Presentation Training - Why Are You Here?

You walk up to the dais, you know why you’re there; you’re there to give a presentation. You’ve edited, pared down and you’ve prepared and prepared and prepared. You know what you’re going to say and you say it…

And yet, everyone still looks bored.

How can this be?

Do you lack charisma?

Is there something about you that’s just dull?

No, you’ve made one of the most common mistakes in presentation; you forgot to think about the audience.

Why are the audience there? Here are a few of the common reasons.

·         They’ve been told to be there.

·         They’ve come to hear bad news.

·         It’s all part of a new initiative; that they don’t like.

·         They NEED to be there but would rather not be.

·         They’re marking time before the keynote speaker that they WANT to see.

·         They feel obliged because you’re a client.

·         They feel obliged because they couldn’t tell you face to face that they don’t want your product and they’re stringing you along before telling you that the budget (that wasn’t there in the first place) has been cut.

·         They want the CPD points.

·         They want to be proved right and given the ammunition to go back to their workplaces and tell management that they were right all along

·         It was free and it gave them a legitimate day off.

·         They want to learn something.

The list could go on.

Without thinking about the reasons that your audience is there, your presentation will always be just about good enough, but never great.

When you’re putting your presentation together thing about the majority of the audience, put them in to context, and try to take your ego out of the equation.

It’s very difficult to be honest with yourself when (chances are), they’re not there to see you speak… or at least, that’s not the whole reason they’re there.

Presentation Training - Telling Tales.

The human brain is a remarkable thing.

It takes in information at a phenomenal rate and then forgets most of it.

Our eyes see that we’ve put our car keys on the table, our brain registers that information pops it in to short term storage and we then think about cake.

Mmmmm cake…

After a few moments thinking about cake our brains return to the problem of where the car keys are and… nope, it’s gone. It never made it into the, you know, thingy, the bit that does the whatsit…

So why do some things stay and some things go?

One of the ways that our brains have evolved is through the creation and understanding of stories.

Stories have given Homo-sapiens an advantage over other animals. Animals with higher brain function (not worms and jellyfish) learn from experience, they do something, get hurt or scared or have a positive reaction and they learn from it. Even goldfish will learn to take food at specific times from specific places; they learn that there will be a positive outcome of their actions.

We don’t bother with that, we just tell each other.

For example “my friend ate that berry and was very ill, so now we don’t eat that berry” or “I just killed a tiger, and this is how I did it.” The primitive human group now stops getting poisoned and stops getting eaten by tigers.

Brilliant.

Our brains crave stories, we look for them when they aren’t there, we build coincidence to explain difficult statistics, we create religion to explain living together, we write novels and screenplays and lie about things.

We need context and narrative to remember… it’s what our brains were built for.

Humans ARE stories.

So why has that presentation just been information?

The list of figures goes in and falls straight back out again.

So what can you do to be memorable?

• ·         Build a narrative around your information, why is it there, why is it important, what lead to this, what does it mean for me.
• 
  
• ·         Give your information context
• 
  
• ·         Think about your beginning, middle and end.

The audience is looking for all of these things, and needs these things otherwise they won’t remember why you were there in the first place.

Presentation Training - PowerPoint is not your friend.

PowerPoint has killed the art of presentation.

That’s a bold statement, but it has truth in it.

Look at some of the great orators, some of the great movie scenes, some of the most inspiring speeches ever given; do they have a large PowerPoint slide behind them?

No, no they don’t.

Think of Alec Baldwin in ‘Glengarry Glen Ross’ what would that scene have looked like with a PowerPoint presentation? Yes he does have a black board with a couple of acronyms but he certainly doesn’t have a sophisticated set of slides. No, he just has a sophisticated way of swearing… and brass balls.

PowerPoint is a very powerful tool… but that’s what it is, it’s a tool.

The problem is it’s a seductive creature that allows you to make things appear and fly out and fade and wipe and appear and whirl off into the distance and jump sideways and change colour and and and….

It’s remarkable how many people in business think that PowerPoint will do their job for them.

It’s remarkable how many people in business complain about boring PowerPoint presentations and don’t recognise their own cognitive dissonance.

‘I can’t stop using slides…’ you say. ‘I have too much information to get across…’ you say.

I’m not demanding that PowerPoint should be thrown out; what I am saying is use PowerPoint properly.

• ·         One thought per slide.
• ·         If it can be said with an image then say it with an image.
• ·         Be visual.
• ·         Keep text to a minimum.

Let PowerPoint be the back-up for what you’re saying, the added impact to reinforce your presentation…

PowerPoint is the tool, not you.

Presentation Training - Eye Contact

I am British, I don’t know the name of the person who lives next door, I don’t like to be touched, I am reserved and polite.

I have been introduced to people on my first day at work, forgotten their name, and been too British to ask again. When I left that job, I still wasn’t sure what their names were.

However, one thing that sets me apart from most of the British is that I’m really good at eye contact.

When someone is speaking I look them in the eye and I listen, when I’m telling someone something important I look them in the eye, when I present I look around the room making eye contact with as many people as possible.

How did I develop this skill? Was I born in to a strange sub-species or communicative Brits? No, I forced myself to look people in the eye because as a journalist and radio presenter I knew that eye contact was one of the most powerful tools I could use.

If someone is listening to you, you want them to keep eye contact; it helps you gage their interest and it shows empathy. Eye contact keeps you talking, it makes you say the things that you may not have said to someone who looks away… it’s great from a journalistic point of view.

It’s also vital when you are talking.

Keeping eye contact that means that you have something worth saying, something that you believe, something that the listener needs to hear.

If you’re presenting eye contact can mean the difference between being presented at and being presented to; use sweeping contact, change the person you’re looking at as you pause or start a new sentence. If you’re posing questions look as many people in the eye as possible to show that it’s not rhetorical. Ask someone to answer directly, if they can’t move on. Invite people in to your world by looking at them.

Practice your eye contact today… just don’t stare at people on busses… that can end badly.

Presentation Training - Put The Notes Down

In 2005 a poll was conducted and its results stated that the top 5 fears in America were Terrorist Attacks, Spiders, Death, Failure and War.

Unless your latest intern is a psychotic extremist arachnid, with access to weapons grade plutonium, and a working knowledge of the geopolitical situation, you’re not going to see these things at work.

You ARE going to have to deal with the fear of failure, especially when doing something you haven’t been trained to do – Presenting.

Most business people at one time or another have to present to groups; and whether it’s to colleagues or pitching for a contract it’s one of the scariest things many people have to do.

That’s why we like notes… notes are our security blanket.

My son is four years old, and he loves his muzzy. 

His muzzy is any square of muslin cloth that he can chew on during the night. My wife and I know that he’s tired because he wants his muzzy…

He’s four years old… he’s allowed a security blanket.

You are in business… you’re not.

So what do you do?

This may sound stupid, but you put the notes down.

There is no excuse for lack of preparation, you know that you’re going to have to present so you prepare. Work out what you’re going to say with the help of notes, script if you want, and then pare back... Turn your script into sub headings and brief paragraphs, then pare back and turn your brief paragraphs into bullet points, then pare back and turn your bullet points into single words.

Throughout this process you’re still working from the ideas within the original script but you’re entering it into long term storage. Don’t worry about being word for word; this is a presentation not a play.

Once you have the single words that can guide you through the presentation place them on a single card. 

This is your tiny square of muzzy. It’s there if you need it, to re-set what you’re talking about.

Don’t forget that most of what you’re talking about is on a PowerPoint behind you, and on a screen in front of you.

How will putting your notes away help you?

It will stop you reading, it will stop you being flustered finding your place and killing the presentation; it will stop your brain abdicating the responsibility of remembering.
 Adrenaline is your friend, without your notes your brain has to do the work and recall the information it would otherwise not bother doing.

You are a professional; you’re being asked to talk about something that you know.So why do you need notes?

Interview Of The Week

listen to ‘Winifred Vs. Tesco Pt1’ on Audioboo

listen to ‘Winifred Robinson Vs. Tesco Pt2’ on Audioboo

listen to ‘Winifred Robinson Vs. Tesco Pt3’ on Audioboo

I am rapidly becoming Winifred Robinsons biggest fan.

Which is odd, as I really don't like the programme that she works on. "You and Yours" used to be half an hour every week, then it became an hour a day of 'consumer' radio, or in other words people moaning about stuff...

Not my thing at all, and then I started driving more during the programme and found that I'd listen if Winifred was there.

Why?

Because she is a very, very good interviewer.

Which is a problem if you happen to be George Gordon from Tesco.

We begin from a position of dissonance; Tesco wants to flag up social good while Winifred wants to make the point that during all of the coverage of consumer complaints and bad practice in the supermarket industry, Tesco are never available for comment.

It doesn't get much better for Tesco. Through the interview George tries to show what the company are doing to cut food waste and Winifred accuses them of causing the food waste in the first place with B.O.G.O.F. deals on food.

So what should you take from this as a business.

1) Be Familiar - if you expect good coverage when you want it, engage with bad coverage when you don't. By refusing to respond when the journalists come to you they stop trusting you.

2) Ask What Is The Story? - To Tesco the story is that they are being cuddly and responsible, to The You And Yours listeners the story is that a giant company many of them HAVE to deal with are chiding them for something that isn't their fault. Before appearing ask what the story is from the point of view of the audience.

3) Be Prepared - George Gordon from Tesco seems to think that Winifred Robinson is a wet behind the ears ingénue. She isn't, she's one of the best broadcast interviewers out there and any press office setting this interview up should have been listening to that programme for weeks before approaching them with this initiative.

4) Make It Good - The people behind this story don't seem to have figured out the major flaw. Tesco encourages customers to cut food waste, whilst pushing customers to buy more food as it's often cheaper to buy bulk in Tescos' Shops, blaming customers for wasting half of what they are forced to buy... Yeh, that reads well doesn't it.

Take Advantage of The Phone In

It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that Phone in programmes are for the insane.

Broadcasters know it, producers know it, and the listening public suspect it; because only extreme views are shared. It's like getting into a taxi and expecting a level headed discourse on the banking crisis that accepts it's partially our fault due to our acceptance of an extreme consumer society and our inability to differentiate between 'want' and 'need'.

The problem starts when a lazy producer thinks 'what's everybody talking about?' and comes up with the easy hit of 'Do you think [insert obvious shouty subject here] or [insert opposing view here] I'd love to hear what you think.'

They don't want to hear what you think, they really don't.

What they want is entertaining radio filled with opinions that get people cross and make them call some more. The full switch-board on a phone in isn't because they have asked an interesting question it's because they've asked an easy question.

So where do you come in?

Where does your business fit in with this vast swathe of lunacy?

Well, here's the thing, after a few weeks producing a phone in programme you yearn for a normal caller; a caller who doesn't have flecks of foam at the corner of their mouth. So when you receive a call from a business person who is measured and intelligent, who can use the right "journalist whispering" language, the heart beat quickens and you really want them to go on air and explain it for all the crazies out there.

The great thing for the business is that you get more exposure, you get the name out to a possible audience of hundreds of thousands and you are remembered by the producer... then the next time they need a business person who can talk fluently they know who to call.

Still Authentic

There are some real winners when approaching a journalist with a story, and one of them is authenticity.

Whose story is it?

The case study is used by every charity organisation; the spokesperson describes just how the charity has helped a specific person and how you can help too. What the good charities, the clever charities do is let the people speak for themselves, let the journalist into the lives of the case study. They get the authentic voice rather than a voice filtered through a spokesperson.

It can work for business just as well as charities, you just need to identify the owner of the story, the person that has the most authentic voice... for example I've been working with an organisation that helps people build their businesses. It's a fascinating group of interconnected projects that really help entrepreneurs. The problem is the stories aren't theirs, they are their clients.

So what do they do?

They facilitate.

They give their clients the chance to tell their stories. The clients become the authentic voice of their own companies and the stories are the authentic voice of the umbrella organisation that facilitated it.

Recently there have been some truly bad marketing and advertising campaigns that get actors to play the part of customers, or of real people who consume a product. They are without exception irredeemable bad. The recent "Philadelphia Cheese" campaign featuring an annoying woman telling us to hide sweetcorn under cheese  is one of the worst ads ever... In my head.

We can tell if it's not authentic and push against it if it isn't.

Silly Season Vlog.

To celebrate the start of The Silly Season, here's another vlog from the face of JDoubleR, and in case you were wondering the Season officially starts on the 17th of July this year.

Another vlog from the face of JDoubleR

PUT THE PHONE-IN DOWN!

I need to give you a little bit of personal background before I start this blog because I'm going to sound like an intolerant psycho by the end of it.

I was born in 1974 and lived most of my young life in the mining village of Calverton in Nottinghamshire. My father was a policeman my mother is a chiropodist. We were not well off in the 70's.

When the 1980's came events took a strange turn. In early 1984 I was 9 and still at junior school. All of my contemporaries were the sons and daughters of miners and I was the son of a policeman. The miners' strike was not a happy time for anyone but as a 9 year old it was filtered through the childish lens of learnt partisanship. My friends felt hostility towards me because their families felt hostility towards the police and I was related to the police. It was all very simple.

From my upbringing in an environment where no one had much money I left and went to university, as my brother had done before me, and became a member of the middle classes. I am now a middle class white man (I was always white) concerned about mortgage rates and with a complete inability to complain in restaurants.

I needed to tell you this in the context of what I'm about to say. I have seen life from both sides and I think it's given me a rounded view of the concerns of a number of sectors of society; I like to think that I understand 'the man in the street' or more appropriately 'the riot in the street' and this is the point; phone in programmes talking about riots are pointless because The Public are idiots.

Seriously, The Public (note the capitalisation) are utter morons who jerk their knees and can't see further than their own noses. The Public are racist, partisan, and politically inept, they jump to conclusions and they either want hanging to be brought back or criminals given a lovely hug and sent on their way.

People however are wonderful intelligent beings with a wealth of experience and ideas, they love their families they strive to better themselves they paint pictures, write books and become aroma therapists.

People are brilliant stars.

The Public are idiots.

This is why phone-in programmes don't work.

They don't work because it's The Public that calls. Firstly no one normal has EVER phoned a radio station. No one. Normal people don't want to get involved. Every single caller to a radio station is a bit odd.

After a national crisis or during a time of difficulty broadcasters go running to the special phone-in as a reflection of what people are thinking and it's supposedly reflecting the thoughts of a nation. Shall we do some maths and work this out then? There may be 20 people on air on a national 1 hour phone in ('Call You And Yours' for example on BBC Radio 4) there are 65 million people in the country; you then have those callers (possibly 300 on a day like today) filtered by the person answering the phone. They will be thinking "will this person make good radio?" these callers are pitched to the producer who will make the final decision on getting them on air. The overriding thought through all of this is again "will this person make good radio?" The producer will give balance, they will give a representative selection of views but ultimately it's what makes good radio. Fine, the phone in is entertainment after all. As the youth would say, end of.

The producers of the next news strand will then be fed some of the views of these callers. Remember these callers are representing The Public and somehow these views will become 'overwhelming public opinion' or 'we've been hearing that...' These views will transubstantiate into news!

This tiny sample of people who are phoning a radio station become the only thing that the news and the politicians can focus on. Because they are now 'public opinion' but as we know The Public are numpties who are scared of everything and want to meet out summary violence.

It will always be the same until broadcasters decide that it's nice to let people phone in but ultimately the experts in the field are the people to listen to. They are people who aren't The Public.

Don't Mention The Pie.

Yesterday anyone who was available in the afternoon was watching the slightly odd entertainment of the Commons Media Select Committee. It was without any doubt the highest viewing figures for any select committee proceedings because of the Murdochs. James and Rupert Murdoch were answering questions about the involvement of News International in the use of phone hacking by News Of The World Journalists. I’m not going to comment on whether I think their testimony was of any interest. I’ll leave that up to the blogs that deal with that subject. I don’t. I want to look at their performance as interviewees. What can they teach us for next time we face a hostile interviewer?

It was a game of two techniques and that is possibly the most impressive thing about their performance. It started a little shakily with a refusal to let them read a prepared statement, and then Murdoch Senior managed to interrupt proceedings to tell us all how humble he was. Humble people don’t interrupt to tell us how humble they are. From that clanging beginning however it turned into a tour de force of contrition manipulation and obfuscation.

James Murdoch has been very well taught in the methods used to diffuse a difficult interview. He was a picture of regret and sorrow when it came to the shortcomings of News International. His tone of voice didn’t really change from a low monotone of submission and his face rarely dropped the expression of a Public School Head Boy caught smoking in the quad. One of his key techniques, however, was the long and detailed answer. When faced with an interview that you know has a time limit make your answers detailed, relevant and long; throw in lots of context, sub-clauses and the occasional bit of technical data (think of the ramblings of Grandpa Simpson). There were a number of replies that seemed to take us back to his childhood and were so involved that even as a keen observer I’d lost track of what the question was.

Rupert Murdoch had a different technique. Most of the informed viewers were waiting for the questioning of Tom Watson MP, the back bencher who had been at the heart of the story of Murdoch’s power over Parliament; he was dogged, he was clear and he was forthright. Tom Watson hadn’t allowed for Rupert Murdoch’s reaction to the questioning. A bald slumped eighty year old man, looking confused beleaguered and harangued, he cut a pitiable figure as he paused before each vague answer and seemed to know little of what his company had been up to. As the questioning went on Murdoch looked more like a care home resident who was regretting giving his son power of attorney. However, later in proceedings he appeared to have facts at his finger tips; the steel trap of a mind was still well oiled and catching people out. Had he just used the great defence of being too old and feeble to stand trial? As for that nasty Tom Watson, he’d just beaten up an octogenarian on live television.

Emotional connection is the Murdoch’s biggest triumph. After appearing in front of the Select Committee they have become human, they are no longer faceless monsters who have the morals of a tabloid journalist, they are human and they are very sorry*. Genius.

*no, I haven’t addressed any of the content of what they said. They wriggled and shimmied and seemed to say very little of use. The defence of hampering criminal proceedings was trotted out regularly.  The Tom Watson questioning about corporate governance was very interesting but will be remembered for Rupert Murdoch’s reaction, not the substance.

Be Helpful

A number of years ago the Walker Brothers  sang ‘Make it Easy On Yourself’* and it’s still something that you need to keep in mind when taking part in any interview. Because sometimes you will come across a presenter, a journalist, an interviewer who doesn’t know what they are doing.

Like in any other job people have found themselves in a position that is beyond their capabilities; un fortunately that position means that they are talking to you… with no real idea how to.

To get the best out of the situation you need to guide what is happening.

Firstly ignore the closed question. Journalism 101 states that you should not ask a closed question. (one where the answer is just yes or no or a single word) If I were to ask you ‘did you enjoy the film’ the nerves of sitting in an interview situation may make you answer ‘yes’ instead of ‘yes I did enjoy the film, it had plot, excitement and things blowing up. What was there not to like?’. You need to be descriptive and let the interviewer of the hook. If you can answer in a full sentence then even better for getting a news clip (see entry on Soundbites).

Secondly stack up the sub-clauses and answer the most interesting or advantageous one. I have to admit that on occasions I have asked a poor innocent interviewee a question with more subclauses than Rebekah Brooks severance package. Their little eyes used to fill with terror as they tried to untangle the big question from the satellite smaller ones. Don’t just answer the last thing that came out of their mouths it often isn’t the most important question.

Thirdly, don’t get cross. The temptation to become cold or difficult when you come up against a bad interviewer is there. Don’t. No one will come out of it with their dignity intact. Take this example of an out of depth interviewer and an annoyed interviewee

http://www.youtube.com/user/rockers74?feature=mhee#p/c/E7C848367AD9407A/0/sVS9yNQFMag

Les Ross is one of the most respected commercial radio presenters in the west midlands. He has a huge heritage following from his many years at BRMB. Les started his career with the BBC and then after many years returned to an organisation who’s expectations had changed. It had become a job for a journalist and not a ‘jock’. This interview with Hardeep Singh Kohli is difficult to listen to; Les gets the research wrong, but Hardeep doesn’t keep cool. He could have asked to start again with the correct facts and continued from there in an allocated interview slot of 10 minutes (industry standard at the time) he had 6 minutes left. No one comes out of this sounding good.

Like any other job, it’s not always the cream that floats to the top. Like any other job, sometimes there is the right person in the wrong job. Just remember to help them help you.

*no, I'n not sure why I mentioned the Walker Brothers either.

NOTW

If you’ve been reading this over the last 2 months then you’ll know that this is a blog for anyone who may/is about to/needs to/wants to be interviewed. It doesn’t really cover media stories in general. The problem is that for the last few days there has been nothing happening in the media apart from The News Of The World.

So with that in mind, what can we learn from this great big dogs’ dinner?

1.    Don’t break the law.

It’s a simple thing to do; you just have to stop breaking the law. It makes life easier.

2.    Plausible deniability.

In this case it's the plausibility of the idea that a newspaper editor didn’t know that his/her employees were breaking the law. The plausibility of the denial rapidly reduces with questions like ‘how did you miss that someone was being paid £100k?’ or ‘seriously, you didn’t know?’ if you’re going to use plausible deniability when your organisation is in crisis make sure someone from within questions you hard about it. It needs to be water tight and erm… plausible.

3.    Confess quickly.

The News Of The World did not confess quickly enough. Sorry, News International did not confess quickly enough. There is something baffling about a quick confession. If you have weighed up the pros and cons and found that your reputation will be less damaged by getting the confession in quickly, DO IT. School children across the globe know that to confess to a minor misdemeanour confuses teachers; and it really throws interviewers.

4.    Understand the emotion.

Why do people choose to consume a particular non-essential product? There is a huge amount of research in this area and a vast number of professionals working in the marketing industry who will give you a very detailed answer to that question. The most compelling reason to me is that they have an emotional connection with it; it fulfils one of their emotional needs. In this case The NOTW was like an edgy friend, one that you liked hearing from but at the same time knew that they were a little wayward. When a friend does something appalling it’s far worse than a stranger. They have betrayed your trust even though you knew what they were like. If you fail to understand the emotional reaction to your crisis you’re failing to address the reason people will stay away; remember what The Sun did on Merseyside. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster#The_Sun_newspaper

Cat Violence

A couple of years ago I made a terrible mistake.

I made one of those mistakes that you blunder blindly into, like congratulating a colleague on their pregnancy when they're not pregnant or deciding to buy a non-brand name condiment; Honze Ketchup really isn't the same.

I was presenting a programme that was the market leader at the time and one of the key elements was the muse. You know the sort of thing, have you ever wondered why toast lands butter side down? Have you ever noticed that policemen are looking younger these days? By the way I don't like Cats…


Yes. I said it, I don't like cats…

It was more along the lines that I don’t like cats leaving 'gifts' in the garden. I have a toddler who may find them and it's not nice. It was something that I'd tried out in the office. It was something that could be a talking point. It was something that I lived to regret.

Now there are certain things that you can't say in Britain, these are; Is Alan Bennet over rated? Have you noticed that Prince William is going bald? Wasn't Cheryl Cole found guilty of assault? And I don't like (insert name of animal here). I'd forgotten about this last bit. We are a nation of animal lovers and to go against this, even if you have supporting arguments, is just, well, blasphemy.

After being accused of inciting violence towards cats I was called a monster and told that I shouldn't be allowed on the radio ever again under any circumstance. After being abused by text and harangued over the phone I promised NEVER to mention cats again and my boss decided that I had been punished enough.

I felt like Gerald Ratner after his moment in the Albert hall. I'd just killed all the good feeling that I'd built up over the previous 5 years or so. It was not my finest hour.

After a fitful nights sleep, half expecting the local paper to be running with BBC Man In Cat Hate Shock, I went into the office. The atmosphere was subdued. I could see my cat owning colleagues looking at me with a sort of cold detachment that I hadn't seen before. They then decided that just before going on they would have their say about the cat incident… Bless 'em for that.

Bruised, friendless and depressed I went on air and let the audience know that after my conversation about cats I wouldn't be repeating it. I had chosen my words badly and I apologised… and then a call came… now, I always think that if you're going to ask for reaction then you should deal with it good or bad and that if someone has bothered to call then they should be given the chance to air those views. I had done that the previous day when I was the Pol Pot of the cat world… so when this call came through I read out the comment. It was something along the lines of 'I agree with you, and I hate cats in my garden.' I felt a little better about life and I moved on to the talking point for that day.

I don't remember what the talking point was because I then spent the next 3 hours being congratulated by everyone that wasn't listening the previous day, how I was finally going against the angry cat loving minority, how the scourge of cat poo was worse than world poverty and the threat to the ice caps.

After the programme we had a debrief. I reiterated that my apology was in no way a plea for people to agree with me.

The thing is, when you're going to be controversial, or even just a bit honest, you need to be prepared for everything to go wrong, you need to be prepared for shutting it down apologising and moving on, because on the day you decide to say that you don't like cats it may be that everyone who agrees with you is on holiday.