Book review: '27 Powers' convinces
Published: Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2011 12:08 p.m. MDT
By Rhett Wilkinson, For the Deseret News
"27 POWERS OF PERSUASION: Simple Strategies to Seduce Audiences and Win Allies," by Chris St. Hilaire, Penguin, $15, 240 pages
Leaning over someone, using five minutes to make your audience feel safe and staying in the present were just a few of the many, though often obvious, suggestions of persuasion given by Chris St. Hilaire in his book, "27 Powers of Persuasion," which has recently been released in paperback.
It's quite amazing to consider the many ways in which one can break down the methods of persuasion. For those who might think that a businessman, lawyer, politician, or reporter can simply walk into a room and cause everyone to agree with his or her points of thinking, St. Hilaire would argue otherwise.
Some readers may read a chapter in the book — each of which focuses on a particular method of persuasion — from the tactics mentioned above to using third-party validation and being your own pundit. Oft times, the suggestions seem of common sense, though others may not strike readers as such.
St. Hilaire uses excellent examples ranging from sports figures to business entrepreneurs to demonstrate his points — showing tact in one of his own suggested methods, "mak(ing) sure everyone's invested."
St. Hilaire also uses appealing personal examples, including, among other examples, the time he wore a pink shirt as a part of helping a team of lawyers recognize their reality.
In doing so, St. Hilaire has appealed to readership beyond just law or journalism, but to business owners and even parents striving to guide a family. St. Hilaire's appeal to a wide demographic through his strength of parallels is found from start to finish.
www.27powersofpersuasion.com
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
"Right Track"/"Wrong Track" -- Which is the Better Juror?
Are juror perceptions about America’s direction predictive of how
they might decide a case? The short answer is "yes.” After
792 interviews it’s clear — jurors who think the country is on the
wrong track demonstrate a stronger likelihood of voting for the
defense.
Over the past few years, our voter polls have mirrored national
polls which show the country’s citizens increasingly pessimistic
about our nation’s future (“Is the country on the right track, or
off on the wrong track?”). We wanted to see how these trends
were affecting juror verdicts — so we took a look at our data
from the past year. Overall, our jury samples show the same
downward trend, with respondents increasingly perceiving the
country on the wrong track.
Surprisingly however, our data demonstrated a strong
correlation between juror-respondents who believed the
country was on the “wrong track” and jurors siding with
the defense. In fact, 60% of jurors who reported
believing the country is on the“wrong track” also sided
with the defense during jury exercises. Those who
selected “right track” were evenly divided among
plaintiff and defense verdicts.
Do you think the United States is on the Right Track or Wrong Track?
So what do we do with that information? Well, if you’re stuck
on whom to eliminate (and working with the defense) — odds
are you should select the “wrong track” juror. It’ll increase
your odds of finding the juror mindset most predisposed to
understanding your side of the story. Call us if you’d like an
evaluation of your next case.
they might decide a case? The short answer is "yes.” After
792 interviews it’s clear — jurors who think the country is on the
wrong track demonstrate a stronger likelihood of voting for the
defense.
Over the past few years, our voter polls have mirrored national
polls which show the country’s citizens increasingly pessimistic
about our nation’s future (“Is the country on the right track, or
off on the wrong track?”). We wanted to see how these trends
were affecting juror verdicts — so we took a look at our data
from the past year. Overall, our jury samples show the same
downward trend, with respondents increasingly perceiving the
country on the wrong track.
Surprisingly however, our data demonstrated a strong
correlation between juror-respondents who believed the
country was on the “wrong track” and jurors siding with
the defense. In fact, 60% of jurors who reported
believing the country is on the“wrong track” also sided
with the defense during jury exercises. Those who
selected “right track” were evenly divided among
plaintiff and defense verdicts.
Do you think the United States is on the Right Track or Wrong Track?
So what do we do with that information? Well, if you’re stuck
on whom to eliminate (and working with the defense) — odds
are you should select the “wrong track” juror. It’ll increase
your odds of finding the juror mindset most predisposed to
understanding your side of the story. Call us if you’d like an
evaluation of your next case.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Judges Are People Too
You’ve likely heard us make the point that research is just as meaningful for cases you know will be bench trials as it is in jury trials – because themes that resonate with jurors often apply to judges as well.
A recent defense verdict for a case we worked on drove home this point, as several of the judge’s findings might as well have been lifted verbatim from our focus group report.
The case involved an internationally known shipping company that switched vendors for unloading services. Vendor A sued, accusing the shipper of stealing financial secrets and feeding them to a new potential Vendor. They claimed that Vendor B’s proposal undercut their prices, and that’s why the new vendor snagged the contract.
From the defense perspective, Vendor A wasn’t even in the running for the contract, given its poor productivity and equipment so outdated that one employee described its facility as a “forklift graveyard.”
Research participants heard the details and determined that the defendant acted “unethically but not illegally.” And here’s a direct quote from the judge’s final ruling: “The defendant’s conduct was likely unethical, but not illegal.”
The judge went on to cite several points for both sides that were spot on with what the focus group uncovered.
This is why it’s important to remember that judges and jurors have a lot in common. Aside from technical issues of law, judges are just as attuned as jurors to arguments that resonate based on common sense and prevailing predispositions. Whether your case will be heard by a judge, mediator, or a group of people who couldn’t get out of jury duty, we always advise telling a simple, effective story.
A recent defense verdict for a case we worked on drove home this point, as several of the judge’s findings might as well have been lifted verbatim from our focus group report.
The case involved an internationally known shipping company that switched vendors for unloading services. Vendor A sued, accusing the shipper of stealing financial secrets and feeding them to a new potential Vendor. They claimed that Vendor B’s proposal undercut their prices, and that’s why the new vendor snagged the contract.
From the defense perspective, Vendor A wasn’t even in the running for the contract, given its poor productivity and equipment so outdated that one employee described its facility as a “forklift graveyard.”
Research participants heard the details and determined that the defendant acted “unethically but not illegally.” And here’s a direct quote from the judge’s final ruling: “The defendant’s conduct was likely unethical, but not illegal.”
The judge went on to cite several points for both sides that were spot on with what the focus group uncovered.
This is why it’s important to remember that judges and jurors have a lot in common. Aside from technical issues of law, judges are just as attuned as jurors to arguments that resonate based on common sense and prevailing predispositions. Whether your case will be heard by a judge, mediator, or a group of people who couldn’t get out of jury duty, we always advise telling a simple, effective story.
Jury Impact in the New York Times
Jury Impact is once again in the news, with Chris St. Hilaire quoted in the Monday edition of The New York Times. Here is an excerpt from The New York Times article: Bonds Jury Hears About Injection Again but Reaches No Verdict
Chris St. Hilaire, the president of Jury Impact, a jury-consulting company based in Costa Mesa, Calif., said the jurors probably asked for Kathy Hoskins’s testimony and a transcript of the Hoskins-Anderson tape because they were debating Bonds’s alleged injections.
“There’s a very strong possibility, based on the type of questions they asked and the information they asked for, that there is some contention among them,” St. Hilaire said. “There could be a couple of people who are holding out because they are strict constitutionalists or maybe there’s a guy who just doesn’t want to convict his favorite ballplayer. Or there could be someone with a strong personality who just refuses to give in.”
St. Hilaire said the evidence might have been enough to make it seem to the jurors that Bonds used steroids and human growth hormone, and was injected by Anderson, but in criminal cases, prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“In a criminal trial, if he probably did it, it’s not good enough,” he said. “That’s a nuance that sometimes escapes the layman.”
Chris St. Hilaire, the president of Jury Impact, a jury-consulting company based in Costa Mesa, Calif., said the jurors probably asked for Kathy Hoskins’s testimony and a transcript of the Hoskins-Anderson tape because they were debating Bonds’s alleged injections.
“There’s a very strong possibility, based on the type of questions they asked and the information they asked for, that there is some contention among them,” St. Hilaire said. “There could be a couple of people who are holding out because they are strict constitutionalists or maybe there’s a guy who just doesn’t want to convict his favorite ballplayer. Or there could be someone with a strong personality who just refuses to give in.”
St. Hilaire said the evidence might have been enough to make it seem to the jurors that Bonds used steroids and human growth hormone, and was injected by Anderson, but in criminal cases, prosecutors must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“In a criminal trial, if he probably did it, it’s not good enough,” he said. “That’s a nuance that sometimes escapes the layman.”
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Jury Impact in Bloomberg and The New York Times
Jury Impact is once again in the news, with Chris St. Hilaire quoted in Thursday editions of Bloomberg and The New York Times.
Here is an excerpt from The New York Times article Selecting Jury for Bonds Is Hard in Giants Country.
And an excerpt from Bloomberg's piece Bonds Jurors Face Ban on Texting, Tweeting About U.S. Trial Under Proposal:
Here is an excerpt from The New York Times article Selecting Jury for Bonds Is Hard in Giants Country.
Chris St. Hilaire, president of Jury Impact, a jury consulting company based in Costa Mesa, Calif., said that finding a juror without a predisposition toward Bonds would be a challenge.
“Finding someone who doesn’t have an opinion about Barry Bonds is like finding a cowboy who doesn’t have an opinion about a horse,” he said, adding that the ideal juror is likely to be a casual fan who has heard of Bonds, but does not know much about him or the charges against him.
“You’d think that the perfect juror would be someone who loves baseball, but I think the worst juror for them would be a hard-core fan,” he said of what the defense might be looking for. “You want someone who can be swayed by the evidence, not by their agenda.”
And an excerpt from Bloomberg's piece Bonds Jurors Face Ban on Texting, Tweeting About U.S. Trial Under Proposal:
In what jury consultant Chris St. Hilaire called an unusual addition to such questionnaires, prospective jurors would agree in writing to an order forbidding them from communicating via social media, the Internet, “or any other form of electronic communication for any purpose whatsoever,” according to a filing yesterday in federal court in San Francisco.
“I haven’t seen it used before and it’s a recognition of the new world we live in now,” St. Hilaire, president of Costa Mesa, California-based Jury Impact, said in a telephone interview. Lawyers in the case “are trying to be specific because they know how influential social media is now.”
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, October 15, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
