A Unified Model of Advocacy in Perception Space

August 25, 2009 in A Unified Model | Comments (1)

Tags: Account Planning, Advertising, Advertising Theory, Axes of Perception, Bonevac, Casey Jones, Daniel Bonevac, Dell, Dissonant Perception Spaces, Gravitational Model of Perception Space, Harmonic Perception Spaces, Jones, Language, Legal Theory, Marketing, Marketing Theory, Mccann, Microsoft, Negative Perception Poles, Perception Spaces, Persuasion, Philosophy, Plane of Indecision, Positive Perception Poles, Rhetoric, Tabula Rasa Point, WPP

Casey Jones and Dr. Daniel Bonevac’s theoretical work on how individuals and groups of individuals form perceptions on all subjects, how we as individuals can better understand our own perceptions, and how communicators, leaders and educators in any field can more effectively move other’s perceptions.

This is an important post, both for the Jones&Bonevac Blog which deals with Marketing and the blog at Thought About Thought, which provides a forum for individuals from wildly divergent fields to meet and discuss the subject matter of the attached paper. We are addressing here the nature of thought and perception. We are publishing here a model we believe will allow all of us to better understand and discuss this subject.

This is not a traditional academic paper, nor is it a traditional marketing paper; however, we believe that the model we have created from our perspectives and backgrounds in these fields is unique, and perhaps could not have been created in any other way. We look to publish a final version of this paper in another form at a later date. We will also be publishing an extensive work applying this model to the particular field of Marketing. Between now and then, please feel free to post your comments about this work as they apply to Marketing on our Jones&Bonevac blog, and as they apply to the model itself and its application to other fields on the blog at ThoughtAboutThought.com

View the PDF: A Unified Model of Advocacy in Perception Space

Excerpt:

We use language for various purposes. We describe the world. We ask questions. We issue commands. We make agreements. And we try to persuade. Marketers and advertisers try to persuade people to buy products. Public relations specialists try to persuade people to have positive perceptions of organizations. Political consultants try to persuade people to support causes and candidates. Executives try to persuade people to work effectively, to agree to a contract, to accept a job, and so on. Parents try to persuade children to listen to them. Attorneys try to persuade people to favor their clients. All those activities have something important in common. Marketers, advertisers, public relations specialists, political consultants, executives, and lawyers, in fact all of us, are advocates either full time or part time. When we seek to convince someone, we are in the business of practical persuasion, of persuading people to change their minds or do things.

You might expect, given the number of people engaged in advocacy and the importance of what they do, that there would be a comprehensive, well-established theory of how to do it. You would be wrong. There is no such theory. People learn to be advocates by the seat of their pants.

We aim to remedy that. This paper is about developing effective advocacy strategies. It elaborates a novel theory that organizes and systematizes the process of constructing persuasive cases in support of desired conclusions.