Navigator logo

The Psychology of Persuasion

Any good marketer worth their salt will develop a campaign that gives you mind-blowing conversions. In our line of work, most of the campaigns involve building online armies of activists. To assemble that army, we need to compel people to join the cause—we need them to convert. That’s why our conversion rate and the cost of those conversions is one of the most important metrics I look at when we’re running campaigns. The proof is in the pudding: if our conversion rates suck, our campaign sucks. It’s that simple. And if conversion costs are too high, we’re not running the most effective campaign possible. We also pay attention to conversion rates because in reality, conversion rates are a measure of persuasion. It’s a measure of influence.

How the brain works

So, what does it take to run a persuasive campaign? It takes a bit of psychology. To persuade someone, we need to know how the brain works—how people think and feel. Thankfully for us, there is a huge library of academic research to pull from to analyze the science of persuasion. Here’s what we know.

1. We’re naturally cynical

Our cynicism starts at a young age. We learn as early as the age of 4 that we cannot take what someone says at face value and we need to analyze the speaker’s own interests to evaluate the validity of their claims. In fact, young children are less likely than adults to give people the benefit of the doubt. Despite conventional thinking, we actually get less cynical as we age. Imagine what grumpy old men were like as kids!

What it means

Lead with motive and be completely transparent about it. It’s pretty tough to BS people these days, so don’t bother. Our messaging needs to be as raw and as honest as possible. We must acknowledge why people might be cynical with us and our motives head on. By doing so, we may even get the benefit of the doubt.

2. We coalesce in tribes

We all live in our own bubbles to some degree, and embrace the echo chamber, exposing us to the false-consensus effect. We selectively expose ourselves to opinions that align with ours. We start to assume everyone else shares the same opinion, and with time, we begin to think that the collective opinion of our tribe matches that of the larger population. With time, It’s tough for us to respond positively to a dissenting view. When we see it, we assume the person disagreeing with us is defective, if not a complete idiot.

What it means

Realistically, our campaign can’t reach every tribe, but we can certainly speak each tribe’s language and use it to get our message across in a persuasive manner. We wouldn’t use Parisien French when trying to persuade people who have spent their entire life in Saguenay, for instance. We wouldn’t talk about carbon taxes when speaking to oil workers in Alberta. We need to mind our tribes.

3. We can distort reality

Whether people are emotional or logical thinkers makes a difference. The Amplification Hypothesis states that displaying certainty about an opinion will harden that opinion and have a stronger chance of persuading. If we express uncertainty, we achieve the opposite effect. The type of message we use also plays a role in how we harden or soften an attitude. Using a logical (cognitive) argument on someone who is emotional (emotive) will have little impact. The reverse also holds true. If you want to impact an emotional person, use emotive arguments. If the person is a logical thinker, use a cognitive attack.

What it means

In practical terms, this means that if we want to persuade someone, we need to align our projected attitude with theirs. If we’re not aligned, we’ll only cause friction and fail to persuade. That’s why no one message fits all. When communicating to our target audiences, we need to use the most precise and affirmative message, targeted specifically to the right group. If we miss the mark, we’ll only create resistance.

4. We can move the masses even if we’re in the minority

It might be tough to admit it, but humans easily go along to get along. According to Conversion Theory, ‘in groups, the minority can have a disproportionate effect, converting many ‘majority’ members to their own cause.’ Majority members may be going along because it’s just easier, or they don’t see a legitimate alternative. There are at least four factors that give the minority its power:

  • Consistency: never wavering from your message.
  • Confidence: knowing you’re right.
  • Unbiased: being fair and reasonable.
  • Resistance: holding true to your convictions in the face of opposing social pressure.

What it means

We have no chance of winning if we’re not fair and reasonable. Even if we’re in the minority (the losing side of the campaign), we need to develop clear messaging that positions our side as the voice of reason. It might not win the day instantly, but a methodic and measured execution of this strategy will undermine the opposition. When we’re the target of minority attacks, we need to mobilize with lightning speed to expose the minority’s methods and verbalize their message.

5. We can temporarily speed up the persuasion process

Academics call this ‘priming.’ Priming involves putting out a stimulus that influences in the immediate-term. With this method, we introduce new thoughts or bring old ones to the surface as a reminder, offering a poignant argument that drowns out other arguments, even if for a limited window of time. For example, researchers Bargh and Pietromonaco showed some people neutral words and hostile words to others, briefly on a computer screen. Both groups were then asked to assess a character with ‘ambiguous’ behaviour. The group primed with hostile words interpreted this character’s behaviour as being more hostile. It’s the same effect that has us noticing other cars just like the one we bought.

What it means

Used ethically, we can subtly influence a desired outcome. Subtlety is critical—obvious priming will cause the adverse reaction. But if we have a relevant story or anecdote to point to when making our case, it may open up the mind to our argument. We have to remember, however, that priming is a temporary device. To persuade for the long-term, we need to use the other methods I’ve outlined in this post.

As campaigners, we need to provide people with value. We can ask, ask, ask without giving something in return. Some of the Internet’s top solopreneurs have mastered this skill, always providing a free download or content upgrade before asking for someone’s email address. While that’s just one practical implementation, the opportunities are endless. We need to pause and think about what we can give our supporters or consumers in return for their favour.

6. We feel a duty to return favours

Except for that one self-absorbed individual in your life (and if you don’t have one, it might be time to look in the mirror), we all live and die by this social norm. If someone gives something to me, or helps me out in any way, I feel obligated to return the favour. The Reciprocity Norm is so powerful that the initial giver can ask for something in return without waiting for me to offer it voluntarily, or ask for more than was given. How deep is this compulsion? Researchers Kunz and Woolcott sent Christmas cards to a random list of people they pulled from a phone book. All strangers. Most recipients sent a card back! Many continued to send cards years after the fact.

7. We want want few have

We really want to keep up with the Jones’. It’s that simple. It’s part of a convoluted process we use to ‘control our world.’ Choice is freedom, and if what we desire becomes scarce, we’ll regret not acquiring it, which only makes us desire it even more. And if we know others desire the same thing, our own desires increase. It’s a vicious cycle. So, the next time you’re browsing through your favourite retail store and it’s advertising a big sale that ‘ends today,’ you know it’s making use of the Scarcity Principle. How deep is this instinct? Researcher Stephen Worcel offered subjects cookies in a jar. One jar had ten cookies; the other had two. Guess which one subjects preferred? Yep, the cookies from the jar with only two cookies in it, even though they were the same cookies. We just can’t help ourselves.

What it means

This is another tactic some of the Internet’s top marketers have mastered. They’ll often sell a webinar, offering customers a very limited amount of time to join (e.g. 48 hours). It’s a play on the ‘you don’t want to miss this opportunity of a lifetime’ principle. This approach might not be appropriate in all circumstances, but when appropriate, it can be a powerful way to yield influence.

8. We can be influenced by low-credibility sources

This is a media relations tactic that Ryan Holiday mastered and outlined in great detail in his must-read book, Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. The basic approach is this: get a story placed in a blog that doesn’t have the same journalistic standards as the major news outlets. The key is to target blogs that these same news outlets get their story ideas from. The news outlets then pick up and build on the story, resulting in your story running in news outlets with reputable names and large readerships. It’s a play on the Sleeper Effect. When the message gets separated from its low-credibility source, the message may gain more credibility.

What it means

The message is the medium. Where and when appropriate, we need to make the message more impactful—even more dramatic—than the vehicle being used to deliver that message. A good story is a good story, regardless of where it gets reported first. Our campaign needs a compelling story; with it, our campaign will resonate.

9. We have a lot to learn from politicians

Yale University conducted multi-year, multi-project research into persuasive communications and found that the source of the communication (the speaker) should be credible and attractive to the audience. The message should not appear to be designed to persuade and should in fact present two-sided arguments (refuting the ‘wrong’ argument).

What it means

You might shudder at the thought, but we can learn a lot by watching how politicians communicate. The good ones look good, talk through their opponents’ arguments, even acknowledging that their opponents’ arguments may seem reasonable before poking holes in their arguments. It’s a fight to present oneself as the most common-sense candidate of the lot. I know it’s convenient for me to argue this as a former political staffer, working at a firm comprised mostly of former political staffers (of all stripes), but when you’re in the business of building a brand in the space of months, or at most a couple years, you need to be persuasive in everything you do and say. You may not like politics, or politicians for that matter, but don’t be so quick to dismiss the value this industry has in teaching us how to run persuasion campaigns.

10. And yes, sadly, humans can persuade with manipulation and deceit

This is one of the worst ways to run a campaign, but it’s worth talking about because it is one instinctual method used by humans since the beginning of time. It seems to be the method used by those who have nefarious motives. And even though they always get caught, it doesn’t seem to stop them. Someone using this method to persuade is deliberately breaking at least one of these four conversational maxims:

  • Quantity: The information presented will be full and free of omission.
  • Quality: The information will be correct (i.e. the truth).
  • Relation: The information will be relevant to the debate at hand.
  • Manner: The information will be presented in a clear and easily understandable fashion.

Yikes. It’s no wonder people are naturally cynical about government. How many governments are guilty of violating the above maxims? Ugh, let’s not answer that question. Moving on!

What it means

Let’s remember our first point – we’re all naturally cynical. I’d wager we’re more cynical than ever before. It’s in our blood to question what we’re told, especially if what we’re being told is causing us to change our mind. We want to corroborate evidence. We can detect manipulation in body language. The lesson here is pretty obvious: under no circumstances should we ever use this method to shift public opinion. Sure, we can try, and we might experience success with it, but eventually, it will blow up in our face. There are so many different ways to persuade people in a transparent and ethical manner. Stick to those, and avoid this method altogether.

Getting Conversions

So we know how the brain works. But how does this affect our conversion rates? Well, to pull from Roger Dooley of Neuromarketing, we can look to the playground to help us understand how to increase our conversions. Roger developed the concept of the Persuasion Slide.

The creepy friends you weren’t sure you had

These are your friends you didn’t really know you had. They listen very well. They’re keenly aware of your interests and where you’ve been. They know where you work and they know where you live. What you tell them and what you do, they really never forget. Well, unless you tell them to. And what they don’t know, they don’t simply leave alone. No, they make an informed guess.

These friends are the devices and services you use every day. And depending on your privacy settings, what they know about you is both fascinating and creepy.

If the product is free, you’re probably the product.

Search engines, social media sites and streaming services all collect more information than we think. Not only does Netflix know our show preferences, it knows what scene or episode caused us to pause, rewind, or abandon a series completely. Unlike traditional television rating systems, the sample size is every user and the dataset is complete. Analytics has become an intrinsic part of its strategic programming decisions.

When Netflix ventured into original content, it was confident its $100 million investment in House of Cards would pay off. While TV networks and movie studios have long used focus groups before green-lighting pilots or projects, Netflix had the data of 33 million subscribers to review. What it told them was that the original British House of Cards, director David Fincher, and actor Kevin Spacey were incredibly popular with its users. As someone who has devoured many hours of House of Cards, I’d like to thank the fine people at Netflix for their informed gambit.

Most people are comfortable having their viewing habits studied by Netflix, if it means Netflix returns with more addictive original programming and user-specific recommendations. The user’s reward is access to an ever-growing library of binge-worthy hits. However, some of these same users are more inclined to change their privacy settings on some larger platforms that also use data to improve the user-experience. For example, Gmail analyzes your email and serves you ads accordingly, while Facebook turns on your microphone to listen to the music or TV show you are watching while you compose a status update. How well do these tech giants know you? Who does Google think you are? Based on your search and YouTube history, the company estimates your age, gender and interests. Your work-related search history may skew the results, but Google can guess that I’m a male between the age of 25 and 34 (it doesn’t know my interests as my privacy settings were too restrictive).

While Google may not be able to predict the future yet, the location-based tracking information that fuels Google Maps’ traffic congestion feature also knows what bars plied us on a Saturday night, what greasy diner remedied us Sunday morning and every stop and mode of transportation in between. Try it yourself – depending on your privacy settings and Android phone use, you can track years of daily movement and see where Google thinks you live and work.

These techniques have advanced to the point where your name, location and behaviour, compared against government census data, can signal your age, gender and race. For example, social listening software can infer that an American Twitter user named Britney who follows Taylor Swift is likely to be a female under thirty, while a Canadian user named Todd who follows the Financial Post is an older male.

Facebook has gone one step further, leveraging data on your beliefs, friends, language, organizations and taste in music for its ‘Multicultural Affinity Targeting’. While currently only available in the United States, it provides advertisers the ability to run campaigns that specifically target users who fall under four demographic categories: African American, Asian American, Hispanic and non-multicultural (a delicate way of saying white). While using a diverse selection of talent to reflect your targeted audience is arguably noble and savvy, how marketers use this feature poses major ethical challenges.

When marketing the the movie Straight Outta Compton, advertisers used wildly different trailers for white and black users. The version for white audiences sensationalized the gang elements of the film, showcasing police chases and guns. In contrast, the trailer for black audiences played up the biographical, racial discrimination and protest elements. The notion that advertisers use stereotypes is not new, but the advent of ‘smart’ racial targeting will certainly be studied by businesses and sociologists alike.

On a smaller scale, the advanced data capturing methods will continue to trickle down for popular use. A band may decide to rejig their tour schedule based on the listener data provided to them from Spotify or a local restaurant may use its Wi-Fi to track and promote menu items to its customers. Together, these practices will continue to evolve as far as technology and public sensitivity allows, with smart marketers able to find the right nuances to tap into user attitudes and desires.

Analytics will always be limited by what has already happened – they can’t predict the future. Events of course matter, as do the innovators, like Steve Jobs or Walt Disney, who produce what we didn’t even know we wanted. But, the use of Big Data gets us closer and may prevent big investment losses and ensure that the services we use and the products and media we consume are tailored to our behaviours better than a marketer’s gut feeling. There is a trade-off in receiving tailored products, but the allure of cheap or free services will help gloss over consumer doubts about privacy or security risks.

Ultimately, the tracking and profiling of our online behaviour may create two classes of users: those who believe in the practice’s benevolence and the convenience of more attentive, efficient products and services; and those concerned about the Big Brother aspect, and their loss of privacy and autonomy. Looking at the analytics of it all, marketers may well decide to create more personalized privacy settings and applications to suit our individual tastes – but that behaviour will certainly be tracked too.

First World Problems

Every now and then, our favourite sites go down. Completely off the grid. And when they do, we lose it. We hop on Slack and ask our colleagues if they’re experiencing it too. Just to confirm, for sure, that Facebook is down, we might even step outside our office to check that’s it not just us, that we’re not losing our minds. Of course, by today’s standards, we’re not losing our minds. It’s completely natural for us to have a casual freak out when the Internet breaks. For better or for worse, we’re hooked. And why not? There’s literally a world of information, distraction, and entertainment available to us at a swipe of a finger or a click of a button. It’s empowering to know that whenever we need an answer to something—anything— we can whip out our smartphone and find it, pretty much instantly. We do it so much and at such high frequencies that the moment the Internet is down for a minute, we’re completely thrown for a loop. We panic. We get frustrated. We seek confirmation. And if it progresses beyond 5 minutes, we look at our screens with a blank stare, waiting – waiting for it to come back on so we can get our daily fix of our friends’ photos, see how our stocks are performing, and read the latest celebrity gossip rags. The Internet puts us in control; when we don’t have it, we’re at a loss.

It’s a luxury, and it’s one we take for granted. In too many countries, however, this feeling of being out of control or disconnected from the rest of the world is a regular occurrence. I’m not talking about remote places with bad connectivity (I’ll save that for another day). I’m talking about geographically accessible countries where governments use every tool at their disposal to throttle access to the Internet. I was recently reminded of this reality when I participated in the Munk School of Global Affairs’ Digital Public Square (DPS), which brings together leading digital experts to help address sociopolitical crises around the world. DPS tackles these challenges because, increasingly, people turn to digital platforms to express opposition or support for their government and policies, engage in online discussions about their country’s future, and self-organize around sociopolitical challenges.

This week, we highlight one of these stories on the Political Traction podcast. If you haven’t listened to it yet, I highly recommend it. My colleague Allie McHugh walks us through the fledging YouStink.org citizen movement in Lebanon that is using digital technology to call for change because of a problem most of us in Canada consider routine : garbage collection. It’s a fascinating story, and one that showcases how powerful the Internet can be. These activists are using it to rally people around a common cause, and mobilizing these people to take real-world action. This is a major crisis for Lebanon, and activists are using digital platforms in smart ways to reach people and circumvent repression through mobile apps that let people communicate, even when the government tries to limit connectivity and shut down the Internet. Unfortunately, the ability to self-organize, even if it’s under difficult circumstances like in Lebanon, isn’t an option in too many places.

In countries like Iran, North Korea, and Russia, people face significant barriers to civic engagement, both in the public and digital space. The simple right to express one’s own opinions, exchange ideas, and talk openly about the future of the country is denied. No venues exist to facilitate these conversations. Repressive regimes recognize the inherent capacity the Internet has to empower people. So, these regimes do what all brutal regimes before them have done: they actively monitor, filter, and block content to deny people the ability to share dissenting opinions and debate issues. Their targets—their citizens—are unable to create spaces for expression or institutions and policies that represent their interests. They deny them any semblance of control over the national dialogue, and replace it with repression, censorship, and exclusion.

The Digital Public Square is helping open up this dialogue back up. This crackpot unit (and I use this term affectionately—these guys do amazing work) is building new platforms to create safe digital spaces for people in repressed countries to freely exchange ideas, participate in open political discussion, and engage fellow citizens.

Those who know me well know I’m partial to the work DPS does. I helped initiate this project when I worked for Foreign Minister Baird.. In partnership with the Munk School of Global Affairs, we established platforms and tools that reached 4.5 million unique people inside Iran. On the heels of this success, we announced the government would provide an additional $9 million for the DPS project. It was a no-brainer — few initiatives use the power of digital technology in a way that brings people together to provide an outlet to express dissent against repressive regimes.

Because so much of our free time is spent exploring the Internet, we tend to forget how much of an impact it can have. We use it for fun – so sometimes we forgot the importance of its function. Today, only about 40% of the world has an internet connection. Furthermore, almost 75% of Internet users are from the top 20 countries, the other 25% is spread out over 178 countries that represent less than 1% of the global total. Plus, for many of those with Internet, that connection comes with a number of conditions.

Most of us take the Internet for granted the same way we take garbage college for granted: we assume it’s a standard part of the basic infrastructure we are awarded in our society. Although I worked on the initiative in the first place, revisiting DPS humbled me all over again. It was a reminder that my Internet worries extend, at most, to a few hours without email. A lot of our online expression is wrapped up in Facebook statuses, tweets, and…a (perhaps slightly preachy) blog post. But I don’t know how else to say it — a lot of people don’t have this tool at their disposal, so it isn’t a missed email or not being able to Google a fact that puts them at a loss; it’s a much more frustrating fact. There is literally a world of information, distraction, and entertainment available, but only a small portion of us actually have it at the swipe of a finger or a click of a button. For us, limited connectivity is often a break from being constantly in contact. For others, it’s a break of a much different kind, that extends well beyond an instant message or five minute YouTube video and right into their governing infrastructure and an entirely different perspective on what’s ‘standard.”