In a world that expects the wit of Jimmy Fallon, the wisdom of a TED talk and the visual stimulation of Snapchat, giving a PowerPoint presentation with complicated graphs and bullet points sheds about as much light as a birthday candle in a coal mine. If you can’t give a straightforward, dynamic and passionate presentation you should stay home because you are wasting your time and turning everyone in the audience against you.
And don’t give me that crap about the need to cite references and give detailed explanations.
A video of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau explaining quantum computing went viral. He did it in 35 seconds. A few days later a university professor said on CBC radio that Trudeau did a pretty good job.
You probably already know the difference between a great and a horrible presentation. It’s the difference between being held hostage for 20 minutes at a boring meeting versus 40 minutes of thoughtful bliss as a speaker paints evocative words and ideas that make you forget about checking your cell phone. It’s passion, not a 20 data point chart that gets you excited.
A presentation is not a peer-reviewed paper. It is not a university thesis. It is not an engineering stress test report. It is not a learned legal opinion. A presentation is a conversation and an exchange of ideas between you and an audience. If the presentation is done well, it will entice the audience to seek out and discover more about the topic.
Most importantly though, a presentation is not a document. If you are printing out your slides to leave behind as a hand-out you’re doing it wrong. Think about this: If people can read the printout (in about five minutes) and get what your point is then why the hell did they spend 20 minutes listening to you?
When you’re speaking, the only thing on a screen behind you should be a visual that supports what you’re saying. If there are words on the screen, the audience will read them and stop listening to you. Several studies have shown that comprehension and retention plummet if you put words on a screen and then read them to your audience.
Professor John Sweller has been studying teaching methods for more than a dozen years and says that when the audience has its attention split between what you say and what they read they are less likely to remember anything. Professor Richard Mayer reached a similar conclusion; that listening to spoken narration without text on a screen increases understanding by 79%.
Stories will always be more compelling than a chart of facts and figures. Just ask any kid at bedtime.
Doing a presentation without thinking of your audience is like starting a love letter with “To whom it may concern”.
Even if you’re trying to convey the same messages to different audiences, you will be much more effective if your presentation is personalized to the people you are trying to engage.
Whenever I’m asked to speak, I ask a lot of questions about the audience; what’s the age range, the gender makeup, experience, background and more. I want to be able to form a mental picture of the people I’ll be speaking to so that I can bring stories and examples they will understand and enjoy.
Then, I start at the end of my presentation. I think about the audience and decide what I want them to be thinking or doing when my talk is over. I set a goal. I imagine their acceptance of a concept or an idea that they hadn’t considered before. Everything in my presentation must lead to that conclusion and the more my material is relevant to my audience, the more persuasive I will be.
If I’m speaking to employees of a specific company or organization I try to understand its work and look for recent examples either directly from the group or from their field of interest. If the company works in aviation for example I will illustrate my points with examples taken from that industry.
Even including recent events of significance to the audience is useful. Right after an election or a major news event, I might make reference to it where appropriate to my audience.
If I can’t find out much about my audience, I will often start my talk by asking them a few short questions. Someone will likely tell me of a key event or situation that I can reference back to throughout my talk.
So to go back to my imaginary love letter, imagine how effective it would be if you waxed on about your partner’s beautiful brown eyes . . . and they were blue.
I’ve been asked to teach a one-day workshop at a local university this fall on Communicating in a Crisis so I’ve been spending hours reviewing my notes and materials from the many high profile events that I’ve worked on over the years. I’ve written in the past about the three things the public expects to hear in a crisis. They are; I’m sorry, I’ve fixed it, it’s never going to happen again. Those refer specifically to the event that has caused the crisis.
Here are three more essential actions that every organization needs to do when a crisis presents itself;
1. Act quickly but not impulsively. The first things you do and say in a crisis will set the tone for everything that follows. The longer you delay in responding, the more you allow someone else to set the agenda. Make sure, however, that your messages are sound. And don’t speculate.
2. Remember internal as well as external audiences. Employees can be your advocates or your enemies in a crisis. Keep them in the loop as much as you can. Also, if you already have a solid reputation among your stakeholders, be prepared to draw on your advocate army to help preserve that reputation.
3. Make every decision defensible. At some point the crisis will be over and you may be judged more on how you handled things than on what really happened. As chaotic and confusing as things may be when the crisis strikes, things will eventually calm down and the rebuilding of your reputation will begin. There may also be regulatory or customer fallout to deal with and decisions made during the crisis will be scrutinized.
My last post was written for journalists, to explain why the head of a company might not be inclined to drop everything to do a media interview (Hey You Reporters, Get off my Lawn). I remember from my days as a journalist thinking that everyone, including the CEO, had an obligation to answer my questions.
I also remember the many calls from cheery-voiced PR flacks who actually did want me to interview their CEO so that they could promote some new product or service. Often I was rude. A journalist’s day is always busy and I felt I needed to get on with the real news.
So, now that I’ve switched sides this is an apology of sorts to those cheery-voiced flacks and a wake-up call for smug journalists who like to torment anyone in public relations. They may have to phone you to pitch a story but that doesn’t mean they have to like you. In fact, here are six reasons why PR people hate reporters;
- Reporters won’t return calls for a good news story but they scream bloody murder if PR people don’t call back immediately during a crisis.
- Reporters never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
- Reporters will interview any crackpot who voices a contrary opinion even if an overwhelming majority is in favour of something.
- A PR person might spend the entire day lining up interviews and the Reporter will cancel at the last minute without so much as an apology. But if something happens a day later, the Reporter expects the PR person to set up the interviews again.
- Reporters never do a follow up story when a problem has been fixed.
- If a PR person tells a Reporter something off the record, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s off the record. Reporters often print the information anyway and might even use the PR person’s name if it will make a better story.
Over to you, my PR colleagues – did I leave anything out? And I’m happy to give equal time to any reporter who wants to make a rebuttal.
When I was a journalist, I pretty much believed that everyone had an obligation to answer my questions. In the grand tradition of 60 Minutes, people were assumed to be guilty unless they could come out of an interview unscathed. Back then, mainstream media was a major conduit to a company’s stakeholders so, like it or not, CEO’s often had to put themselves under the media spotlight. But things have changed. Now, there are many more ways to connect with stakeholders. And frankly, reporters just aren’t as scary as they used to be.
Since crossing over to the dark side, I have worked with dozens of CEO’s to help them through both positive and negative media interviews. Less than a handful looked forward to the experience. A lot of my work is crisis communications and, contrary to conventional wisdom, presenting the CEO for a public flogging by the media is not always the best course of action.
So this post is for journalists, here are five good reasons why the CEO may not want to talk to you;
- It’s not free publicity. Reporters who think they are doing the CEO a favour by publicizing the company don’t understand marketing or public relations. Publicity is the distribution of a controlled message with measurable results. Unless it’s a start-up company with no track record, an ad hoc story isn’t of much value. The CEO doesn’t know which clip you’ll use or what context you’ll put it in which can be dangerous so he’ll probably hire someone like me to help develop messages and practice delivering them as answers to your questions. If you take a strange angle or misunderstand the business, there will be more work to communicate the real message to stakeholders. So your interview is anything but free publicity.
- It’s someone else’s job. You may think the buck stops on the CEO’s desk and in most respects it does. But companies have executive teams and it’s quite possible that someone else is better able to answer your questions. Although it might be fun for the reporter, no one in the company wants the CEO to look foolish and that can happen if he didn’t have daily involvement in the issue you’re asking about. There is also an implied importance attached to an issue when the CEO speaks and his availability (or lack of) may be a strategic decision. During a crisis, it may not be appropriate for the CEO to be the first to comment because that could make the situation appear more serious than it really is.
- You’ll get it wrong. You frequently do, much more than you realize. That’s understandable because there are very few beat reporters any more. Reporters might report on forestry, aerospace technology and the ballet all in one week. Your job is to simplify the story for a broad audience. Your generalizations may work for your readers or viewers but sometimes they have different implications for an industry audience. Your reporting errors may not be grievous enough for the CEO to demand a correction but they might be enough to affect the credibility of the company. I once knew a business reporter who complained about having to deal with “icky numbers”. Those numbers mean a lot to the CEO.
- Someone else is listening. Companies have competitors as do media outlets. A newspaper or TV station won’t phone its rival to discuss their main story that night so why would you expect a CEO to spill all of his or her secrets? Even general cover footage in a company plant can give competitors clues that might have major impact down the road. That’s why we often provide handout photos or video. The CEO might be in complex negotiations that his competitors are unaware of. There could be layoffs coming, restructuring or a major contract in the works. Companies time such announcements very carefully and don’t want details revealed inadvertently during an interview. Your scoop of leaked information lasts about a day but the repercussions for the CEO go on for a while.
- CEO’s have bosses too. They report to Boards of Directors, investors and shareholders. They also need to comply with sometimes strict and complex regulatory regimes set out by various governing bodies. A publically-traded company, for example, has to follow strict disclosure guidelines when it reveals any information that would affect its share price. And then there’s performance. A CEO needs to project confidence and leadership while reporters are often just trying to trip him up. If the reporter holds all the cards and there is more to lose than to win, why would a CEO talk to the media?
Over to you reporters, want to give me five good reasons why a CEO should talk to you?