Can You Argue Your Case in 15 Seconds?

The advertising world has a lot in common with courtroom communication: Grab your audience’s attention early or you may lose that audience completely.

A recent Associated Press article reports that 15-second television commercials are replacing 30-second spots as the industry standard because of viewers’ shrinking attention spans. Advertisers are finding that if they can’t make the sale in 15 seconds, they probably can’t make it at all.

This dovetails with our own research showing that 85 percent of focus group jurors deliver the same verdict at the close of the session as at the beginning. This means that no matter what information they hear later in the case, that crucial first impression more often than not determines their final decision.

Although jurors can’t change the channel during trial, they can tune you out. That’s why we recommend making your best arguments and telling your strongest story right away. Once you’ve grabbed jurors’ attention with a succinct, clear storyline they’ll remember for the rest of the trial, you can fill in the details that fit in with that overall theme.

Give us a call if you’d like to discuss our findings further. We’d be happy to share some of our opening statement tips and strategies.

Simple Biases Affecting Verdicts

A recent look into juror perceptions relating to lawsuits and insurance rates yielded some interesting trends. Nationwide data collected from our focus group exercises shows 40% of Americans believe lawsuits are “significantly” contributing to rising insurance costs, while 54% say “somewhat” contributing and 5.5% say “not at all.”

Examining how various demographics play into these perceptions also revealed a notable pattern when age was considered. The trend lines show jurors becoming increasingly aware of the impact of verdicts on insurance costs as they advance in years. This is likely because older jurors are far more likely to be sensitive to insurance costs than younger jurors.


From our perspective, the most remarkable trend is how these perceptions correlate with overall verdicts. Jurors who identified lawsuits as having a “significant” impact on rising insurance costs are 64% more likely to side with the defense, and jurors who choose “not at all” are 57% more likely to side with the plaintiff.


These figures illustrate just how strongly biases can impact and predict juror outcomes. Call us if we can help you uncover those critical biases that will shape strategy for your next trial.

The Power of Persuasion

Getting What You Want—The Power of Persuasion
Posted By: Gloria McDonough-Taub CNBC, Senior Editor, Blogs

Guest Author Blog by: Chris St. Hilaire author of "27 POWERS OF PERSUASION: Simple Strategies To Seduce Audiences & Win Allies"

Persuasion for CEOs (And Those Who Want their Bosses Job)

One critical characteristic in any business leader’s success, especially a CEO's, is their ability to be persuasive. Among the best is their ability to persuade, to get thousands marching in the same direction, it all looks effortless. But we all know it’s not.

So how do they do it?

I’ve watched some of the best CEOs in America in action. I’ve sat with them, talked with them, picked their brains. I’ve watched them lead meetings and solicit opinions and each share common attributes. I’ve watched some lousy CEOs in action too. There tends to be similarities in their styles as well, but let’s focus on the positive.

Here’s five pieces of advice that good leaders follow – and are crucial for business leaders to keep in mind when seeking to persuade one person or an entire company:

1. Focus on the Goal

Whenever you're trying to persuade, your first mission is to define the goal. The most effective way to do this is not to announce the goal to the group, but to help everyone decide on it together. You want to have the largest possible buy-in from everyone involved, and you get it by having everyone contribute to the goal at the beginning.

A good way to get the ball rolling is to simply ask the room, "What's our goal? What are we trying to accomplish today?" Let people talk. Let them give you the answer. If no one speaks up, directly ask them for input. Boil it down to one or two simple sentences that everyone agrees on, even if it seems obvious.

There is great power in stating the obvious. No one wants to do it because it seems so rudimentary, but the minute you state the "obvious" goal of a meeting, you become the leader even if you're not officially in charge. This is because every group has an innate longing to be unified. Confusion and discord make people feel anxious and threatened, and unity makes them feel safe. People unify around a goal.

2. Get Others Invested

Want people to be more enthusiastic about your plan? Make it their idea. Create situations that will encourage the others to speak up, pro or con. Give people choices in which you’re comfortable with either choice. Use their points to support your goal and tie points together using other people’s suggestions. Making everyone in the room right, will unify them around your goal.

It’s a win/win for everyone.

3. Use a Couple of Numbers to Make Points Meaningful

People love to quantify things, even when what we’re stating is an opinion. For some reason it makes points more official. Using a statistic or two (don’t over stat them) creates some official barometer in which to measure success. It also creates the impression that there’s some official measurement involved. You used to see it a lot in commercials where 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed prefer one tooth-paste over another.

4. Learn to Use Silence

Silence and being comfortable with it allows you to take control of a room without seeming aggressive. Try it. Sit silently, comfortably – one of two things will happen. First, if your listener is nervous they’ll add on and you’ll get to what they really think. Second, some of the best solutions to problems come at the end of a statement, after they “seem” finished. Use silence to your advantage.

5. Own the Language

It’s a concept that has long been familiar to people in advertising. For them, the gold standard of owning the language has always been when the product name replaces the actual noun or verb. Classic examples are Kleenex for tissue, Chapstick for lip balm and Fedex for overnight delivery. Your ability to invent terms, to define the language, means that everyone will adopt your thinking.

Just about every aspect of our life involves persuasion. Those who master it are reaping the benefits. I hope you’re one of them.

To read an excerpt of "27 POWERS OF PERSUASION: Simple Strategies To Seduce Audiences & Win Allies" click here.

____________________________

Keep It Simple

We once monitored a trial where the jurors returned a verdict in 32 minutes. They would have been faster, the foreman explained later, but they wanted to eat lunch before they started deliberating.

Jurors attributed the speedy defense verdict to attorneys who presented a simple, easily comprehensible story that was consistent from beginning to end of the 14-day trial.

Contrast that with the federal criminal trial of former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich, where deliberations alone took 14 days – and ended with a jury deadlocked on 23 of the 24 counts.

Jurors’ comments to the media reveal that the prosecutor’s case collapsed under the weight of its own complexity. “The majority of us felt it was confusing,” juror Eric Sarnello said. “It was all over the place.”

Consider what jurors were given to work with: more than a month’s worth of prosecution witnesses and 100 pages of jury instructions. Even more stunning is what they weren’t given, perhaps the most basic courtroom tool available: a timeline. This oversight forced jurors to spend hours of their deliberations doing what prosecutors should have done for them, piece together the dates and charges from 2001 to Blagojevich’s arrest in 2008.

Our case research has demonstrated that the side who presents the simpler story has the advantage. We suggest making sure before you go to trial that you can tell a compelling story in 30 seconds – basically, an “elevator pitch” for your case. If the other side can’t do this, so much the better.

While the Blagojevich jurors were 11-1 in favor of conviction on the other 23 counts – perhaps compelling evidence that the prosecution’s case was at least in some ways better than the defense’s – the fact is that when the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the need to streamline should be elevated as well. When this case is retried, prosecutors would be well-advised to remember that focus and restraint are paramount to helping jurors understand what a case is all about.

They would also be prudent to consider that the defense did exactly what it was supposed to do: create doubt through a straightfoward contention that the government had failed to prove its case, all without calling a single witness. “Zip,” is how Blagojevich’s lawyer described their defense.

It’s hard to make it much simpler than that.

Jurors Adding Lawyer Fees

Jurors are typically instructed not to include attorney fees when considering damage awards. Think they’re listening?

Nationwide data collected this year from our jury focus groups is telling: A whopping 76 percent say they would take lawyers’ fees into account when determining damage awards.

That tendency isn’t attributable to Americans’ love of ignoring judges, but rather our implicit belief in “fairness.” During focus group discussions, jurors tell us again and again they “know the lawyers are going to take 30 to 40 percent,” meaning if they believe the injured party requires $1 million to be adequately taken care of, lawyers taking 30 to 40 percent in fees doesn’t sound “fair.”

As you can imagine, this “juror math” can cause large verdicts to quickly grow larger.

Give us a call if you would like to know more about our research in this area. And don’t forget to pre-order Chris St. Hilaire’s new book 27 Powers of Persuasion available online now at major book retailers.

To sign up to receive our Things That Make You Go Hmmm... to your inbox, please e-mail us at info@juryimpact.net

Investors Business Daily: 27 Powers of Persuasion

Chris St. Hilaire's upcoming book 27 Powers of Persuasion was recently featured in Investors Business Daily:

Make A Powerful Case

By Cord Cooper

Getting ahead often means winning people to your point of view. It depends heavily on your approach — and the allies you tap to build your case.

• Bring 'em in. If the idea involves risk, some will be hesitant to show early support, says business coach Chris St. Hilaire, author of "27 Powers of Persuasion."

To win people over, use what he calls "third-party validation." Mention key people who support your idea — whether execs, co-workers or industry heavyweights.

If the idea's gaining traction, "nobody wants to be the last" to climb aboard, he noted.

• Defuse. "One of the easiest ways to soothe an ego is to use the phrase 'From my perspective,'" St. Hilaire said. "Perspective is an incredibly useful word that implies you're going to take the emotion out of the conversation."

• Play it up. When presenting viewpoints, look for strengths in each situation. If you're the only woman in a meeting, "own that perspective instead of ignoring it," St. Hilaire said.

He suggested trying something like this: "Can I tell you what I'm hearing from women? They account for 43% of this market."

If you're young or transitioning to a new career, you may be seen as lacking experience. How to fight it? Offer fresh insights convincingly. Back ideas up with facts.

• Show appreciation. If trying to persuade your boss in a one-on-one meeting, "use the first few minutes to make him feel valued," St. Hilaire said.

Thank him for taking the time to meet with you, then get to the point quickly.

• Phrase it positively. When presenting your case, use key words that gain support, such as choice, accountability and fairness. He gave this example: "I want to make sure you have choices, and that in the end someone is held accountable so we ensure the fairest result."

• Give 'em ammo. To bring people aboard, arm your allies with facts — talking points and statistics they can use to make your case, he says. Keep your points brief, so allies — and their audience — can remember them.

In presentations, simplify your story as much as possible. Show how the endgame can be reached. Stress the benefits.

• Size 'em up. Howard Gardner, author of "Changing Minds," suggests asking yourself:

Does the person you're trying to persuade respond well to an upfront approach, or should you open with questions and examples?

What are the person's hot-button issues?

Is the topic you're about to broach one of those issues?

• Compromise. When seeking support, don't respond to requests with a negative. Saying no has an air of finality. Look for common ground with a "let's-try-this" approach, St. Hilaire said.

• Keep cool. The more calmly you make your case, the more effective it'll be, notes communications coach Jack Griffin, author of "How to Say It at Work."

• Be prepared. List the negatives people could raise — then address them early in your presentation.

CLICK HERE TO PRE-ORDER THE BOOK!

Your Juror is on the Net, Or Will Be Soon

Want to know more about the jurors hearing your case? Chances are, you can read about them online. National data from our focus groups show the number of jurors reporting they belong to some kind of social networking site has grown steadily since we began tracking in 2008.
In addition, the average age of those reporting an online social presence is increasing. In 2008, just 14% of jurors older than 40 years reported belonging to an online social site. So far, during just the first half of 2010, 40% of those older than 40 report having a Facebook or MySpace page, or similar online social network.

Further, the potential sources for jurors to “express” themselves or provide critical personal information continues to grow, as we have seen with sites like Twitter and LinkedIn.

Remember, researching jurors online is not just valuable for jury selection. Understanding a juror’s social priorities and language traits can help you better tailor themes, arguments, and words to fit your jury panel’s world views.

Call us if you’d like to know more.

The Right Words in the Right Venue

True Story. We were listening to the radio the other day as a German bakery owner hoping to entice new customers explained in his thick accent that he was a “master-baker.” We laughed and then decided to remind everyone of the importance of choosing the right words in the right venue.

Words create emotions and build context for the audience. And as you probably know, choosing the right words and using them to develop a context that benefits your case is the difference between communicating your point persuasively and communicating something very, very different.

We recently fielded a survey in which jurors were asked what attributes make a good nurse. Respondents were offered a range of choices including “advanced specialty training,” “responds quickly,” and “at least five years experience.”

And what was the highest-scoring attribute by a 2:1 margin? “A kind, compassionate bedside manner.”

This response mirrors our national research findings, where jurors consistently cite “compassionate," “caring” and “spends more time with patients” as the qualities they most desire in a nurse. Using language that evokes positive perceptions of a nurse or a witness early in trial can have a tremendous effect on how jurors filter and envision the details of an event.

Next time you’re in trial, use the emotional words that will play to predispositions about what a juror wants in a caregiver or other witnesses. It’ll paint a positive picture in jurors’ minds. Call us if we can help you choose the right words for your next trial.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm…March 2010

Unless you’re a superhero masquerading as an attorney, chances are telepathy isn’t among your abilities. Instead, you’re stuck divining jurors’ thoughts by monitoring body language or note-taking – and assuming feverish writing is related to your brilliant cross-examination, rather than a grocery list or screenplay pitch.

Fortunately, more and more courts are allowing jurors to submit written questions to witnesses following the attorneys’ examinations. These questions provide a much better gauge of juror leanings during trial by revealing what made sense to them, what did not, and what else they want to know.

Although some lawyers may prefer the “ignorance is bliss” approach to trial – learning what the jury was thinking only when the verdict is read and not before – we respectfully disagree.

As we have observed during our focus groups and mock trials, the ability to identify and answer questions from the outset prevents the dangerous juror tendency to make up their own answers based on potentially inaccurate, pre-existing knowledge. Pre-trial jury research can help to eliminate and address the majority of likely juror questions, and allowing jurors to submit questions during trial adds another layer of proactive protection from harmful juror assumptions.

During a recent trial, juror questions were eye-opening. After nearly four hours of expert testimony explaining the plaintiff’s causation theory, a high-priced, self-important expert witness received the following query: “So I don’t understand…what exactly is your theory on why the plaintiff was injured?”

With that one question, from arguably the most intelligent juror on the panel, the defense knew the plaintiff’s “star expert” explanation had failed to resonate, and, most importantly, that despite four days of testimony, jurors were still observing the plaintiff’s case with a highly critical eye.

So until your superpowers include mind-reading, encouraging the court to allow juror questions can be a great way to get into jurors’ heads and adjust your case accordingly – before they announce a verdict you don’t want to hear.

-Claire Luna

Jury Impact's 2009 Med-Mal Awards

The “fashionistas” are out and E!’s “Red Carpet” is back, and that can only mean one thing – Oscar season. So in the spirit of the festivities we’re presenting our own "2009 Med-Mal Awards!”

Last year, we conducted research in med-mal cases nationwide. Despite radical differences in fact patterns and jurisdiction, similar themes--for the plaintiff and defense--always seem to register. We see it time and again…jurors “classify” cases into a few categories. That means common themes emerge. So which themes were juror favorites in 2009?

First, our award for Most Popular Plaintiff Theme. And the nominees are:

Delays in Care
Communication Breakdowns
Not Enough Tests
High-Risk Patients Deserve a Higher Level of Care
The Splash Effect: when jurors apportion responsibility to everyone
because they perceive negligence on one party.

And the award for Most Popular Plaintiff Theme goes to…“The Splash Effect!” In a whopping 38% of cases, we saw “splash” in one form or another.

Next, our award for Most Resonant Defense Theme. And the nominees are:

Credible Alternate Causes
Inevitable Outcome
Moment-to-Moment Care
Personal Responsibility: either failing to take care of themselves
and/or for not communicating with caregivers.

And the award for Most Resonant Defense Theme goes to…“Inevitable Outcomes.” In a massive 56% of our cases last year, jurors expressed the opinion that “outcomes were inevitable” because a pre-existing or rare condition prevented caregivers from effectively diagnosing or treating the patient.

Uh-oh, the band is starting to play. How close was the vote? To find out, or for more information about themes that resonate and the language we use to address them, please don't hesitate to contact us.

-Stephen Duffy

Toyota's Troubles

In our automotive research experience, we’ve learned that just as Volvo is associated with “safety” and Mercedes-Benz with “luxury,” the Toyota brand carries incredibly strong connotations with “reliability.” Furthermore, many consumers agree Toyota’s sterling reputation for trouble-free ownership is worth a premium over other more “stylish” or performance-oriented brands.

Now, Toyota’s reputation for dependability is under siege. And from our perspective, the company mas made some crucial mistakes in addressing consumer anxiety.

In Jury Impact President Chris St. Hilaire’s upcoming book, The 27 Powers of Persuasion, three chapters specifically apply to Toyota’s current situation:

*Go on the Offensive
*Take Responsibility—It Will Be Assigned Anyway
*Release Bad News—All of It—Quickly

One of the most essential elements of any messaging campaign is going on the offensive. Whether presenting at trial, selling a product, or addressing public relations nightmares, we always stress to our clients the importance of going on the offensive. Toyota, on the other hand, seemed until recently to be taking a reactive approach to criticisms.

In September 2009, after concerns surfaced about accelerators sticking under floor mats, causing four deaths, Toyota recalled 3.8 million autos (this followed a 55,000-vehicle recall in 2007 for the same issue).

The first apology from CEO Akio Toyoda, when he reassured the public “we guarantee [our customers’] safety,” was on January 29 of this year. That four-month delay is hardly going on the offensive.

From a PR perspective, Toyota has seemed content trying to isolate its issues to a few specific models and fighting fires only as they flare up. Specifically, since the floor mat and sticky accelerator issues surfaced, a Toyota Prius and Lexus HS250h recall has been issued related to faulty brakes, and reports are now surfacing about steering problems with Corollas. Making matters worse, Toyota now admits it was fully aware of these braking problems yet chose not to issue a fix or recall.

This failure to act (including an early refusal to fix accelerators already at the dealership because, according to its U.S. Safety spokesperson, “Toyota continues selling models involved in the recall, expecting that they work fine because they are new and the throttles don't seem to begin sticking until the vehicle ages”) has led to yet another PR-horror show as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an investigation. Toyota’s piecemeal approach to revealing problems it was well aware of has drawn out what could have been one really bad news week into a months-long cascade of bad press.

This stresses the importance of releasing bad news—all of it—quickly. Toyota’s reactive, after-the-fact strategy for addressing problems puts the company at a disadvantage for several reasons: 1) It is spending too much time responding to new criticisms to get ahead of the bad news, 2) waiting for the attacks to come in before addressing known issues makes the company seem defensive instead of preemptive, and 3) there is a growing perception Toyota is are not proactively monitoring vehicle safety, and only addressing things for which it is “caught in the act.”

By waiting too long to go on the offensive, being slow to address new concerns, and failing to put all of the bad news on the table at once, Toyota has allowed the media to control the message, resulting in public relations nightmare and a piling-on effect.

In a February 9 Washington Post op-ed, Toyoda explained what the company is doing to prevent issues like these from arising in the future, specifically a "top-to-bottom review" of Toyota's global operations. That’s great news, but a bit late. This apology, in which he concedes Toyota needs to investigate consumer complaints more quickly, comes after months of failing to investigate consumer complaints more quickly.

However, the company should be credited for finally taking responsibility. Some would say it’s a bold move, but based on our experience, responsibility will be assigned anyway—so if you’re aware of problems, it’s always better to admit mistakes as early as possible.

Which brings us to another crucial element to a successful communication campaign: presenting a cohesive, consistent message. Instead of creating new messages for each new problem, from early on Toyota could have been playing to longstanding predispositions about its product quality and presented a broad message to address the safety and reliability of the larger brand.

Consumers don’t care which models have steering issues, which are prone to floor mats jamming under the gas pedal, the parts supplier responsible for faulty pedals, or the intricacies of the dealership and factory fixes—they just want to be reassured the car they’re driving is safe. And that’s the big picture message that seems to only be coming out now in recent mea culpas, press releases, and television ads.

Considering Toyota lost $21 billion in market share in just one week, these blunders clearly aren’t minor. Instead, they highlight the consequences of failing to go on the offensive with a cohesive, consistent message. However, they will have fresh opportunities to apply these messaging principles, as CNN reports the lawsuits have already started in earnest.

We hope that Honda, which just issued a major recall related to airbags, will learn from Toyota’s missteps.

-Todd Fairbanks

Board Certification

During a recent focus group involving hospital credentialing, 18 of 24 jurors said they believe doctors must be board certified to practice medicine.

Based on the frequency of similar responses, we began surveying on the issue last year during groups involving medical malpractice. So far we’ve asked 487 jurors: “Do you think your primary care doctor is board certified?”

Of those polled, 18.9% said “I don’t know” and an astounding 80.3% said “yes.” Perhaps most telling is that only four out of 487 said “no.”

This means that a vast majority of jurors from all regions, backgrounds, ethnicities, genders and incomes assume their doctor is board certified. Our experience tells us this confusion results from an assumption that board certification and medical licensing are one and the same.

Naturally, the question arises: if a doctor involved in a lawsuit is not board certified, how do you discuss the issue? Conversely, if a doctor is board certified, how do you use juror predispositions to your advantage?

Second question first – when doctors are board certified, you need to talk about it. Play to juror predispositions and highlight doctor education, training, experience, as well as the dedication it takes to pass board exams and establish oneself in a specialty. By playing to juror perceptions that doctors should be board certified (whether actually required or not), you establish and bolster their credibility.

Now to the tougher question where there’s no easy answer. When trying a case involving a doctor who is not board certified, you must recognize that jurors are going to perceive it as a net negative. We have tested many ways to address this issue during research, with limited success.

With that said, a lack of board certification makes contextualizing the rest of the doctor’s experience all the more important. We suggest spending considerable time talking about the education they do have, including the number of surgeries or other relevant procedures performed, specific qualifications, fellowships completed, and other credentials. Highlighting that experience can somewhat mitigate the negative biases seen in the above juror statistic.

During the coming year, we’re adding new questions to our Depth Charts to provide you with more quantitative data. If you have any suggestions for juror questions or things you’d like to know specifically, let us know. We’d love to hear them.

-Todd Fairbanks