I recently made a personal commitment to read more books, so I turned to the lengthy “Saved Items” cart on Amazon that I had been filling with friends’ recommendations for the past 18 months and ordered several titles. The first to arrive was Dr. Robert Cialdini’s fascinating and bestselling book “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion”, which had been recommended to me by several friends, acquaintances, and subject matter experts, including Tim Ferriss, Guy Kawasaki, and Noah Kagan.

In is book, Cialdini (formerly a nationally renowned professor of marketing at Arizona State University) describes Six Principles of Influence which encompass every negotiation tactic and act of persuasion utilized in board rooms, living rooms and farmers markets the world over. That is to say, these are the six “puppet strings” that all of us tug at to gain compliance from those around us. They are vastly and widely applicable, from business negotiations to marketing to disagreements with your spouse. If you look closely, you’ll notice that all of us employ them every day to achieve our goals and influence those around us. Many of them are particularly applicable to entrepreneurs, so I’ve attempted to crystallize the essence of the six principles and share them below.

Cialdini’s Six Principles of Influence

1. Reciprocity

   The concept of reciprocation is pervasive in our society. It’s one of our established social rules – if someone does us a favor, we do them one in return. If someone invites us to a party, we put them on the list for our next gathering. It is a fundamental principle that has been ingrained in all of us since the earliest days of human society. It is the concept of reciprocity that allowed our ancestors to freely share food, skills, and protection with confidence that the resources would be returned in kind. The shared web of interdependency and obligation allowed for the division of labor and specialization of skills – reciprocity was truly an evolutionary advantage.

   Accordingly, it’s no surprise that our modern culture has socialized us all to carry a sense of indebtedness to those that help us first – the “Golden Rule”, Karma, and “Pay It Forward” are all reciprocal social concepts that are instilled in all of us from a very young age. We assign harshly negative labels to those that do not follow the cultural norm – mooch, freeloader, leech. It is no wonder that whenever another person does us a favor, we feel obligated to respond in kind. And so, our natural reactions can become a powerful influencer when exploited. Let me give an example.

   I experienced the reciprocity principle first hand this winter on a ski trop to Breckenridge. Our group pulled into the parking lot and began to unpack our equipment. As we did, a man approached and made a show of welcoming us to the mountain and complimenting our gear. He then handed out “free” Breckenridge wool hats to each one of us. After receiving our thanks, he quickly followed up the gifts with a request for a $10 donation to a charity he was representing. Three of the five in our group immediately ponied up, and the man went on to the next unsuspecting car. I later asked my friend what charity the man was representing. His response – “No idea, but hey – free hat!”

   The above is a perfect example of reciprocity in action – my friends felt compelled to donate to the man’s charity because they had first received the “free” hats, regardless of the nature of the charity’s work or whether they even needed or wanted a hat.

2. Consistency

   The consistency principle states that “Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. Those pressures will cause us to respond in ways that justify our earlier decision.” In layman’s terms, this means that once we have made a small commitment or statement (especially publicly), it becomes part of our self-identity. For example, if I can get you to make the statement “I love discovering new music” (and who doesn’t), you’ll be more than twice as likely to pull out your wallet when I then ask if you’ll buy my band’s CD. Because not buying the CD would be inconsistent with your previous assertion that you enjoy new music (a feeling known as cognitive dissonance), you feel compelled to purchase the album.

3. Social Proof

   Of all the six principles, I believe we experience and are influenced by social proof most strongly and most often. Social proof refers to the phenomenon that we are far more likely to do or believe something if we have seen others like us do or believe it first. Cialdini cities several studies in the book, including one that analyzed reclusive pre-school children. Researchers showed each reclusive child videos of other children their age observing a social activity, then actively joining into the activity. At recess the next day, the formerly isolated children immediately began to interact with their peers at a level equal to that of normal children in their schools. The principle of social proof illustrates that we often copy behaviors simply because if many others are doing something, we believe it must be the correct thing to do. The children in the experiment perceived that being social was the “normal” thing to do, and which gave them the courage to alter their own behavior. The principle of social proof is applicable to far more than elementary school behavior, and there are further examples in the book that examine social proof as an explanation for buying decisions, mass suicide, and traffic jams.

   Entrepreneurs also run head-long into the social proof principle when raising capital for the first time. Many venture firms are reluctant to invest until they hear that others have invested as well. If you’re able to secure a commitment from a big name VC firm like Sequoia or Khosla, you’ll probably not have much difficulty filling out the rest of your funding round. This is due to the principle of social proof – if others are willing to invest, it must be a good deal. Similarly, when you go to raise a second round of capital, any new investors will want to see participation from the firms that initially invested in your Series A. After all, if your original investors are unwilling to commit further capital, why should anyone new invest? This is often called “The VC Signaling Effect”, and has been discussed in depth by both Chris Dixon and Mark Suster.

4. Authority

   This one is fairly self explanatory – if someone in a position of authority commands you to perform a task, you are likely to comply. This was proved out in the now infamous and controversial Milgram Experiment. You can read the link for further detail, but essentially Milgram proved that despite moral objections and severe emotional distress, subjects were still willing to administer what they thought to be lethal electric shocks to others when commanded by someone in a position of authority. Milgram used his studies to explain the brutal actions of certain German soldiers during the Holocaust, committed despite stated strong moral objection by the soldiers themselves.

5. Liking

   This one seems obvious, but it’s very true – we tend to comply with requests from people who we like (friends, family, etc). Tupperware Corporation has exploited the liking principle to great success; each day thousands of people invite their friends over for tea and finger food, only to eventually ask them to purchase some Tupperware at the end of the party. By relying on the obligation we all feel toward those we like, Tupperware has built one of the largest direct sales organizations in history. In fact, Tupperware no longer sells in retail stores at all, relying almost solely on parties and the liking principle to generate over $2 billion in revenue each year.

   However, it’s not only your friends and relatives that can exploit the liking principle. The liking principle also encompasses arguably the most powerful persuasion method of all – attraction. An attractive, flirty stranger can create the same persuasive “liking” effect that your best childhood friends enjoy. That’s the reason nearly every pitchman, model, and TV commercial family is good looking, and all those Bud Light commercials feature women in bikinis. The more attractive the person trying to gain our compliance is, the stronger “liking” that they create, and better chance they have of persuading us. “Liking” is the principle that explains what Hollywood has known to be true for years – sex sells.

6. Scarcity

   “Hurry, supplies are limited! This deal won’t last! Call now!”

   How many times have you seen slogans like those above plastered on store windows or shouted by TV infomercial salesmen? Probably more than you can count, and it’s because of the scarcity principle. We are far more likely to agree to a request if we believe (falsely or correctly) that we will not have another chance in the future. Fear of losing an opportunity can be a very powerful motivator. It is generally true that things which are difficult to obtain are better than things which are easy to obtain – thus we are subconsciously conditioned to use scarcity as a proxy for higher value. Cialdini mentions a used car salesman that always made sure more than one interested buyer was present whenever he was selling a car. The competition increased anxiety in both buyers and made the car seem that much more attractive, which without fail increased the price the salesman got for the car.

Cialdini’s book provides far more detail on the above principles than I have included here, including numerous studies and examples ripped straight from current events that illustrate each principle in action. I’d recommend Cialdini’s book to any entrepreneur, product manager, or marketer, as well as anyone looking to be more persuasive in general. It’s an absolutely fascinating read.

I wrote earlier about the increasingly visual nature of media and news in today’s society. The prior post focused mostly on photography, but there is another visual technique that has risen dramatically in prominence in recent years, particularly online – the infographic. Infographics aim to make complex data sets easy to digest and understand. An entire newspaper has risen to prominence due to the quality of its infographics. There are whole blogs dedicated to the subject. A good infographic can pack a lot of data into a small space and help the viewer to draw out a pattern or conclusion. However if the infographic is poorly or deceptively constructed, that conclusion may not be the same one you’d see if you examined the underlying data. While there are many great and useless infographics out there, I’d like to take a bit of time to focus on a couple deceptive ones.

Deceptive Infographic #1: The Heathcare Vote

The first infographic I want to highlight comes from the otherwise excellent Political Math Blog. The diagram aims to portray the House of Representatives vote split for the recently passed healthcare reform legislation in comparison with the vote splits for other major social reform. It is an interesting diagram because it illustrates how objective information can be displayed in a manner that influences your perception of the data.

In the first three vote blocks, the dividing line between “Yay” and “Nay” is drawn down the middle of the “split” party, indicating that there are party members on both sides of the debate. However, in the final vote block on heathcare reform, the creator of this diagram has specifically arranged the colors such that the Yay/Nay dividing line runs directly between the parties, with the dissenting Democrats hidden off to the right side. This increases the contrast between the parties, and makes the Heathcare Reform vote appear more partisan and divisive than it actually was.

When viewing an infographic (or any seemingly “objective” data), make sure you consider whether or not the designer is trying to “lead” you toward drawing a specific conclusion or feeling a certain way by presenting the data in a certain manner.

Deceptive Infographic #2: Household Income vs. Debt

I originally found the next graphic on Digg, where people were whipping themselves into an outrage about how unfair life is, how capitalism is broken, and how America is headed to hell in a handbasket. Except this graphic is totally flawed (click for a full size version).

The graphic compares the trend in average household income (the green bar) with the trend in total household debt (the red bar), and reaches the “nightmare” conclusion that the latter is quickly outpacing the former. The problem in this graphic is that comparing annual income to total debt is apples to oranges. Suppose I make $50,000 a year and owe $250,000 on my mortgage. Is this necessarily a Bad Thing? No. Here’s why:

This comparison completely neglects the other side of the household balance sheet – assets. You borrowed $250,000 on that mortgage to buy the house, so you also own an asset (the home) worth $250,000 (putting aside the housing crash for a second). You also have likely saved some of your income each year, which is building up as an asset in your bank account. Both of these assets can be liquidated to eliminate the debt. The debt is only dangerous if it is not matched by an asset of equal or greater value.

In addition, the diagram assumes you never use any of the income you earn in the time between each bar (several years) to pay down any of the debt, yet you continue to borrow. If that’s the case, the prison is of your own making. I could go all day, but the bottom line is, this is a completely flawed comparison. Debt is not inherently a Bad Thing. Irresponsible debt (debt that is not counterbalanced by assets) is a Bad Thing.

The lesson here is that you should pay attention to context and the validity of comparisons before drawing conclusions, especially when data visualization is involved.

In Summary

Infographics are incredibly useful for conveying a lot of data at a glace, and draw the eye with bright colors and interesting shapes. Often an infographic is the best way to communicate data to a relatively unsophisticated or novice audience. However, when you come across a flashy data visualization, sure the author didn’t create it to tell a specific story. Always take some time to envision the data behind the chart – would the data table create the same reaction that the infographic elicits?

Update: Here is a great infographic that was sent over to me today by my friend Vanessa – it depicts the magnitude of the recent Deep Water Horizon oil spill that occurred last week in the Gulf of Mexico. It does an excellent job putting the magnitude of the spill in context with other well known spills (Exxon Valdez, Amoco Caldiz) and also illustrating just how much oil was spilled relative to the world’s daily consumption. Check it out. Even better, they make the underlying data available here.

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the changing way in which our society consumes information. In the past, most of us absorbed information in primarily text based formats. Newspapers are a perfect example of this phenomenon – front pages were far more text heavy than they are today, and authors tended to write longer form articles with in depth arguments. People would sit down and read the newspaper for long stretches of time to get their news for the day. However, with the rise of the internet, full color photography, and brilliant LED screens, we have all become a far more visually oriented. Today, we all prefer to consume our news in vivid technicolor, with accompanying visuals and photographs. To see this transition in action, let’s compare the front page of the New York Times after two similar landmark events – the Pearl Harbor bombing (Dec. 7, 1941) and the World Trade Center attacks (Sept. 11, 2001). Both major tragedies, both on American soil with American casualties. Compare the New York Times front page presentation of both events – click for the full front page image:

The contrast is clear – the front page from 1941 is extremely text heavy, with only a single graphic and no photographs. The newspaper from 2001 is dominated by dramatic full color photographs, and text occupies less than 50% of the page. The photographs draw the reader in and convey much more emotion than the text alone. An interesting contrast, and a testament to both improved printing technology and our increasingly visual nature.

But the trend doesn’t stop with newspapers. I’m writing this post in the midst of “iPad mania” – Apple’s much anticipated tablet computer will be released in just 48 hours. I think that much of the hype around the iPad is due to the fact that so much of the experience Apple has designed is centered around consuming rich media – movies, comics, photos, and video. Even the vanilla e-book as been re-imagined – one of the launch titles is an illustrated guide to the periodic table, aptly titled The Elements. Instead of simply text and pictures, The Elements contains three dimensional samples and photos of each element: a nugget of gold (Au), an ingot of coal (C), a manganese crystal (Mn). You can touch and rotate them with your fingers. Tap to stream related videos from the internet or pull up the current market price of silver. What was once words on a page is now alive with information and rich media.

This kind of rich, visual media is definitely going to revolutionize not only textbooks, but literature of all types. Imagine a medical journal with anatomy models that rotate and zoom, or engineering manuals with diagrams that explode to show each and every part inside a car engine. As we discover ways to communicate more and more information visually instead of simply through text, I think the future is going to be a very exciting place to be.