I’ve been out of school for decades but that New Year feeling persists and I also see it in many of my clients. August is a big vacation month but when September rolls around it’s time to get back to business. In the coming week four clients have booked sessions to tune up their presentation skills.

It got me thinking that maybe now would be a good time for some Presentation New Year’s Resolutions;

1. I resolve to use no more than 20 PowerPoint slides in a 20 minute presentation,
2. I resolve that at least half my slides will be visuals with no more than five words,
3. I resolve to tell a story instead of spewing a stream of facts,
4. I resolve to be more concerned with my audience than my own nervousness,
5. I resolve to have passion and energy every time I speak.

If you follow those five resolutions, you’ll have a great New Year and your presentations will be more persuasive.

It’s a major crisis, amplified by two things; a slow summer news cycle and journalists’ hatred and mistrust of all things Rupert Murdoch. Reporters (and many politicians) have long been having fits over Murdoch’s right-leaning media outlets such as Fox News. In Britain, he was regarded with fear and suspicion by all aspiring political leaders.

I’m reluctant to write about a story that still has so many scenes to play out but others have already begun to comment on how the crisis is being handled. In doing so, they confuse the illegalities that may have been committed with the crisis response. To what extent Murdoch or his companies are guilty is a different issue than how they handle the allegations. Here are five things he did right in trying to bring the crisis under control;

1. He acted quickly. By shutting down The News of the World, he eliminated a target of outrage and was seen to be doing something proactive to fix the situation. Many have questioned his real motive but the newspaper that is alleged to have committed the illegal and egregious acts is no more. He can make the case that it will never happen again.
2. He didn’t act too quickly. Many were demanding that he fire his UK newspaper head Rebekah Brooks on the day the scandal broke. But throwing a high ranking executive under the bus early only makes people demand the head of the next highest executive and that’s what happened as the attention shifted to his son and heir-apparent James Murdoch. But when it was clear Brooks would be arrested, of course she had to go.
3. He apologized sincerely. In an unprecedented move, he visited the family most affected by the phone hacking scandal in person to say he was sorry. The family’s lawyer described Murdoch as “humbled” and “shaken” and confirmed that he apologized many times to the family. Remember the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Instead of visiting the fishermen whose livelihood was destroyed, CEO Tony Hayward retreated to his private yacht and complained that he wanted his “life back”.
4. He’s working with authorities to fix the situation. Both Murdoch and son James agreed to appear before lawmakers and answer questions. Yes, he initially refused but that was the lawyers talking. Things changed when he hired multinational PR firm Edelman Communications. Lawyers worry about liability, crisis communicators worry about credibility.
5. He hired professionals. When a crisis hits CEO’s run to their lawyers and that is obviously what Murdoch did as well. As things worsened, however, it became apparent that the reputational damage to him and to his companies could be huge. He turned to communications professionals and the strategy changed from avoidance to accepting responsibility. Lawyers don’t like apologies because they indicate culpability but they are a first step to rebuilding reputation.

This particular company has a president with a lot of experience and I expect he is very well respected by his clients. He has an impressive staff, judging from the on-line bios. The staff list on a web site is always a great indicator of the company’s pecking order. The junior person is generally listed last. So it surprised me when I went to this same company’s blog and noticed that many of the posts were under the byline of that most junior person.

The blog posts seemed to be designed to help clients cope with problems in a changing world but they all had a very peculiar perspective. For example, near the end of a post on buying things through your cell phone was a line that challenged readers as being “the wrong demographic” if they didn’t accept the premise of impending change.  A couple of other posts talked about the 18 to 29 age group with predictions about how that group would be getting its news in the near future.

When I checked the client list for this company, I saw a lot of major firms in mature industries. It occurred to me that the people hiring consultants for those firms would probably not be under the age of 30. And I was also pretty sure that anyone under the age of 30 would not likely stumble across this particular blog.

I thought the firm’s clients were unlikely to find the posts useful and might even find them condescending. It’s possible the firm was hoping to attract younger, high tech or emerging businesses. But I think we have to be careful when appealing to new customers that we don’t alienate our established clientele.

It’s one thing to present your company as being aware of the latest social media tools but it’s a mistake to hand those tools over to a junior who understands the technology but not the subtleties of the messages.

Trouble is, newspapers want more than that these days. He has been told he must also provide video with a small consumer camcorder. He sets it up on a tripod and pushes the button. All his editors care about is getting a moving image and some sound of the interview for the website. But that too will change and the editors will eventually demand better quality.

There used to be a defined difference between doing a newspaper interview and a television clip. Newspaper stories tended to be longer and you had the opportunity to explain things to the reporter, perhaps influencing the tone or focus of the story. But television interviews are judged by how you look and sound – 70 percent of what anyone remembers from a TV story is a visual impression. The actual words tend to be forgotten.

As newspapers expand their on-line video coverage, it will have an effect on how people prepare for the interviews. If every interview is a video interview, then every interview is a performance.

Passion, however, should not be confused with volume. I saw Porteños being extremely expressive – with their eyes, their body and their hand gestures – even as they spoke barely above a whisper in a fancy restaurant.

Of course, in my line of work I would be remiss had I not visited the museum devoted to Eva Duarte Peron, perhaps Argentina’s greatest public speaker. The museum features a number of video and audio clips of her which, alone, are worth the admission price. Eva really knew how to tailor her speeches to her audience. She spoke very specifically to the working poor who were known as the Descamisados or “shirtless ones”. They in turn gave her the endearment “Evita” and came out by the tens of thousands to support her. In fact on one occasion two million people gathered along Avenida 9 de Julio to hear her speak!

Her museum has recordings that were made more than 60 years ago but as I listened to her, the emotion came through strong and clear. And, even though, my Spanish is less than basic, I was captivated by the commitment in her voice and the way she was forming a connection with each individual in her vast audience.

As I read the sub-titles and listened to the hope and spirit in that voice, the emotional connection was so strong that I couldn’t stop my eyes from welling up. Everything I am is because of you, she told the crowd, and they roared their passionate response.

I was deeply impressed by her ability to craft her messages so well. Of course, like any good politician, Evita backed up her messages with action. She spent millions of pesos helping poor children and set up a shelter for single mothers in one of the toniest neighbourhoods in Buenos Aires, thumbing her nose at the moneyed elite. The rich were clearly not in her target audience.

Evita’s messaging skills knew no bounds. When the Generals refused to allow her to become vice-president (women had only just been allowed the vote) she told a massive rally that she was turning down the job because of her failing health.

Her health was declining, she was dying of cancer. Even so, she continued to give stunning speeches, propped up by a plaster and wire support hidden under her coat because she was too weak to stand.

Think about that the next time a cold makes you consider cancelling your presentation.

Back in January I started one post with a verbatim exchange I’d had while trying to order a coffee and a muffin. It illustrated how badly we pay attention when we try to communicate.

The post was titled “Communication Begins with Listening”.

I had some fun in February when I used a conversation with the guitarist for Doug and the Slugs to show a basic mistake many people make when they give presentations. I called that post “The Blues Ain’t Nothing but a Good Speech Gone Bad”

In March, I recalled a boyhood love to illustrate how important it is to define ourselves accurately and succinctly. That post was “A Writer and a Poet from Canada Meets an Artist and a Dancer From Sacramento”

These were my favorites from the Media Coach blog this year, what were yours?

“Latest software packages make anyone a director” were the words that stared out at me. The article went on to describe how most smart phones now shoot video and, with a basic video editing program, anyone can become a director. Really, I thought, really? Are the Academy Awards going to be flooded with new camera phone entries? Is Mary in IT going to join the ranks of Kathryn Bigelow, James Cameron and Steven Spielberg?

I have spent hundreds of hours in edit suites cutting news stories, documentaries and network programs. I have worked with enormously talented film and video editors who spent years developing their skills and talent. I find it outrageous to suggest that any monkey with an IPhone and cheap editing software can replicate their story-telling skills.

But then I realized that we have already started down a slippery slope that could well be called the amateurization of communications. Graphic artists may have been the first to feel it. Computer clip art and fancy fonts became ubiquitous, replacing well-designed and aesthetically pleasing documents. Artistic talent was replaced with templates and mouse clicks.

Writers have long been pushed aside by people who got a B in high school English and fancy they have a touch of Hemmingway. And editing style guides have been supplanted by squiggly lines which indicate that Microsoft is unhappy with our spelling or our sentence structure. The beauty of a well-crafted paragraph is often lost after each member of a corporate committee adds an edit or two.

Still cameras these days can pick out faces to ensure they are in focus and even compensate for the common mistake of back-lighting. We can all get an image that shows us what was “there” but only a photographer can capture the story in a frame in a way that makes us want to smile or cry.

When movie cameras were big and expensive, photographs were developed in darkrooms and graphics were created by hand we sought out professionals to do those tasks. Those professionals had training and experience. Technology has made everything cheap and accessible but that doesn’t mean we have the talent or the skills to use technology well.

Using technology without a corresponding skillset results in a “race to the bottom” that can make communications materials look mundane or even cheesy. Amateurization reflects badly on a corporate image and makes it harder for companies and organizations to get noticed.

But professionally crafted corporate materials can create a connection that we don’t soon forget . . . just like a well-directed movie.

This bar is not a client of mine and it’s not owned by friends or people I met at a conference. It has not given me free tickets to give away to people who re-tweet this message in a contest. The owners have not done me a favour or promised to buy me a drink if I mention the bar’s name. In fact, I don’t even know who owns it.

I’m not going to tell you about this great little SF blues bar because there’s really nothing in it for me. The bar seems to be doing very well and if I tell you about it, there’s a good chance you’ll wreck it for me. I speak from experience.

Several years ago, I was dating a newspaper reporter who worked in the “lifestyles” section of a local newspaper. She liked my white shirts. My white shirts were hand-made by a strange little man who charged me considerably less than off-the-rack shirts at any decent men’s wear store. My girlfriend kept asking me where I got my shirts made and I kept refusing to tell her. But she was persistent and eventually I gave in.

She wrote a story about my shirt-maker. First the prices went up, then it took longer to get shirts made and then the quality of the shirts went down.

See where I’m going with this?

Too much of what we read in social media is rooted in self-interest. Just as fishermen jealously guard their favorite spots, no one likes to broadcast their secret places. Unless there’s something in it for them. We might tell one or two friends about a great little brunch place but do we want to let a thousand or more people know and risk not getting a seat the next time we feel like Eggs Benny?

The motivation for a mainstream reporter is simple. They are paid to discover the best shirt-makers or brunch spots and they have a code of ethics that frowns on freebies. That’s why most legitimate restaurant reviewers make reservations under a fake name and pay for their meals.

Bloggers and tweeters, on the other hand, often crow about the free meals and parties they attend or the tech toys and automobiles they are given to use for weeks at a time. I’ve yet to read a bad on-line review about those freebies, or even an admission that the fabulous time they had was comped.

In theory, I have nothing against social media shilling for someone. But I get annoyed when those same freeloading hacks are heralded as pioneers of new media.

If you write about someone because they gave you something, it’s not new journalism it’s new advertising.