Saving Face

Venus Cosmetics, a leader in the cosmetics industry, has a new facial cream they are preparing to market. Their advertising agency, however, has not yet decided what approach they would like to take. They could persuade their audience to purchase this wonderful new product because it would be the smart and beneficial thing to do. They could manipulate their audience into thinking that not purchasing it could be detrimental to their well-being. On the other hand, they could appeal to the audience through another set of emotions by using seduction as the primary motivator. What approach would be best?
.

There is no simple answer for that as there are so many variables in play. Who is the target audience? Will there be a comprehensive campaign involved? Will the approach they choose allow for the transition to a different approach down the line? Once these, and other, questions are answered, the ad crew can decide upon the approach; but, first, they need to understand what these approaches entail. So what are the differences between persuasion, manipulation and seduction, and what are the different tools for each?

According to Dave Lakhani, author of Persuasion: The Art of Getting What You Want (2005), the American Heritage dictionary defines persuasion as, “to induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning or entreaty”; while it defines manipulation as, “Shrewd or devious management, especially for one’s own advantage” (para. 6). In his book, The Art of Talking So That People Will Listen (1983), Dr. Paul Swets says this, “Manipulation aims at control; not cooperation. It always results in a lose-lose situation. Persuasion, on the other hand, always builds the self-esteem of the other party.”

So with each of these definitions we can generalize by saying that persuasion is more of a collaborative form of communication. The receiver is as involved in the transfer as is the sender. Manipulation, however, would appear to be a one-way monologue in which the sender directs ideas at the receiver in hopes of eliciting a desired response.

For a look at seduction, Dr. George Simon, PhD (2009) declares, “Playing to the desire of another to be valued and liked can be a powerful manipulation tool … seduction can be very deliberate, calculated, and carried out in such a manner that the other person is swept away.” It would seem, then, that the consensus is that persuasion is the most “egalitarian” approach in attempting to either modify or reinforce another’s attitude, and hence their ensuing behavior.

Persuasion could be said to be the simplest form of attitude affectation of the three. However, as “simple” as it might be, a clear-cut definition is truly difficult to come by. The authors of Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining (Gass, R.H. and Seiter, J.S., 2004, pp. 14-16), list more than twenty varying definitions from some of the most esteemed authors and researchers in the fields of persuasion and social psychology. Even these accomplished sources provide very different elements in their definitions, some citing the give-and-take nature of the process with others using a minimal use of language to form the definition. Many of these individuals do include certain common attributes such as a desire to affect another’s attitudes and beliefs, and that the receiver has a choice in acceptance or rejection of the message(s).

It is safe to say, therefore, that manipulation may merit its perception as a negative communication device. The sender is one who treats the receiver as an object to be changed, rather than an individual with whom to have a logical dialogue. The sender can use behavioral stimuli known to elicit certain responses, for instance, and achieve the desired results while circumventing the receiver’s cognitive analysis; or the sender can use messages that have proven to act upon the receiver’s encoding in the desired fashion. “Persuasion without integrity is just a fancy name for manipulation … making people do something that they obviously don’t want to do … Manipulators use the emotions of people against them, destroying trust in the process” (Sager, 2005).

The art of seduction is a subset of manipulation that has a specific style or line of attack. The sender insinuates himself into the more intimate comfort zone of the receiver, identifying himself as a source of trust and ego-satisfaction. The sender so stimulates the receiver’s need for self-fulfillment that no attempt is made by the receiver to analyze the worth of the message; the response is on a purely emotional level. Dr. George Simon, PhD, author of In Sheep’s Clothing, looks upon seduction in a very unfavorable fashion. “Perhaps one of the most insidious ways to favorably manage the impressions of others while simultaneously trying to get something you want from them is seduction” (2009, para. 1).

Well now that the “Mad Men” for Venus Cosmetics know the distinctions among the three approaches, they can decide how to proceed. Do they feel confident that this product is, in fact, a superior one that can truly deliver prime results? It would seem apt to use a persuasive approach in this instance. By presenting a credible spokesperson like a microbiology specialist who could point out what makes this a superior product; or Nicole Kidman testifying how use of this cream has fundamentally improved her skin’s health and appearance could satisfy two forms of message processing. In one sense, the appeal would be to the audience’s central processing – deliberate, logical interpretation of the message. Additionally, both Kidman’s high status with the general public and the specialist’s use of copious supportive data could also appeal to the audience if they were to assess using peripheral processing, or mental shortcuts. Accepting the actress as a trusted spokesperson, or believing that a lot of data must be true data, the audience would accept the message as valid without further analysis.

Traditional television and magazine advertising would probably be the most appropriate media for this strategy. The audience would be intelligent, discriminating women, who do not take things at face value, but search for the underlying veracity of messages directed at them.

Say the Venus ad agency determines that they are uncomfortable with the potential numbers of women who would use strong cognition in message reception. Fearing that number to be insufficient, they could choose to go for a manipulative presentation. Here there are more options from which to cull a specific technique. They could choose to use envy as a hot button, implying that anyone who is anyone is buying this product. They could appeal to their sense of guilt for buying another brand’s product at twice the cost – “what a waste!” They could appeal to their moral sense by announcing that a percentage of each purchase would go to a well-known charity.

As well as TV and magazine exposure, radio and internet exposure could also be added. For example, there could be a banner on the charity’s website repeating the message that sales of the product would benefit this charity. These approaches would work well upon the majority of the female target audience, I believe. They satisfy many needs and responses on many levels, and provide for a minimal amount of cognitive analysis. Marketing could still focus upon a manipulative approach, while bolstering the campaign here and there with more-intelligent persuasive messages as well.

For purposes of seduction, the message would be that using this facial cream would make you desirable to all men. It could prey upon the many insecurities that women have concerning self-image, and state that this product would be the cure-all they so desperately need. Rather than a specialist telling them about the myriad revolutionary and unique properties of the cream, or a sophisticated spokesperson such as Ms. Kidman; a sexy Eva Longoria, Catherine Zeta Jones or Megan Fox would be the representative extolling the gratification one can achieve by using this cream.

There would be many TV ads showing, say, Ms. Fox, seductively attired and interacting with a very handsome male model, implying that the model finds her attractive because of the product. Internet ads might be even more blatant in suggesting that if the target audience has no romance in their life, it is their fault for not using this magical product. The target here would probably be both a younger and lower-income demographic. This appeal would certainly not be for the sophisticated and discerning woman, but for those whose self-image and self-confidence might be less than desirable.

So what is the marketing arm of Venus Cosmetics to do? It will depend upon many, many issues such as market research, demographic research and confidence in the product. They can take the moral high road and attempt to persuade their audience by presenting compelling, accurate facts concerning their superior product. On the other hand, they could choose to “play the odds” and implement the tried and true method of manipulating their audience to achieve the desired goal of towering sales/profits. If manipulation is their choice, they could choose to apply seduction as the catalyst.

These are the many choices our marketing individuals will have to make. A simple task? No, not by any means. Perhaps that is why they are called, “Mad Men.”



References

Lakhani, D. (2005). Excerpt from Persuasion: the art of getting what you want. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. Retrieved March 5, 2010, from http://www.squidoo.com/persuasion-or-manipulation.

Sager, L. M. (2005). Excerpt from A river worth riding: fourteen rules for navigating life. Retrieved March 5, 2010, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Persuasion-Versus-Manipulation---Whats-the-Difference?&id=980122.

Seiter, J. S. & Gass, R. H. (2004). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. Boston: Pearson.

Simon, G. S. (2009). Seduction as a manipulation tactic: playing on your need to be valued. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/04/13/seduction-as-manipulation-tactic/.

Swets, P. (1983). The art of talking so that people will listen: getting through to family, friends & business associates. New York: Fireside. Retrieved March 5, 2010, from http://www.hodu.com/compliments.shtml