 would then enter the scene with a “how may I help you?” approach. Employee3 would then work with the customer to connect her or him to the needed product or service and then direct the customer to Employee4 who would complete the transaction at the register.

Now, the pattern of Employee behavior looks like normal business behavior. The novel, interesting, and useful persuasion tactic, however, comes from the deliberate sequencing of steps through different employees. By assigning different specific communication tasks to each role in this play, the business makes it more likely that each customer will “get” all the information the business wants out there. Furthermore, by distributing each message across multiple sources, it becomes less likely that the customer will feel like a persuasion target and more like someone shopping in a store with a lot of helpful agents.

This team persuasion tactic is a brilliant application of the principles of persuasion. It provides a formal and ongoing structure for the business to deliver persuasion (that typed sign on the register). It hides the persuasion attempt across multiple sources. It has got to be great for team morale as each person on the team will play different parts in the scene. You can imagine the signaling they invent and use, just like a baseball coach on third base giving signs. And, I’ve got to believe that team persuasion goes right to the bottom line with increased sales and customer satisfaction with the greatest benefit of all: No one even knows it’s happening. An excellent application of the Rules.

A “persuasion script” is a planned sequence of messages aimed at changing the way the receiver thinks, feels, or behaves. It operationalizes well established persuasion principles in specific words and actions. The key element in the script is that “persuasion principle.” I contend that most communicators have an extremely simplistic theory of persuasion principles that limits their effectiveness, but not their persistence, always the mark of a missionary which is a special case of persuasion, and certainly not the only case. Let me demonstrate this contrast with a Presidential example from 2004 and not from current times. Usually past examples are better than current ones because you can think a little more clearly about the past than the uncompleted present.

Here’s an extended quote from a story about Howard Dean’s primary run in 2004. The author is Ryan Lizza.

The script calls for the volunteer to deliver a tough version of the Dean stump speech:

“Governor Dean is running for president to stand up to George Bush and take back our country. His opponents are going after him with negative attacks designed to confuse people. All they can do is attack, because, while Governor Dean was standing up to George Bush, they were surrendering to him in Washington. They surrendered when they gave George Bush a blank check in Iraq and when they passed his No Child Left Behind Act. And, while Governor Dean was ensuring health care for every child in Vermont, his opponents were spinning their wheels in Washington.”

If this still doesn’t persuade the Iowan on the other end of the line, the script offers a section titled “Tips” to strengthen the message. “People are sick of hearing about the caucus,” it notes. “Empathize. Share your frustration. Tell them your story. Tell them why you dropped everything and are sleeping on a floor in Iowa to make Howard Dean president.” Of course, empathy doesn’t always work. Sometimes you need to be a little tougher. That’s when you move on to the script under the heading: “If they get pissed and try to cut you off or hang-up.” The way to deal with a pissed-off Iowan is to push back. “Assertively tell your story,” the persuasion script counsels.

Let’s pull out the key elements of this script. First, the script calls for direct argumentation or what I’ll call a debate script. It provides specific issues, a stand on those issues, reasons to support the issue, attacks on other stands, and reasons to support those attacks. This is an obvious demonstration of a central route persuasion approach where you first get a high WATT thinker, then provide strong arguments. Second, the script calls for emotional awareness of the receiver advising to look for either burnout (sick and tired of the primaries and all the shouting) or anger (dislike your candidate and here’s why) and then provide more arguments for handling a high WATT thinker who is either weary or annoyed.

These debate scripts appear to be the most common approach for folks wanting any structure to their persuasion efforts. I’ll commend them for at least having enough foresight to realize that planning beats spontaneity when it comes to persuasion. (Or as the Rules state, “All bad persuasion is sincere.”) A prepared persuader is much more dangerous.

However, the planning here is so earnest, sincere, and authentic as to render it useless in most instances and counterproductive in some. This script is designed to elicit a prepared defensive response from almost all receivers even before the arguments are presented. The script immediately warns the receiver that they are entering into a debate and that they are going to get arguments. Such warnings have the unfortunate effect of producing biased high WATT thinkers rather than objective high WATT thinkers.

In other words, the debate script puts people in a frame of mind where they think they have to defend themselves rather than to listen with an “open mind” or what in theory parlance I’d call “objective processing.” (”Biased processing” is also sensitive to arguments, it just tries to make the arguments fit a position rather than using the arguments to arrive a the “true” position as is the case with objective processing.) Thus, by design this debate script debilitates its chances for success from the beginning.

Worse still is the effect of a debate script when it fails. Whenever a high WATT processor is confronted with contrary arguments, considers those arguments, and then rejects them, their position has become stronger. Now, if the Deaniacs wanted voters to be even stronger in their dislike of Howard Dean, the script makes sense. Start a fight with a voters, make them think real hard, make them actively fight you off, and what do you get? A stronger enemy, not a weaker enemy.

I think that this debate script explains in part the spectacular failure of Howard Dean in the primaries of 2004. You’ll recall that he was a monumental favorite with all the flash of the shooting star rising in the heavens only to crash after the first votes were cast in the first primary, Iowa. What happened? Certainly there are many factors in a vote, but this script approach illustrates in small the larger strategy Dean employed and clearly it did not work.

A persuasion script in contrast to a debate script is open to a wide variety of psychological elements that drive voting decisions. Attributions of causality and responsibilty, perceptions of unfair restrictions, negative consequences from planned actions, cue based associations of liking, credibility, comparison, scarcity, reciprocity, and public commitments, and even simple rewards all can determine how people vote. A persuasion script is open to all of these elements and can move flexibly depending upon the characteristics of the voter in the here and now.

A debate script is the mark of an advocate and is much more concerned with looking good than with getting the desired outcome.