I like the article and agree that persuasion of some sort is usually the intent of communication. Provocative messages (themes) that encourage us to think are more likely to persuade us to change behavior. Lots of research these days underpin the ways that communication are used to encourage desirable behaviors in healthcare, environmental stewardship and sustainable management of communities and organizations.

It’s an interesting discussion.

I take your points about the matrix, although personally I don’t see a problem with an axis which has an intended benefit for A at one end, an intended benefit for B at the other end, and an intended benefit for both in the middle. I’d be interested to hear what others think about this.

I don’t agree that you can always tick the ‘good for presenter’ box. I spent some time yesterday trying to persuade someone about something, and it means absolutely nothing to me whether she takes it on board or not – I was simply acting for what I perceived as her benefit. True ‘naked presenters’ are always acting for their audience’s benefit, without regard to their own.

And I also don’t agree that manipulation is always bad for the audience as your matrix would suggest. Sure, you manipulate someone if you are aiming to get them to do something for your benefit and not theirs. But the fact it’s intended to benefit you doesn’t mean it’s bad for them. If Lacoste advertises its clothes to me, that’s entirely intended for Lacoste’s benefit and not mine, but buying their clothes is not bad for me. I wouldn’t want my matrix to have advertising for clothes in a different place to advertising for fast food, just because some may judge that buying one of them is bad for the audience. Whether it’s good for the audience is not relevant there: it’s about the communicator’s intention, not the end result of the desired action.

Fully agree though that nowadays any insincere communication can be found out extremely quickly, so you should never lie, and it’s always best to appear not to have selfish intentions. But you can tell the truth in manipulative ways. And call me cynical if you will: I accept that, because I see politicians using manipulation all the time, and while there are a few good eggs in there, most appear to crave power (not money) rather than public service. My father did a term as a local councillor, but got fed up of being stifled by selfish career politicians who were in it for themselves and not their constituents, and I know local councillors in my village who feel much the same.

And investors – well, yes they are always open to great ideas, but the default position at the start of a pitch is that their chequebook isn’t (yet) open, and they need to be persuaded to open it.

Love to hear some other points of view on the matrix debate!

Phil

The way you set up the chart does your analysis a disservice. As you point out later in the article, “what’s good for the listener” and “what’s good for presenter” are actually independent axes, and so “mutual interest” isn’t well represented here.

If somebody is attempting to persuade somebody else, you can effectively tick the “good for presenter” box. You are left with a chart with two axes: effective/ineffective and good/bad for listener.

Assuming the vertical axis is bad for listener at the bottom, good for listener at the top, “Manipulation” would be represented as the lower right quadrant, and “Mutual interest” would be top right.

Thankfully, due in large part to social media, any form of persuasion that “lies” — i.e. attempts to portray something as a listener benefit, but isn’t — will get found out very fast. Social media is increasing transparency, driving out the bad, and encouraging the good.

So I believe the real answer to your student’s question is that communication is a weapon that people can try to use for good or bad, but that manipulation is increasingly difficult…

Other nits:

* I think it’s too cynical to say that politics is about manipulation. I think they do have strong convictions, and for better or worse, most of them would have more money/power if they stuck to the private sector (but they’re still human, so will and do make mistakes…)

* Entrepreneur/Investor. The investor is actually dying to open her wallet — to the right investment (e.g. Facebook turning people away). It just happens there are fewer people with money to invest than are good entrepreneurs with good ideas.