Public Grooming Case the Case: Public Grooming

Public Grooming Case

The Case: Public Grooming

Noise is not a persuasive sales pitch. The other day, a friend of mine mentioned how outrageous the noise levels have gotten in commercials; she stated that now, she immediately mutes her television before a commercial break starts because the noise level is so irritatingly loud, much louder than the program itself even. I had to agree with her, and why is it that we passively accept the noise of commercials, allowing for noise levels that are extreme to the point of being unhealthy. And notice that I use the term "noise" when referring to the sound from commercials: this isn't music or speech that I'm talking about -- it's so loud that I don't even notice what is being said but only how loud it's communicated.

I understand the method behind the loud commercials; people get attuned to the program they're watching, and by raising the volume they jolt people into paying attention. Still, I can't help but wonder that if my friend is now muting her commercials, she's probably not the only one taking this recourse to the unreasonable noise levels. I have to believe that the companies that are paying good money for these commercials can't be too happy to learn that people are muting their televisions before the start of commercial breaks, thereby missing the sales pitches used to sell the products. There's a paradox at work here -- by raising the volume level, less people are hearing what is being said in these commercials, and in turn less people are buying their products.

I love television, and I even don't mind commercials. I've always felt that the ads form a mutually supportive dynamic with the program, as they increase the suspense of the show and often provide comic relief or a funny and relatable scenario. Commercials are by no means annoying, and if the noise level were reduced even a bit, I'm all for watching them. But unless the noise becomes more reasonable, I'm going to join my friend in pressing for the mute button.

In my article on television commercial noise levels, I tried to assert my opinion through incorporating other opinions as well. Specifically, this was why I included the anecdote from my friend; my rhetorical tactic was borne out of the work of Cialdini (2005), who has written persuasively about how people are respond sympathetically when an argument is made through incorporating the perspectives of others. It made my personal viewpoint seem as though it were a collective stance, and this was in accordance with Cialdini's landmark studies (Cialdini, 2008) concerning how ethical principles influence others.

I believe my article incorporated the vast majority of the principles of ethical influence (Caldini, 2008). By including my friend, I exhibited principle number five (liking), and number six (consensus.) I painted myself as someone who forms their opinion through listening to the opinions of others, and as someone whose opinion is in line with the consensus. One of Cialdini's overriding claims is that people are influenced by the behavior of others, and in this regard it was imperative that I establish that I am not alone in my opinion. Although I was consistent (principle number four in Cialdini's taxonomy), I was also quick to acknowledge why the commercials are so loud. This concession made me seem as though I were open and willing to acknowledge the opposing viewpoint, which only strengthened my rationale in positing my own claim.