|
March 01, 2007
When I was in college, some of my favorite classes were the advanced rhetoric and argument classes I took for fun (yes… for fun). I'm a big fan of the healthy debate. I enjoy looking at other debates almost as much as I like being involved in them myself. Today I found just such a debate at the Compete blog: "Netflix vs. Blockbuster: A heated debate between two extremists."
 As you can tell from the title, two of the Compete bloggers went head-to-head in support of their favorite movie rental services. It was a fairly short debate. But it was, surprisingly, pretty heated. Ryan Carrigg went pro on the Netflix team and Andy Kazeniac took the pro for the Blockbuster crowd. After trading a couple of quick rounds (and jabs), the post concludes with a poll asking which contender you agree with.And even though I'm a big fan of the Netflix service, I went ahead and voted for Andy's argument. Because it was just better.
It got me thinking about rhetoric, arguments, and debates in general. A lot of the content and writing we do online is geared toward trying to convince people we usually don't know to take our side… or buy our product… or sign up for our service. Whether you're pitching your company, a service, or yourself, the determining factor in whether or not your message is successful has to do with the strength (or weakness) of the argument supporting it.
Let's look at the Compete debate for a minute.
Carrigg offered little in the way of proof to support his claims. Furthermore, he makes several statements that really have nothing to do with the main point of the service. He says that Netflix's superior selection of movies accounts for the smaller percentages of visitors to each of the top 10 movies on the Compete list. Maybe it's because Netflix doesn't offer any titles that viewers really want to see (which I doubt is the case… I'm just doing an objective analysis here). Next he says that one of the much-hyped benefits of the Blockbuster service actually "defeats the purpose" of the service. So is he saying that, if Netflix were to suddenly start opening stores, he'd ditch the service just because of that? And how could something that gives users another option ever realistically be considered a flaw? He then criticizes the movies that top the list at Blockbuster. What does that have to do with the service? Nothing. If millions of people want to watch stupid movies, then the most successful service will probably be the one that carries the stupid movies. Right?
On the other hand, Andy's opening comments actually present an aspect of the Blockbuster service that a lot of people might find convenient: the ability to return movies to one of the Blockbuster stores that are probably close to most of us. By focusing on this benefit to the customer, Kazeniac's argument is much more likely to influence a prospective customer:
Of course, after that… he delves right back into the defamatory rhetoric used by his partner. While amusing, it's not a good debate skill. But of the two sides presented, Kazeniac's was the more sound of the two… from a purely analytic perspective.
When developing arguments and pitches for the web, keep in mind that your readers usually have only your words to convince them to read/buy/act. Don't fall into the same traps that our friends at Compete fell into. Avoid unnecessary criticism, and instead, focus on the benefit of whatever you're talking about offers. If I'd never used either of the services above, and had only this debate to go on, Kazeniac would probably have convinced me to try Blockbuster first… because he focused on what that service offered above and beyond Netflix.
It's tempting to pitch the downfalls of the competition… or the reasons another service is inferior. And in some cases, that approach is successful. But at the same time, consumers already assume that you think your service is better than the other guy's. So instead of telling them what they already know, tell them something new. Give them a solid reason that doesn't point out flaws in your competitors… but instead… points out the high points of your service.
Very amusing post, Compete guys.
Comments:
3 Comments posted on "Content Workshop: Help Your Pitch by Avoiding the Seductive Traps of Argument Formulation"
Ryan Carrigg on March 1st, 2007 at 3:07 pm #
Thanks for the comments Derick, interesting analysis. Even though you voted for my opponent I appreciate the coverage. You’ll be happy to know that I now owe him lunch tomorrow :) Ryan Carrigg
Derick on March 1st, 2007 at 3:17 pm #
Glad to know it was a friendly debate… haha. And for what it’s worth, I’m actually with you on the Netflix thing. My reasons are just a little different. :D
Google Wants More Audio Ads Testers. I Want More Audio Ads Numbers. on March 14th, 2007 at 9:31 am #
[…] Google Wants More Audio Ads Testers. I Want More Audio Ads Numbers. Posted by Derick on March 14th, 2007 The Inside AdWords blog has posted a call for more Google Audio Ads testers. There's a quick form to fill out to submit an application into the testing program. The main thing missing from the post is any concrete evidence that the system is working: In terms of feedback, the Audio Ads team has heard that beta testers like the simple and clean user interface and the targeting and reporting options. Beta testers also find the audio ad creation process easy and fast since it only takes them a few days to create their ads and launch their first campaigns (as compared to potentially weeks for traditional radio ads). That means nothing to me. Google has been telling beta testers that they'd like the simple and clean user interface. They've been telling testers that they'll like the ease of creating an ad. So this is stuff we've all heard before. Where are the beta testers that are supposedly saying this? Maybe I missed that memo. But I haven't heard any positive feedback from anyone using the Audio Ads system as of yet. I'm really not trying to be negative about all this. I'll admit that I have no idea how the system works. But why is the only real feedback we're getting coming from Google's PR department: We thought a lot about how to expand the reach of our message, and radio seemed like a great opportunity – it's a 'main stream America' type of channel, but we had zero experience in it. My impression was it was something for bigger companies, or at least companies with bigger pockets and a bigger appetite for risk. Then we learned about Google Audio Ads and thought 'not only does it address our concerns but we can custom fit it to our budget and marketing goals.' So we decided to take the big plunge into radio. We've been really pleased with the experience. This is a quote from one of the test program's users cited on the Inside AdWords blog post. But let's look at that with a critical eye for a minute. You know I'm fond of analyzing things. More than half of that quote has nothing to do with Audio Ads. Sure, it offers some background information on why the company was looking at radio ads in general. But the part that deals with Google Audio Ads (the last couple of sentences) doesn't really say anything. In fact, it sounds like a prepared statement (I'm not saying it is… I'm just saying it sounds like one). I would love to be able to read stuff like this and say "Yay! Google is having success with something besides search engine advertising!" I really would. But I'm gonna need more than this. I know the project is still in the testing phase. But how about some numbers Google? I wanna see the REAL results. […] Post a comment
|
|
