CMJR 350 Blog Post #2

CMJR 350 Response to Jasmine's second question:

I was interested in what Woodward and Denton termed a reluctant source and their explanation of it because the idea of a source taking a position that goes against their own interests seems perfectly in place in the legal world, but in the persuasive communication world it seems like a bit of an outsider. As an audience we are expected to identify sources that are not “too willing” or too interested in one worldview that they fail to see merit and reason in an opposing point of view. However, I am not sure how or if reluctant testimony would benefit, say, a business or corporation. It seems tantamount to admitting that your competition actually has it better. My question would be is reluctant testimony beneficial or damaging? What if the linked commercial were a PC commercial instead of an Apple commercial, would it make audiences say “Microsoft is a trustworthy company for admitting the flaws of their software”? In other words, when would reluctant testimony work?

This is a really great question and the first examples that came to mind that I do believe reluctant sources are beneficial for are election campaigns. The worst thing (well, I'm sure there are probably worse things) that a candidate can do when campaigning is to maintain one-sided views and opinions in all of their materials. If they refuse to acknowledge opposing points, ideas, and truths, then people tend to be less inclined to believe the facts that they are attempting to promote. It is much more persuasive for a candidate to call out the flaws (if they aren't detrimental) of their party, themselves, or whatever can be easily attacked by the opposing side. By doing this they can easily prevent larger problems and attacks, and can stay on the offensive rather than the defensive. To take this a step further, with using reluctant sources, they can use them to their advantage. When you point out positive characteristics about the opposing candidate [and party] this adds a level of humanity and is a admirable trait in any one. If you can acknowledge the pro's of opposing views, but also contribute your own, people will be more likely to listen, to sympathize, and ultimately side with you. Another branch off of this would be admitting mistakes- I think that is the next part of the ideology behind reluctant sources. To admit a fault can also strengthen credibility, as shown in this article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/obama.daschle/index.html

Getting back to the main question about businesses or corporations benefitting from admitting the superiority of competitor's products, I searched around the internet all day trying to find a company that has ever done that I was unable to find anything. Jasmine is right in claiming that this tactic, when used in advertising, is probably more damaging and harmful than helpful. Marketing and advertising are all about showing consumers the strengths of your business or product, not about pointing out the best qualities of a competitor. However, the advantage comes in when they can honestly claim that their product is the best. Using reluctant sources as a tactic is advantageous in the sense that if you have the best merchandise, you can advertise it as such. There would be nothing to hide, and nothing to admit in that instance. This would build credibility by strengthening and playing off of the knowledge the common market already has.

So, as the book points out, if the goal is to only accredit merit by the audience, they using a reluctant source is a great tactic- the "unexpected declarations" of praising a competitor would show people that there is merit to the claims. However, if the goal is only to sale, and unethically do so (by false advertising), then obviously the company will not take part in using reluctant sources.

And finally in response to the PC versus Apple commercial, I believe Microsoft DID participate in a form of reluctant sourcing, with its response commercial to the classic Apple ads. Instead of denying any of the Apple claims, they used an ad that had all different types of people [nerds, people with glasses, basketball players, etc], from all over say "I'm a PC." That had many different implications, one of them being that not everyone is perfect. This probably wasn't their main message, but it is a critical one- by using different levels of attractive people, people of different weights and ages, it shows that it is not as "perfect, hip and fun" as the Apple, but still unique. Therefore, they played off of the Apple ad with their own twist, in a form of using reluctant sources...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi1se9rH7S8