So I was at this concert this past week. It was a charity event where the money from the tickets and collections would be given to this learn to read program in Philadelphia.
I bring this up because during the intermission of the concert, the priest (the concert was held in a church) stood up and gave a speech about the organization. The thing is, he wasn't alone. He brought up a Buster with him, a dog. Of course, this caught everyone's attention. What's the dog for? Well, before talking about the organization, the priest said, "This is Buster. He's here to make you feel sorry for us and donate money." Even at the end of his speech, the priest said, "And if you still have any doubts about donating, just look at Buster." Both times, the audience just laughed at the comments, but it got me thinking. Was that an effective way to get people to donate? It is really more effective to say that you're trying to trick people?
Mary Quien
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I really do think that there may be some reverse psychology involved. The priest was indeed admitting to the use of a propaganda techinique. When the audience acknowledges that he has told the truth, and revealed his "treacherous plan", they no longer expect him to throw any more curve balls. They're stumped with the notion that, "Oh, he told us what the Buster's purpose was. He's just saving us from donating our money uselessly." By explaining himself, he has established a warrant with the audience.
This reminds me of something Mr. Lazarow mentioned on one of the first few days of class while we were learning about the Toulmin Method. He said that, as humans, we're gullible enough to thoroughly enjoy when an opposing party admits that they were wrong or at fault. It makes us feel more comfortable, more at ease in our environment, which according to Douglas Rushkoff, is one of the key components put into effect when convincing a consumer to purchase blindly.
(Sam Maliha)
Not only would the audience be more at ease, having the priest's "trick" out in the open, but, seriously, what better to get people's attention (and money) than a dog. Most people like dogs, and a connection is created between the audience and the priest when he says (without actually saying it), "I like dogs just like you, and I think they're really cute, too." It's the fact that the priest knows what the audience is thinking...
Emily T.
I think the priest was trying to make it interesting so people would pay attention. If he just went up and talked about his charity, I doubt anyone would really lend him their ear. I don't think he establishes a warrant with the audience as Sam said because the dog has nothing to do with his argument to get money. Hes just using the dog to attract attention. Whether that worked or not...
(Arvind Kalidindi)
But isn't the warrant something established between the audience and the speaker which creates a comfortable working environment? Isn't that what the dog is doing when it strikes sympathy from the audience? Soon, everyone is connected by these human feelings, and the priest must be feeling them, too, right? Or is he?
This is the thought process of the audience, I believe..or a possibility at least. "He loves dogs, so do we. He must be great!" etc, etc...
(Sam Maliha)
Isn't this basically what we saw in the Rushkoff documentary in class? I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but there was a Sprite campaign that featured some celebrity (A football player, was it?) shamelessly promoting the soft drink with a little pop-up in the corner showing him with fistfuls of cash.
In the world that we live in so permeated by ad campaigns, from logo shirts to billboard advertisements, most people feel a bit jaded about advertising in general. By exposing his ulterior motive in bringing Buster with him, the priest appeals to this sense of cynicism present in the audience members. The humor of the situation also helps to draw attention away from the fact that his exposure of advertisement is in fact just another form of advertisement.. (If that makes sense)
Naturally, this is a technique that can be overused, which is why (though the campaign was successful) Sprite eventually chose a different path.
I agree with Sam on the warrant. I like dogs. You like dogs. Let's like dogs together and raise money! Plus if the dog is affected by the donations, I think it would have an even greater impact because we generally think of animals in need as helpless and we believe that our help is crucial(those heart-breaking ASPCA commercials).
Then there's always the appeal of honesty and humor. People don't like to be duped and if the priest is willing to admit that he's using the dog to get money, then I believe that there may be a second warrant established. I think honesty is the best policy. You think honesty is the best policy. Let's be honest together and raise money!
Finally, there's the humor. I would have given just because I think the situation is funny. This may be less appealing than the dogs and the honesty, but hey, it got my imaginary dollar.
^^(Megan)^^
Post a Comment