Writing Assignment: write Persuasive Message with Visual

Unit 7

Writing Persuasive Messages

Objectives:

Through this Unit’s readings, you should be familiar with the following topics:

• The primary and secondary purposes of persuasive messages • Choosing a persuasive strategy: direct or indirect? • Analyzing a persuasive rhetorical situation: ‘TeknoSport’

Read: Locker/Findlay Chapter 9 and “TeknoSport” (pdf on ‘Lectures’ page); Assignment 2 Case: “Just Clean Your Hands” in Course Book

Assignment #2: (Persuasive Message w/ visual; up to 1200 words/25%) due Sunday Week Nine.

*Download, Write, and Upload Sentence Structure/Grammar Test (15%)

Overview of Unit 7

In this unit we will continue our discussion of persuasive writing, introduced in Unit 1 and picked up again in Units 4 and 5. Here, and in Unit 8, we will concentrate specifically on effectively arguing a ‘case’ (a proposal, the existence of and/or solution to a problem, and so forth); you will put the principles we articulate into practice in Assignment 2.

As always, and to the extent possible, I will try to avoid repeating what you will find well set out in Locker/Findlay. We’ll begin this unit’s discussion by briefly revisiting some basic points raised throughout the course so far. Then, following a short overview of the concepts presented in Locker/Findlay Chapter 9, we’ll try to give those concepts some concrete meaning by doing a sample analysis of the TeknoSport scenario. In the lecture notes for Unit 8, we’ll turn our attention more specifically to argumentation itself. There, our objective will be to articulate some general principles that can help us to construct effective rational appeals. We will assume that although we have of course three basic kinds of appeal available to us whenever we present an ‘argument’ (the appeals to emotion, credibility, and reason), the first two must always be used to support and reinforce the third: if our case fails on rational grounds, it fails – no matter how persuasive we might otherwise be.

‘Everything’s An Argument’ Revisited!

As we saw beginning with Unit 1, we are in this course operating under this assumption. That assumption, more fully stated, is that whenever you write something in the ‘real-world’

rhetorical contexts imagined by the course, you are seeking to some extent at least to ‘persuade’. To return to the Aristotelian terminology of Unit 1 (repeated in Locker/Findlay at page 206), you are always making ‘appeals’ to your audience’s emotional responses, your own credibility, and to reason. The balance between these three can, of course, shift according to purpose. In the advertising world, for example, one might be forgiven for thinking that appeals to reason are often most conspicuous by their absence.

This ‘persuasive’ element in human communication in general is reflected in Locker/Findlay’s breakdown of primary and secondary purposes (for writing persuasive messages) on page 207. The primary purposes have to do with motivating a reader to act, and act in the way(s) we want her/him to do, while the secondary purposes (again, pretty self- explanatory) have to do with the writer’s ‘image’, ‘goodwill’, and – it has to be said – efficiency. The following section, ‘Analyzing a Persuasive Situation’ pages 207 to 209, highlights the key questions, answers to which will help you organize your thinking, choose a rhetorical strategy (an organizational pattern), and develop content for your message:

§ What do you want someone/people to do? § What objections, if any, will your readers (both primary and secondary!) have? § How strong is your case? § What kind of persuasion does your organization value?

Out of the kinds of analyses that this section contemplates, and as a result of common practice, a number of quite definable, even conventionalized, rhetorical patterns have evolved. For our purposes, there are three of these (see pages 210 to 224:

§ The ‘direct request pattern’ § The ‘(indirect) problem-solving pattern’ § The ‘sales’ (or ‘AIDA’) pattern (a variation on the ‘indirect’ pattern, and more

fully discussed pages 221 to 224)

In this course, we will concentrate on defining, and choosing between, a ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ pattern, and will concentrate most of our attention on the latter, given that problem-solving messages are inherently more difficult to write than those making direct requests.

Direct or Indirect?

This, of course, is the initial choice we have to make. What we decide to do will be determined by the results of the analyses noted above, but in general we can sum it up this way:

Ø Choose a ‘direct’ strategy (note how this is pretty much parallel to the ‘positive’ or ‘good news’ pattern) when your analysis suggests that your audience will do as you request without any resistance, or even willingly. Note also that this pattern is common now for internal communication (typically email), when you

anticipate that, e.g., a colleague either habitually doesn’t read internal correspondence, or is too busy to do so

Ø Choose an ‘indirect’ strategy (again, note the parallel to ‘negative’ messages) when you anticipate that your reader may well resist doing what you ask. Here, you will have a further choice:

Ø If you anticipate that ultimately logic/reason will prevail over any emotional resistance your reader might have, use the classic ‘indirect’ pattern discussed in Chapter 9 and these lecture notes. However, if – in your judgment – emotion may well play a stronger role than logic, you might well want to at least consider adopting the ‘AIDA’ or sales pattern as the basis of your organizational strategy.

Messages making direct requests have, as one might expect, a fairly straightforward structure (note the balance in the text!). ‘Indirect’, or ‘problem-solving,’ messages are more problematic in that you really are ‘making a case’ (constructing a rational argument, reinforced as appropriate by appeals to emotion and credibility). Nevertheless, we can define a useful, if fairly conventional, organizational pattern to follow:

§ Catch your reader’s interest by defining, and mentioning, a common ground § Define the problem which you both share (and which your request, you will

argue, will solve if accepted) § Explain the (your) solution to the problem. This, and the following two items,

are – in effect – your ‘argument’ § Demonstrate that any negative elements (cost, time, etc) are outweighed by

advantages § Summarize any additional benefits of the solution (reasons) and if appropriate

build in emotional appeal § Tell (not ‘instruct’!! – always watch ‘tone’!) your reader exactly what should be

done/what you want her or him to do

All very well in the abstract, you might be thinking – but how does this translate into practice? In order to begin exploring this question, let’s ‘workshop’ the TeknoSport case in a context defined by these points of reference. Here, the question to be answered is suggested by the case study’s sub-title “Communicating to Prevent Change.” That question is: how to persuade Karvinen to reconsider his intention to cut/replace the company’s Sales Training Program?

You would almost certainly want to use some variation on the classic ‘indirect’ pattern defined above. The question is ‘why’? In this instance, the answer is fairly obvious: Karvinen himself states that ‘he and the Board were dedicated “to cut the fat out of TeknoSport, to make the company leaner”.’ But this is not just motivational speaking on the part of a newly-installed President; among other things, he makes an argument, with reasons, that the STP in effect needs to go, and be replaced by alternatives. Why? Because the resources it currently uses

must be shifted to a) development re. new product packages and b) improvement of TeknoSport’s communication systems, in order to maintain and even improve TeknoSport’s competitive position and, ultimately, profitability. He states that he and the Board are agreed that this “redistribution of resources” is necessary, but he also invites you to try to persuade him that he (and the Board) should reconsider this decision, while warning that to do so they will need “some very substantial reasons for doing so … something vital about the STP we’ve not taken into account …”.

As we read through the case, and concentrate on trying to fully understand Karvinen’s position, we can begin to notice a number of things. First, and very importantly, we notice that he carefully and rationally articulates the reasons for his positions. He has tried to take into account some of the obvious objections that “you” and others make at your meeting, and tries to supply evidence of his own. Second, we notice (we are told) that he speaks “bluntly” and straightforwardly. Finally, for now, it’s crucial to note that he has ‘invited’ your response, suggesting very strongly that he is open to opposing points of view provided that they can be supported with evidence. We are also told that although he has been brought in from outside only three years before, he is respected by “all the regional sales managers …”, which includes ‘you’! This preliminary and very general analysis suggests a number of things.

First, you would want your tone to reflect your relative positions within the organization. He is not only now President, but also has been and continues to be your immediate superior as Vice President for Marketing & Sales. Having said that, that fact also presents you with a rhetorical opportunity: Karvinen’s background is in sales, so he will presumably be predisposed to accept an argument which is predicated on the assumption that ‘sales’ of product are, at the end of the day, the lifeblood of an organization such as TeknoSport. If sales decline, as a result of a decline in the effectiveness of sales personnel, all the new product development or improved communications systems will count for nothing. In other words, if you could demonstrate (among other things), with evidence, that on balance retaining the STP, in its current or perhaps a slightly modified form, is essential to maintaining or growing the company’s sales, you would be half-way there.

Second, this begins to suggest a way of formulating our ‘common ground’: you could agree that “to compete effectively, we [must] plan to eliminate non-essential programs;” you could agree that this does mean that “change is necessary;” and you could agree that all else being equal it would be laudable to be dedicated to cutting “the fat out of TeknoSport, to make the company leaner.” Third, this way of defining a common ground in turn begins to suggest how you would go about defining the ‘problem’ as one which you both share: you both want to increase efficiency and, ultimately, TeknoSport’s competitive position. Your argument, of course, would be a ‘solution’ to this problem: your basic proposition would be that the STP is essential to TeknoSport’s competitive position, in the past, at present, and in the future.

Your problem, of course, is to explain and demonstrate the truth of this proposition. To do that, you need evidence of your own to support a fully-developed argument, and – just as important – you need to fully understand Karvinen’s argument, the ‘case’ you are, in effect, answering. Let’s return to some terminology from previous discussion: one way to do this, and in the process to begin to develop an outline for your own argument, is to try to re-state Karvinen’s position in enthymematic form. See if you can come up with a single, complex sentence which has the following general structure:

“The STP should be eliminated because:

• Reason 1 (+ evidence) • Reason 2 (+ evidence) • Reason 3 (+ evidence) • And so on, as you see the (Karvinen’s) argument

Creating an outline of Karvinen’s argument in this form would allow you to do two things: check that argument itself for internal coherence, and prepare an outline for a counter-argument (expressed in positive terms) of your own – your ‘case’ – which implicitly answers Karvinen’s position:

“The STP should be retained (as is, or modified) because:

• Reason 1 (+ evidence) and so on, • Answering Karvinen’s positions

Ideally, creating a schematic outline for your argument would allow you clearly to articulate “something vital about the STP” that Karvinen/the Board have not taken into account.

As we saw in Unit 3, what you are doing is creating a ‘thesis’ that in turn suggests ways to develop the body of your discussion. For example (to mention one characteristic rhetorical strategy: argument from example!), one of your reasons would certainly be the assertion of fact that the STP contributes directly and indirectly to TeknoSport’s sales. An ‘example’ of an indirect but significant contribution is mentioned specifically in the case; you could use this as evidence for your assertion.

Further, as you began to develop your argument in outline form, you would at the same time test it for logical coherence. For example, it’s all too easy to come up with a proposition of this sort: “The STP should be retained because it works; it helps us develop effective sales staff.” Well, yes – it does; is anyone disputing that? Certainly not Karvinen; he would agree completely, but then say ‘but that’s not the issue!’ The issue is: is there an equally-effective but less expensive (in both direct and indirect costs) way of maintaining the effectiveness of our sales staff, which would allow us to divert all or a good part of current sales-training costs to other vital areas, e.g. product development and communications? Articulating your argument in

schematic form, and testing it against your understanding of Karvinen’s position, would allow you to check yourself for logical coherence and to better anticipate and consequently deal with Karvinen’s potential responses to your position.

A fully-developed argument of this kind would then lead you naturally into a Summary of the benefits of Karvinen’s acceptance of your position. These could include your reinforcing of a basic emotional appeal, one which should be implicitly present throughout, which is simply that he, Karvinen, should accept your argument because, among other things, he will thereby avoid making what might turn out to be an embarrassingly ‘wrong’ decision regarding the STP.

Nevertheless, we will treat the appeal to reason as primary in this sense: if your ‘argument’ (your case) is not logically/rationally sound, you risk having it fail (that is, rejected by your audience) even if you have effectively built-in appeals to your audience’s emotions and to your own credibility. In Unit 8, we will explore rhetorical (that is, practical) argument in more theoretical terms, and then put those concepts to work in another analysis.