Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula
Framework Navigation
Top: Grand Framework
Up: Noam
Down: Toulmin
Syblings:
Children:
Brief
Elements
Origin and history
Fabula generalised
The FABULA framework
The two main elements of the Grand Framework are the Noam framework and the Toulmin Framework; the Fabula framework acts as a link between them. Note that the symbolism, notation and terminology is still in development and therefor likely to have different representations until homoginised across documents. While fabula originates from sales terminology, there is a more generalised framework that looks at the structrue without any implication of sales or influence.
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliomes/Meme/Noam/Fabula.Brief
The Fabula framework in brief
Fabula comes from the idea of FAB selling. FAB selling is a method used in sales. Many sales people try to impress their customers with feature dumps. Sometimes this can work if the customer is technically minded and understands how the features relate to them. Oftentimes though, the customer simply does not get what the specs mean to them. FAB selling works by making the features meaningful in terms of the customers needs.
FAB stands for Features, Advantages, and Benefits (or sometimes Features, Attributes, Benefits).
A feature of a product is some specific quality that is likely to be found on a specification sheet. It could be something like a monitors aspect ratio, a CPUs clock speed, a motors break horse power, a light-bulb’s luminosity. Such features usually have a value and some kind of physical unit. Such as a CPU with a clock-speed of 4.1GHz.
An attribute, also sometimes called advantage, is also a property of the product, but one which is often inferred from the set of features. An advantage might be a judgement both by the salesperson and the customer, or it can be a comparison with competing products. The example CPU, because it has a clock speed of 4.1GHz, means it is very fast at processing; or is faster than the CPU in the other machines.
A benefit is how the advantage relates to the customer, it is what it gives that serves that customer’s particular need. For example a customer who works with graphics, then a faster CPU means better workflow. Notably, that CPU might not be the greatest benefit to some other customer, such as a backpacker, who does not need processor speed, but compactness, lightness and battery life. Obviously, the salesperson should direct the backpacker to some travel notebook.
I have expanded the model to include two more elements: values and likings. Values are a something important to the customer, and likings are what they require from a product that serves their values. A liking can be inferred from values.
Our backpacker values their freedom to explore the world. They would like to stay in touch via email, but not be encumbered by weight.
In my revised fab selling model, the features of the product and values of the customer are fixed. The advantages and likings are inferred (from features and values respectively). Where the advantages of the product equate to the likings of the customer, then the product becomes of benefit to the customer, and it is the salesperson’s job to work out how to express this.
Notably, the features and advantages are aspects of the product; the values and likings are aspects of the customer. The benefits are a relation between the product and the customer.
Fabula is a framework consisting of Toulmin element. To allow for greater abstraction and bridge the terminological gap with Toulmin argumentation, a generalised review of fabula relables the elements: subject and object, for customer and product respectivly. The features and advantages, being properties of the product, become the objects grounds and claim, while the grounds and claim of the subject are the customer’s values and likings.
The noam framework subsequently consists of fabula elements, and so on. I will go into a deep dive of FABULA (my extension to fab selling) in further posts.
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliomes/Meme/Noam/Fabula.Elements
FABULA framework elements
F Features
A property of the product (object) that is evident (grounds). This is something that the customer (subject) can easily agree upon and can be show though a specification sheet or by verified by examining at the product itself. While the raw fact might be evident, they might not mean much to the customer.
A Advantages
A property of the product (object) that is not evident directly (claim), but can be deduced from the features. Here, the raw specification, the features, would be explained in terms of what the customer can understand. Even when they understand the advantages, they might not see the relevance to themselves if there was some. The advantages can be thought of as the solution to some problem
B Benefits
The benefits are where the product’s advantages (claim about the object) are to the cutomer’s liking (claim about the subject). Does the product solve the customer’s problem? There are many problems and many solutions. The issue is whether the solution on offer handles the problem being presented, and therefore being of benefit. If this is the case, then the task becomes to show the user the relevancy of the product’s solution as a way they would like to solve their problem.
U Values
A property of the customer (subject) that is known to the cusomer and inarguable (grounds). This could be how they would like to improve their lives irrespective of the solution offered., such as having more quality time with their family (eg. instead of doing boring chores.)
L Likings
A property of the customer (subject) that the customer may not be aware of and not directly evident (claim), but can be argued from the customers values. Knowing that a customer values time with their family, then it is probable that they would like some solution that provides them with such time. Labour saving devices might be welcome. The likings can be thought of the problem that customer wants to solve.
FABULA origin and history
I have given quick introductions to Toulmin’s approach to argumentation and FAB selling, or FABULA as I have rebranded it. Fabula is latin for story. It is also a term in Russian formalism used in narratology; that’s good enough here.
In the construction hierarchy of what I am currently calling the grand framework for use in cliology, Toulmin elements go to make fabula which go on to make noams.
This post looks at the fabula structure in its elemental terms as Toulmin frameworks. That is, how do features, attributes, benefits, needs and values map onto claim, grounds, warrant and backing?
As per usual, this is easy to overcomplicate and dissect ad nausea. The fabula model involves two Toulmin arguments (a “duel-toul”) and a link between them. The best visualisation I have so far is a decorators platform with a ladder at either end. The ladders each equate to a Toulmin argument, and the platform is the link between those argumentation components.
[diag see aside]
There are a plethora of ways of drawing such a diagram, all of which have the same meaning. I’ll consider “arrow flipping” and all of that in due course, but lets keep it simple here, and lets use sales, as the prototype fabula application, as a subclass of a wider model of persuasion. There exists a salable item and a customer; I have badged these as product (p) and deme (d) which can be thought of simply as a customer demographic.
Now, a product has features as given by the raw numbers in its specification (eg has 2Gb RAM). These numbers might be meaningless to a non-technical customer, and so they are translated into a more understandable attribute, or advantage, and that could involve a number of explanatory steps; a ladder. This is an argument in its non quarrelsome sense. The claim in Toulmin terms, is the advantage/attribute; the features are the grounds, and there is the warrant linking them, maintained by an accepted backings. (Actually, it is one larger argument that can be explicated into a series of smaller arguments; Qualification and Rebuttal have been skipped for simplicity here.)
We can denote a product (p) having as having a feature (f) (or perhaps p.f if you prefer; I’m in a crisis of definitional dithering, but that will be ironed out before it becomes important to the blog), and the advantage of that feature as a (or p.a). Now, f and a are both properties of p; the significant difference between f and a is that f is a grounds, while a is a claim in Toulmin terms. As a grounds, f is unarguable, it is a feature that can be seen, and agreed upon by both the customer and the salesperson. However, the non- technical customer might not understand what is so good about f.
On the other hand the advantages/attributes (a) might be something the customer does understand. But really such an advantage is just a claim, the link to what they can actually see in the spec might not be so obvious to the customer.
A customer, or deme, which is a specific group of similar customers that have a common set of values, has a corresponding set of needs. The grounds of the customers are their values and the claims are their needs. Similarly, there is a argument that takes the values, and links them to needs using a warrant and its accompanying backing. This also can be explicated into a series of smaller arguments, thereby forming a ladder. Similar to the product side, the deme side consists of a grounds v, which is undisputed, and deduced needs n; there are also associated backings and warrants.
So, we have two ladders: one for the product (p) linking features (f) to attributes/advantages (a), and one for the customer (d) linking values (v) to what they would like (l). (A previous version of this framework denoted l as n for “needs”, but “wants” or “likes” are equally good, but now it spells “fabvl”, which allows for a closer, more Latinesque acronym if something like “analysis” is appended. Some diagrams and text may use the legacy n and need updating.) In a sales situation we are trying to convey to the customer how a product is suited to them. That is how a products attributes match customer desires. This is the platform that links the tops of the ladders, and if the salesperson has done their job right, then the advantages deduced from the product’s features should equal the needs deduced from the customer’s values. Where this is so, then the customer is likely to realise how the product meets their demands, and become more inclined to buy. In the FAB (and Fabula) models, the customer sees the benefit. I will relate this to the noam model in another post, but the benefit equates to the pi component, or opportunity for contentment.
So now we have the expanded FAB selling model in the form of Toulmin arguments. The FAB model concentrated on the product side, but Fabula creates a balanced model by completing the customer (deme) side, and creating a bridge between the two.
[diag all]
Let’s take two stereotypes buying a computer: the little old lady in who just wants to chat with her son who migrated to Australia, and the IT geek seeking domination of the World of Warcraft – I’ve retailed computers to both, the approach is different between them. Our geek probably would have done the research, understands what the stats mean, and is impressed by the raw numbers. Grandma, on the other hand, might still be using words like “gramophone” and “wireless”; she isn’t stupid, just that she has no reason to learn the jargon. The art of communication is to explain things in terms that they already understand. Feature dumping something like:
- 15.6-inch diagonal Full HD IPS BrightView WLED-backlit (1920 x 1080)
Would be greeted by, “Oh, thats nice.”
Now, the sales professional would rather be inquiring what she wants the computer for, and would elicit values. Possibly, and it would be worth confirming, her one of her values (v) is that it comforts her to be close to her family even if they are far away. Perhaps she wants to see how her grandchildren are growing up and hear their voices.
Perhaps, though, here eyes aren’t as good as they used to be. In that case she might like a bigger clearer screen (l); this would satisfy her values (l -> v).
Going back to the specification, those numbers are inarguable grounds, but the secret is to translate the jargon: by comparison (of p) to another model, having a 15.6 inch screen has the advantage of being bigger, and 1920 x 1080 means it is clearer (f -> a). In reality, obviously the salesperson would do a comparative demonstration, showing her the models and letting her interact with them.
In that way, the advantages (a) of the product (p) match what she (d) would like (l). She can recognise the benefits (b) of what she sees (f) in satisfying what she values (v). Of course there are other factors and techniques in sales, but this fabula framework establishes a logical and emotional connection that feature dumping misses.
[diag sales example]
In practice, this fabula model is intended for field sales specifically, but more generally as a framework for cultural influence that can be loaded into redistributable memes. The fabula framework is decomposed into its elements in another post.
Why is Fabula?
Drilldown: grandframework/cliome/meme/noam/fabula
[change model to framework; add note on FABNVLA]
FAB selling goes beyond feature dumping to get the customer to relate to what benefits a product could give them. While FAB tends to the product side, the fabula extensions add value and needs traits on the customer side. This post is just a note on why I’ve chosen to name it ‘fabula’. Along with syuzhet, fabula is a term from Russian formalism used by Vladimir Propp. Presumably the out of fashion term “fab”, as in the “fab four”, relating to the Beatles, originated from fabulous; which in itself came from fable – tales featuring speaking animals and plants found in folk literature.
Fabula referred to a stories chronological order, the order in which events occur. Syuzhet is about the order in which the events are related. In most storytelling the two conjoin. But this is not a necessity as films like Memento pulp fiction irreversible play our minds on throwing the narrative out of order so as to make their impact.
So, fabula then is the chronological sequence. For memes and noams, the delivery is irrelevant providing the desired outcome is secured. On the other hand, syuzhet gives weight to the delivery. Momento would not hold its impact if it was projected in a dreary order.
But for the engineering of memes, noams, and narratives, then fabula is practical. Fabula imbutes a base structure, a structure that is canonical, malleable, engineering. Such a base fabula can be moulded into whatever expression or sequence (syuzhet) as delivered the message.
In any case, I’ve elected to claim the term ‘fabula’ as part of my persuasive model. It can be applied in field sales (as an extended form of FAB selling), but it is intended as a more general influence tool and one that can be loaded into memes.
FABULA Generalised
Fabula emerged from FAB selling in a commercial context. The labels reflect its origins. However, the concept of fabula can be generalised beyond sales to other relationships and relata. A more general model would see, instead of customer (deme) and product, perhaps other entities. A deme might not be a customer (or a set thereof), but could be an employee, devotee, trainee, or some other, possibly non-human. The product could be replaced by performance, or something else. In the most general case, subject and object might be applied.
The features, attributes (or advantages), values and likings are also domain-specific to sales and labeled according to the Toulmin framework.
| properties | product | customer |
| claim | advantages | liking |
| grounds | features | values |
- Futures are the ground of the product
- Advantages are a claim of the product
- Values are ground of the customer
- Likings are the claims of the customer
In general then, these things are properties of some entity arranged according to the sales argument. We can then relable them as subject, obj, and property p, with subscripts for grounds and claim.
Sub.pg
Sub.pc
Obj.pg
Obj.pc
For sales, the relationship is the benefit of the products advantage according to the customers likings. A more general relationship r can be denoted:
r(sub.pc, obj.pc)
And given in the following comparison diagram.
Some additional properties are worth mentioning here
The product advantages and customer likings have been described as ladders. In other words they form a set of advantages and a set of likings. These are the claims of arguments based on features (product grounds) and values (customer grounds) and will have other Toulmin components such as warrants. Now, features and advantages are similar, they are both properties of the product. They differ in that the features are accepted grounds, while the advantages are claims deduced by argument. The same goes for the values and likings on the customer side. Hence in the generalised model there is a property ladder for both the subject and object.
The properties on a ladder are relative. Mathematically, a ladder constitutes a total order, and the relationships between properties are transitive. These ladders may be quite long when the properties are explicated (ie between any two consecutive properties, there lies an intermediate property). Determining what the grounds and claim are is not absolute, but contextual. There may be absolute truths, but the fabula framework operates on agreement rather than universals. In a sale, the salesperson would work to find what the customer considers and agrees to be a feature, and takes that as the grounds for the pitch. The same goes for values. There could be an endless regress, but it is the point of agreement that is important. The lower down the ladder, the more likely agreement will be, but those points of agreement are vague, and forming the argument that will close the sale becomes more long-winded. Hence, the aim is to find the highest points on the ladder where agreement occurs; this property becomes the grounds.
The argumentation is to find an advantage that the customer likes – that is the benefit platform where the claims argued on both ladders match. Again, there are many deductible properties for both advantages and likings, and the higher up the ladders, then the more likely they are to match. Unfortunately, claims higher up are more difficult to arrive at; the shorter the argument, the more the customer is to understand. Consequently, the claims should be the lowest point on the ladder where the customer gets the benefits. Given that, then the best pitches would involve the highest grounds (of agreement) and the lowest claims, on both ladders, where the benefits become apparent. Finding the shortest, most convincing arguments, is a trade-off, and part of the art of sales.
An interesting feature is that the properties form an equivalence class when the ladders are bridged. That is, once any advantage of the product is shown to match the custoemr’s liking, then the product itself, not just some property, then benefits the customer.
[diag all properties of obj benefit all properties of sub]
In an even more generalised form, we can consider the relationship between two objects (rather than subject, object) in accordance to their properties, disregarding whether they are features or grounds. Here we can see for a case instance:
r(obj1.px, obj2.py)
but we can go for classes, rather than an instance.
r(class1.px, class2.py)
This is important as the sales fabula, among others, is simply a more derived form. Another derived form allows us to understand evolution in terms of the concept of fit, where r = fitness of a species (class1) in an environment (class2) according to the relationship between properties of the species (phenotype) and properties of the environment. Fitness, is not only a biological relationship, it can be applied to memes. A meme’s survival relates to its fitness among a population (deme), that is: how acceptable, appealing, copyable, stickly, spreadable and other propensities it has. The fabula sales framework then gives some purchase on how memes behave.
fit(meme.traitx, deme.traity)
Fabula: FAB selling lawn mowers example
This is an advert for the Gtech cordless lawnmower. I don’t own one; I don’t have a lawn, and I am not on commission, but as 60 seconds of persuasion go, this exemplifies FAB selling. Let’s dissect this fabula classic into its Toulmin elements, and further as a behavioural noam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIAvl-sfQ14
It can be said that people who have lawns want them at the right length, but grass keeps growing and so it needs cutting at intervals. People want to enjoy their gardens, and will be proud of putting in a reasonable amount of not unnecessary work.
Clearly, lawnmowers are designed for purpose, but which one to choose from the array of makes and models? Decisions decisions. Well, thingy will help us iut here.
Class
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Brief
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/Class
Elements Toulmin: {p, d}
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/p
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/d
Specific Classes Fabula: {phi, psy} X {tau, pi}
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/phi.tau
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/phi.pi
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/psy.tau
Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Fabula/psy.pi