At the recent National Speakers Association (NSA) Convention in Phoenix, Arizona, I had the opportunity to see Max Dixon give a talk on ways speakers can improve the stories they include in their talks.

In his presentation “Stepping Up from the Top: How to Make Your Best Stories Better,” Max discusses key features the most powerful stories have. These include:

• place and setting that support the action and ignite the senses
• characters we want to see survive
• puzzles we want solved
• conflicts we want resolved
• decisions whose results intrigue us
• discoveries that help unravel our problems
• insights that move our minds and our hearts as they feed our spirit

He enthralled the audience with his innate love and command of language – something that the audio quality of this video does not do full justice to.

An audio recording of the complete presentation can be ordered from the Softconference website.

Edited highlights of Max’s presentation are featured in the video I posted on YouTube (with his express permission).

Veteran speechwriter Hal Gordon says that speechwriters need to know three things – the speaker, the audience and the subject. Knowing the speaker means, among other things, being aware of how they speak. How they form their words and their cadence when they are in front of an audience. If a writer can do this then we say they have captured their ‘voice’. The speech sounds like it is the speakers own, not that of a professional writer. This is a difficult challenge for many.

True professionals are justifiably proud of their unique ability to write in a speaker’s voice.

Ted Sorensen: JFK’s Counselor

Ted Sorensen, JFK’s speechwriter and counselor, declined to write speeches for anyone else after he left the White House. He states that he could not write for “a stranger calling me up on the phone.” Sorensen explains, “For eleven years I was with JFK day and night. I knew what he thought and what he said on almost every subject…We traveled all 50 states together. We ate together, we lived together. We formed a bond.” The result was “I knew what he wanted to say and how he wanted to say it on virtually every topic.” Indeed the mind-meld was so complete that no-one “could determine then – and certainly cannot now – which words in a final draft had originally been his and which were mine.”

An admiring Richard Nixon, of all people, told an interviewer in 1962 that “Sorensen…has the rare gift of being an intellectual who can completely sublimate his style to another individual.”

In the absence of this extremely close personal bond what is a merely mortal speechwriter to do?

Ground Rules

The first rule is to avoid the temptation to try to sneak something of your own into a speech. Make sure nothing gets into a speech that the speaker does not want to say. This might mean saying ‘no’ to some important people in the organization.

Once you’ve controlled the content, the next challenge is to get the ‘feel’ of the speaker.

It’s a lot easier if, like Sorensen, you have direct access to the executive or politician you are writing for. Travel with an executive – whether in the corporate jet or on the drive to the auditorium – is invaluable. It’s also easier to spend quality time if you have a staff position vs. doing freelance work with a new client.

Homework

Both freelance writers and staff need to do their homework. Start by reading all the past speeches by the person you can find. Better yet, search for video and audio on the web and in podcasts.

Learn to write in someone’s voice and, essentially, you’ve learned to imitate them. It means avoiding anything that would be discordant, either for them to read or for the audience to hear.

The writer needs to be fully aware of the speaker’s background and characteristics. This might be one or more of the following:

• Accent: Many non-native English speakers (and even a few native-born ones) have difficulty with certain words. Learn which ones might cause problems and avoid them.
• Emotion: Be aware of the emotional challenge certain situations might present. Chriss Winston, a member of George H.W. Bush’s speechwriting team, tells of the time Bush had to deliver a eulogy for forty-seven sailors killed in an explosion on the USS Iowa. The writers had built a number of emotional peaks into the address. Bush’s eyes filled with tears as he came to those passages and he had to skip them and move on.
• Origin: Speakers from the American South obviously speak in a different manner to New Englander’s. Speakers born outside the USA will have their own distinctive style. Having emigrated from the UK in the 1970’s I’m well aware that, as George Bernard Shaw said, “England and America are two countries separated by a common language.” If you are writing for a speaker from overseas you have the dual responsibility of writing in their voice while not confusing the audience. Be careful about letting your British-born speaker tell an American audience that we are “batting on a sticky wicket” or of letting an American named, say, Randolph Scott, start a speech in the UK with the words “Hi, I’m Randy…”
• Education: Overly-literate speechwriters should avoid the temptation of larding a speech with flowery language and pretentious expressions. Highly educated speakers and subject experts should use language the audience will understand, even if it’s below their own grade level.

As with much of the craft of speechwriting, if you succeed in finding your speaker’s voice, no-one will ever know of the work you do. Nor should they.

This article was first posted to Ragan.com.

Thanks to @jayphilips Tweeting about these 50 free resources that will improve your writing skills. Courtesy of Smashing Magazine.

Nested tips run into the hundreds.

Write on!

A pithy synopsis helps you to land the gig, sell the speaker, and focus your topic.

We’ve all heard of the “elevator pitch” — an overview of an idea for a product or service which gets the point across quickly.

Entrepreneurs pitch their ideas to venture capitalists. Job seekers are encouraged to develop a compelling elevator pitch to land an interview. Speed dating has even introduced the elevator pitch into our romantic lives.

What about speechwriters? Why should we bother to develop an elevator pitch for a proposed speech topic? Why not just get on with it and start writing?

Pitching your ideas

Freelance writers and journalists are used to pitching a story idea to an editor. They write a brief outline of the topic and the approach they’d take. Based on this, the editor can determine whether the idea suits the needs of the publication. In other words, they sell the story to the editor before they write it.

Whether you are freelance speechwriter or work in government or private industry, pitching an idea for a speech has a number of advantages. It’s a proactive move that shows you are a true professional.

Peter Giesinger, a speechwriter based in Canberra, Australia, uses pitches in two ways. He crafts a speech outline to pitch an executive he’s representing as a potential speaker for a conference. If the conference organizers express interest, he uses that same outline to pitch the executive on the idea of delivering the speech.

Giesinger has found that for his pitch to succeed, he must do his homework. He researches the opportunity in depth and sees whether the event aligns with the speaker’s expertise and priorities. He determines whether the proposed topic is relevant to the specific audience. Only if it checks out will he proceed with the pitch.

Elements of the pitch

The main aspects of the pitch include:

• What is the speech about? Be sure to include the Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How of the event, the topic and the speaker.
• What’s unique about the speech? What angle on this topic will your client take that’s different from that of other speakers?
• Why is the speech important or interesting to this audience? You’ll have to convince the conference organizer that it’s worth time on their agenda.

For a pitch to be compelling you also need to:

• Pitch ideas, not just topics. A speech should be newsworthy, informative, even controversial. Will it make the audience sit up and take notice?
• Understand what the conference organizer is looking for. The speech must connect with the theme of the meeting.
• Reassure the client. They need to be sold on the idea that this will make them look good and advance their own agenda.

Multiple advantages

A pitch is effective if it secures a booking for the speaker. But the real payoff comes next.

There are a number of side benefits to a great pitch. The pitch can be easily repurposed into a speech abstract for the conference agenda.

These are often required weeks in advance of the event. It can also serve as a blueprint for the full text. The tight focus on the core message of the speech will keep you on track as you work through the various drafts.

Michael Gury, a New York-area marketing and branding expert, finds the effort he puts into researching the pitch pays off. The details he gathers about the venue, locale, and organization help make the speech unique. This is useful when, as with many freelancers, he might not know the client well enough to be able to write in their “voice” — especially if it’s the first time he’s working with them. “The research helps add tidbits to flavor the speech,” Gury says. “It can make the moment special for the audience.”

So don’t just sit around passively waiting for your next assignment. It’s time to wind up and pitch your ideas.

This article was originally published in ragan.com.

Earlier this month I was asked by the editors of Ragan.com to write an analysis of President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame. Here’s the full text and video of the speech. My article ran on the front page of Ragan.com (“News, ideas & conversations for communicators worldwide”) the morning after Obama spoke. It’s now been moved ‘behind the firewall’ and is only accessible to subscribers of the Ragan Select service. It was fascinating to read the comments made by over 20 professional communicators. Here’s the article and comments, followed by my response.

Obama bridges the divide at Notre Dame

By Ian Griffin

President Obama’s commencement address at South Bend, Ind., attempts to find common ground with abortion foes

President Obama delivered the second commencement address of his presidency at Notre Dame on Sunday. The build up to the speech saw fierce arguments about whether it was appropriate for a prominent abortion rights supporter to be honored at one of the nation’s premier Catholic institutions. Speculation about noisy off-campus rallies, student and faculty boycotts and other disruptions occupied cable TV, the blogosphere and the Twitterverse.

Controversial and difficult situations can bring out the best in a speaker. Historic speeches are often given in times of dissention and revolt. Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and JFK delivered memorable lines in the face of adverse circumstances. Winston Churchill was not commenting on a European soccer match when he said, “We shall fight them on the beaches.”

One suspects that President Obama might have relished the opportunity to discuss the controversial issues of abortion and stem cell research at this event.

His challenge as a speaker was to defuse the controversy and take the heat out of the moment. He did that by forging a bond with the audience. He bridged the divide after openly acknowledging that it exists.

Consider three examples of ways the speech found common ground with the audience.

“Fair-minded words”

Watch the first part of Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame.

All politicians love to quote letters from supporters. Obama chose to quote someone who potentially opposes him. A letter he received from a pro-life doctor caused him to change the words on his Web site characterizing abortion foes as “right-wing ideologues.”

By using a respected figure from the other camp, he called on the audience to “open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do … (and) discover at least the possibility of common ground.” At the same time, he made it clear that he didn’t change his position. And he did not expect the doctor to change his. In other words — agree to disagree.

“The soldier and the lawyer”

Obama quickly moved from a readily understood pair of opposites to an illustration of why people might have differing views on a complex moral argument. He did so in three steps. First, he contrasted a soldier and a lawyer — equally patriotic, but with differing opinions on what is important to protect the country. Next, a gay activist and an evangelical pastor deploring HIV/AIDS across a cultural divide. Finally, he contrasts those who oppose stem cell research versus those whose children could benefit from medical advances.

By implication, our social roles determine our beliefs.There are no moral absolutes, only the relativism of equally valid views (itself a controversial statement to make at a Catholic university, but he did not go there.)

“A saintly man”

Cardinal Bernardin, Archbishop of Chicago supported, as did Obama, community organizations on the South Side of Chicago. He was not an ideologue. He and Obama were “bound together in the service of others.” He was “always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground.” And by implication, he’s told the audience, so is the person speaking these words.

From your house to my house

By far the most effective bond he built with the audience was acknowledging 91-year-old Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, or “Father Ted,” former president of Notre Dame and sole survivor of Dwight Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Commission. Hesburgh forged an agreement on a “twilight fishing trip” among commission members that led to the Civil Rights Act and, by implication, made it possible for a black man like Obama to be elected. The icing on the cake was the fact that the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision was handed down on May 17, 1954 – 55 years ago to the day.

Few speechwriters are granted such potent historical material to work with. By skillfully working the coincidence of the date, the historical figure in the audience and America’s struggle with racial inequality into the conclusion, Obama was guaranteed a speech that left them cheering.

Comments:

Monday, May 18, 2009 8:52:58 AM by Knute Rockne
Next. Obama can address the most serious issue facing Notre Dame: the more-than-two-decade drought in NCAA football championships.

Monday, May 18, 2009 9:49:02 AM by Christopher Lower
Shame on President Obama and shame on Notre Dame Officials! This should have been a day of honor for these men & women who worked so hard to get to this point of graduation, and for their families. Instead it became a circus!

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:09:42 AM by Bill Rheinlander
President Obama’s words at Notre Dame were soothing and conciliatory. He usually does that well. However, his actions speak much louder than his words. He talks about unity and common ground, but his voting record and policy proposals divide and conquer.

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:25:00 AM by Jay
I think you’re headline overreaches. I don’t think he, in fact, bridged any divide, although he attempted to do so in reasonable terms.

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:34:58 AM by Anonymous
Obama continues to use slick words that don’t reflect his government policies. Your headline is nonsense.

Uncle Sam

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:37:14 AM by Anonymous
Bullshit.

Monday, May 18, 2009 10:40:59 AM by MyWord
More rhetoric but no substance. Obama didn’t bridge any divide. He still approves taking innocent lives in the name of “choice.” Those who favor life still believe it’s sacred and should be protected from conception to natural death. So just what divide did our orator-in-chief bridge?

Monday, May 18, 2009 11:25:03 AM by TK
As a member of the Catholic church, I think it’s terrible that Notre Dame looked the other way when it came to one of the church’s major moral issues and allowed President Obama to even step foot on campus. The graduates deserved better.

Monday, May 18, 2009 11:38:20 AM by Nancy Lewis
Really? Slick? Bullshit? I think not. “The ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own. This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness.”

Monday, May 18, 2009 12:47:12 PM by Kevin
Whew – many of these comments are a good illustration of the intolerance that religion too often creates. What happened to loving the sinner? Instead we get demonizing, ego-based diminishing of this man’s worth, and a wish to simply nullify any different ideas. I hope I live to see the day when organized religion matures to the point where it acknowledges that other ideas not only exist, but they can be in the majority. And even if they’re not, they don’t simply go away because your book tells you they’re bad. Now, from a communication standpoint, it sounds like Obama took the highest road possible that still respects both his own beliefs and those of others. So far I’ve seen no legitimate points made to dispute that – just defensive sniping without substance. Where is the objectivity of the professional communicator here? In sadly few comments, it seems.

Monday, May 18, 2009 12:57:04 PM by Anonymous
Obama handled it beautifully. It’s a nice change to have a president who’s willing to face an audience that disagrees with him on something significant, address the issue and reach out for common ground. Notre Dame, and particularly its president and vast majority of the graduates and families in attendance, were extremely respectful and even enthusiastic throughout, to their credit. Notre Dame also invited President Bush a few years ago, rightfully so, even though he is a big supporter of capital punishment. I’m sure there must have been some protests then, though don’t recall.

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:05:53 PM by Jim
Obama “bridges the divide?” That’s just silly. There is still a divide. The treatment this president gets versus the treatment the previous president got from commentators such as Mr. Griffin is ludicrious.

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:16:26 PM by Mary Dando
Much as I love Barack Obama and truly appreciate having him as our President, I think his words, in the end, struck a hollow note. The “can’t we all get along” theme that ran throughout his speech is definitely conciliatory, but I also found it a tad condescending. As Ian Griffin points out, while he sought common ground, he also made it clear that he had no intention of changing his position. Here was an opportunity to reach out to those who believe that the “termination of a pregnancy” is just plain wrong and immoral, and tell them how he intended to “bridge” the gap. Of course, like most pro-choice advocates, he has no problem with the death penalty. Those of us who are pro-life, we’re pro-life all the way: we’re against the death penalty, assisted-suicide, and the nonsense of sending men and women into combat in a ridiculous situation like the war in Iraq. I even have a problem with the President’s ramping up of our armed forces in Afghanistan, and bombing so-called Taliban strongholds in Pakistan. If he truly wants us to meet as one mind, one compromise he could offer is not to dismantle the law President Bush put in place just before he left office, which allows those in the medical community to opt out of taking part in abortions in major hospitals. President Obama has acquiesced on every demand from Planned Parenthood. Now would be a good time to acknowledge that the pro-life position is a valid one, and do something concrete to recognize it. In this case, actions not words, however profound, are necessary planks in crossing that bridge.

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:34:34 PM by pat
In the previous post, “acquiesced” takes that pronoun “in,” not “on.”

Best wishes,

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:47:18 PM by Jeff
Mary – You say that “those of us who are pro-life” are against the death penalty, the war in Iraq, etc.? If so, I wonder why we didn’t see anywhere close to the same level of protest on the life issue at Notre Dame when Bush spoke there and received an honorary degree? He’s about the biggest proponent and user of the death penalty the country has ever known, and we know about the war in Iraq. Also, you say that most pro-choice people are pro capital-punishment? My observations have been just the opposite. Most of the pro-choice people I’ve known, often on the liberal side, are anti capital-punishment. By the same token, it seems most of the outspoken pro-life people (often conservative) support the death penalty and the politicians or notables who support it. Conservative talk radio hosts come to mind, as an example. (Also, they were supporters of the war.) So, consistency could be called for on both sides, and certainly not just the pro-choice side.

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:52:51 PM by Anonymous
Despite a well written post the grammar [censored] strikes again……

Best wishes!

Monday, May 18, 2009 1:57:14 PM by Joel Hoshkins
Another reliably pro-Obama piece from the reliably pro-Obama Ragan’s. Old Ian just drools lovey dovey goodness all over Patron Saint Obama’s lap.

How can a pro life person “open their hearts and their minds” to the slaughter of children? It doesn’t jibe, Herr Obama. You see, Christians believe God knew us while we were still in our mother’s wombs (Jeremiah 1:5). Christians, you know? Like you’re supposed to be.

Another pretend Christian speech from the Pretend Christian in Chief.

Monday, May 18, 2009 2:15:13 PM by Anonymous
The last posting by the grammar police (anonymous) had at least two errors in his/her single sentence alerting us to the grammar issues, not to mention the inclusion of a censored word. Maybe this is getting a little silly. (Any mistakes?)

Monday, May 18, 2009 2:20:55 PM by Anonymous
Love how the Obama worship just keeps on rolling along!

Monday, May 18, 2009 3:40:36 PM by Mary Dando
Jeff, You’re quite right. Many of the protesters at Notre Dame would probably be for the death penalty if asked, and yes, the Catholic bishops were strangely silent about the war in Iraq when it came to honoring George Bushm and on many other occasions. But this is much broader than Notre Dame. Obama had an opportunity to really reach out to those who find abortion abhorrent, and not just talk about conciliation. I have little in common with radio shock jocks, and I’m more likely to be considered liberal than conservative. I’m pro-life, but you’ll never find me outside an abortion clinic waving grotesque images of aborted fetuses, or screaming “baby killer” or behaving like an out-of-control fanatic. However, I think there are many people out there like me who voted for Barack Obama, and are pleased with the way he’s leading this country, and standing up for the little guy, and I’d just like to see him acknowledge the pro-life position as a valid one.The recent Gallup poll says 51 percent of women in the U.S. describe themselves as pro-life. Yet, even before an equitable healthcare system is in place, right out of the gate Obama signs federally funded stem-cell research into law, and allows for U.S. funding for overseas contraceptive programs. With regard to the latter, most people would agree that anything that helps contain the spread of AIDS in the world is a good thing, but while it satisfies pro-choice supporters, I’m not convinced that it’s going to be that effective. If all it took to stop the spread of AIDS was encouraging the use of condoms, I think it would be practically eradicated by now. We’re talking about a cultural change. Most of the men who have infected their wives or girlfriends with AIDS, didn’t take the precaution of using a condom when they strayed from monogamy. Safe sex meant nothing to them then, why would it mean anything to them now? And I disagree with Ian Griffin. This was not one of Obama’s finer moments. This speech should not be compared to those of Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King who rose to the challenge in adverse circumstances. Obama had a great opportunity to open up the abortion debate for discussion, but he blew it. I’ve never had a problem with his appearance at Notre Dame, or his being conferred with an honorary degree, I was just disappointed that he took the easier road in his speech.

Monday, May 18, 2009 4:05:41 PM by Jeff
Mary – Not to go on too much with this, but I agree with many of your sentiments. Just a point or two. I think you can have a strong pro-life position (anti-abortion) and still be a supporter of federally funded stem cell research and contraceptive programs, neither of which destroy existing lives (though I know the former can be debated and will continue to be.) Also, keep in mind that much of the spread of AIDS, especially in Africa, is not related to sexual activity. In general, I thought Obama did a strong job of acknowledging that there is a legitimate difference of opinion on these issues and he kept it respectful. He seems to be committed to addressing societal and economic issues (lack of healthcare, poverty, etc.) that contribute to more abortions. We’ll see how it goes. But I think you and I have more common ground than not.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:35:14 AM by Anonymous in DC
Well, once again, most of these comments argue the issue itself, not the speech (and its techniques).

“Jay” (Mon 10:25) is correct: the speech may not have actually bridged the divide, but it represented a major attempt to bridge it in reasonable terms.

What’s sad is that too few people (on either side of this or many other issues) make even a feeble attempt to do the same. We’re living in an era of in-your-face, confrontational (and usually disrespectful) language that does little more than inflame and solidify people’s thinking.

It appears that Obama recognizes that fact and, at a time when our country is deeply polarized (on so many issues), he’s encouraging us to work together to find common ground and solutions.

Whether we’re speechwriters or not, we communication professionals often face the challenge of helping our leaders/clients address complex, charged issues. Regardless of where we personally stand on this issue, Obama’s speech serves as a case study we can all learn from.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:20:01 AM by Anonymous
President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame did not ring true to me because his goal was to seduce, not find common ground. He is focused and determined. He wants to change our way of life. That has become quite clear.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:15:02 AM by Anonymous
Anonymous in DC (6:35 am) nailed it – very well put.

My response

These comments raise a number of interesting questions.

1. Can professional communicators handle controversy?

If there truly are real people behind the pseudonyms and Anonymous postings who hold down jobs as communications professionals, what does it say about the intellectual and emotional capacity of public relations staff, speechwriters and others to handle controversial issues?

At the least, it’s a sobering and revealing look into the psyche of those who practice communications for a living – who are paid for their labors – that so few commented on the speech qua speech. Most people chose instead to comment on the issue. It was a topic about which they felt strongly. Many of the Ragan.com audience chose to forego a debate on the effectiveness of the speech in favor of these blunt statements – even as blunt as a single word.

Their analysis was blinded by their emotion. This limits their effectiveness as professionals.

As ‘Anonymous’ said (May 19, 6:35am):

Whether we’re speechwriters or not, we communication professionals often face the challenge of helping our leaders/clients address complex, charged issues. Regardless of where we personally stand on this issue, Obama’s speech serves as a case study we can all learn from.

2. Do corporate communications professionals need to deal with contentious issues?

Even if these professionals let their beliefs and emotions blind their analysis, does it matter? Some might argue most corporate executives communicate in a desiccated monotone. So why should those who serve them exhibit the capacity to deal with interesting, aware, controversial topics in a professional manner?

We live in interesting times. Abortion is only one issue the American public must debate. Few corporate executives outside the healthcare industry probably need to comment on it. Yet issues abound which corporate spokespeople must take a stand on. Global warming affects the energy, automobile, construction and other industries.

Communications professionals need to learn from exemplary speakers such as Obama how to address controversy.

3. Do speeches travel well?

“I can’t get no satisfaction,
I can’t get no satisfaction.
‘Cause I try and I try and I try and I try.
I can’t get no, I can’t get no.”
— The Rolling Stones

Reading the lyrics to this Stones song is a pale imitation of hearing the music, especially if you’re at a live performance as Mick struts his stuff and tells you about a man comes on the radio / he’s tellin’ me more and more / about some useless information / supposed to fire my imagination. There’s obviously way more emotional charge to the live performance.

The same is true of great oratory.

I stand by my headline. Obama did build a bridge that afternoon with the members of that audience. For all I know they left the auditorium with their opinions as firmly opposed to his as ever.

But while he spoke he held them in the palm of his hand.

There was repeated applause. There was a standing ovation. There’s magic in that. And it does well for us to understand how to pull that trick off.

My analysis tried to explain some of the techniques Obama uses.

Murphy’s Law

When Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowan spoke at the White House on St. Patrick’s Day 2009, he started reading President Obama’s remarks. The teleprompter had the wrong speech loaded. Someone screwed up. The speechwriter did not double-check with the teleprompter operator beforehand.

Fact was following fiction.

One episode on the first season of The West Wing opens with speechwriter Sam Seaborn sitting at his desk. He’s composing President Bartlet’s remarks to be delivered later that day at an outside venue in DC. His boss, Toby, warns that the phrase “As I look out over this magnificent vista” won’t work if it rains and the event is moved indoors. Sam swears it won’t rain. Cut to the closing scene where Bartlet is about to speak inside an auditorium (where there is no magnificent vista) since it has, in fact, rained. As the script shows, Sam realizes too late he has not double-checked everything:

We hear Bartlet inside the auditorium. The staff stands watch by the door.

BARTLET [OS] Thank you. Thank you very much. It’s good to see you. Thank you.

Toby and Sam just realized something.

TOBY Sam?

SAM Damn it!

LEO What?

SAM I forgot to do something.

BARTLET [OS] As I look out over this magnificent vista…

Toby looks away in frustration as Sam slams his notebook.

Logistical nightmares

It’s often the logistical minutia that causes irreparable damage to a speech.

I’ll never forget the time I worked with conference organizers in Spain to secure a speaking slot for a senior executive. I was pleased when they agreed she could deliver the opening keynote at an event in Barcelona where 2,000 attendees were expected. Only when the executive had flown from California and was standing onstage in front of 35-40 people did I realize that Friday afternoon was a “soft” opening. Most of the attendees were still traveling and had not registered. The conference really got underway the next morning. My reputation with the executive took much longer to recover.

Independent business writer Michele Hush has learned the hard way that many things can go wrong with a speech. She’s aware that speeches are often an occasional side-job for clients, but a full-time one for her. She frequently finds that she’s the person with the responsibility to check that the logistics are covered. In one case, her client was doing a keynote at a major university, and planned on using two teleprompters. Michele contacted the student in charge and she was assured there would be no problem with this. On checking back a few days before the speech she discovered that no one had reserved the teleprompters. It’s common for event organizers to confuse confidence monitors with teleprompters. Because she took the time to check back, it was still possible to fix the problem.

What steps can speechwriters take to mitigate potential disasters?

Best Practices

Peter Faur is a communications consultant who once wrote speeches for Zane Barnes, CEO of Southwestern Bell. Barnes insisted that his speechwriter get up early on the day of a morning speech and check the news to see whether anything had happened overnight that would affect the content. This was in the late ’80s, before instantaneous Internet news. Nothing of consequence ever did happen, but since then, Faur has built that drill into his regime.

Checklists

Laura Hunter, Senior Communications Manager for the Dean’s Office at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business has a checklist that she runs through with conference organizers and event people 1) when given the assignment, 2) two weeks ahead of the assignment and 3) the day before the assignment. Laura says, “Having this triple check inspires confidence in my abilities, so much so that my clients begin to trust me in other areas – judgment, gut, whatever – because they know I’ve got the hard facts down.”

Michele Hush triple-checks the speaker’s position in the schedule, the room size, sightlines, press presence, lighting, miking and a/v arrangements, if relevant.

I rely on a standard three-page logistics form. This includes data on location, date and time of the talk. It includes the speech length, other speakers on the Agenda, audience size and expectations. I also list press and PR contacts and both the event coordinator and A/V contact details. Having a standard template minimizes the chances that something will slip through the cracks.

While you can’t control the weather, remembering to double-check logistical details helps to ensure it’s not raining on your parade before the speaker walks onstage.

[This article was originally published on ragan.com]

How to temper lofty goals with reasonable expectations

President Obama campaigned on a promise of hope. And while it was an effective message, some believe Obama’s goals aren’t realistic. Case in point: In President Obama’s Feb. 24 address to Congress, speaking of his recovery plan, he stated:

“It will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American by seeking a cure for cancer in our time.”

MyRagan.com readers were asked if that claim was science fiction, as many had dubbed President George W. Bush’s goal to put on man on Mars. Or was it inspirational, like JFK’s famous speech to a joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961:

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.”

Putting aside the invective and the ad hominem attacks, Ragan.com readers were divided. Some saw this as a “rash claim” and a “baseless promise” that crossed a dangerous line — playing with the emotions of cancer sufferers and their families. Some criticized “inspirational rhetoric” and warned it would wear thin. On the other hand, there were those who applauded the president’s “vision for the country” and saw the goal of conquering the disease as realistic.

Quite clearly, the lofty rhetoric Kennedy (and Ted Sorensen) employed in 1961 inspired the audience. It was a call to action that marked the start of a nine-year program. Policy was formulated. Technicians implemented the details. Gantt charts planned out specific milestones to design rockets, train astronauts and develop the space capsule. What began with rhetoric ended in success.

It remains to be seen if we’ll ever set foot on Mars or conquer cancer.

The question for speechwriters is, how far should lofty goals be tempered with realistic expectations? When does a call to action lose credibility? What guidelines can be employed to inoculate inspirational speeches against a skeptical response by an audience?

Guidelines to follow

Effective speeches often motivate by highlighting difficulties, tempering vision with realism.

On December 8, 1941, with the U.S.S. Arizona still smoking, Franklin Roosevelt addressed the nation:

“We are now in this war. We are in it – all the way. It will not only be a long war, it will be a hard war … We don’t like it – we didn’t want to get in it – but we are in it and we’re going to fight it with everything we’ve got.”

Motivational speeches are effective when they draw attention to a perceived weakness in the speaker, turning doubts to advantage in the audience’s mind.

In 1588, Queen Elizabeth I, visiting the troops at Tilbury on the eve of the battle with the Spanish Armada, said:“I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king.”

Acknowledging difficult aspects of the current situation can motivate listeners. Dr. Martin Luther King’s most famous speech mirrored a series of obstacles with their opposite:

“And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream….I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice … I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight …”

So is Obama guilty of being too like Pollyanna in his speeches? Of being too wrapped up in “inspirational rhetoric”? I would argue not. The opening minutes of his Inauguration speech show a classic tempering of expectations:

“Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.”

To be effective, speakers must understand the limits of empty inspirational rhetoric. Avoid groundless optimism. Temper expectations. Know audience expectations and your own ability to bridge the gap between what is and what might be. While reaching for the moon, keep your feet firmly on the ground.

(This article was originally published on ragan.com, April 2, 2009)

JFK speechwriter Ted Sorensen’s book Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History is required reading for anyone calling themselves a speechwriter. Sorensen witnessed many historical moments in his 11 years as JFK’s chief speechwriter and Special Counsel to the President. This book reveals the challenges and rewards of such unparalleled access to one of the greatest American presidents.

As I reported in February, Sorensen gave the closing keynote at the Ragan Speechwriters Conference. I purchased my signed copy at that event and have finally finished it.

There’s over 500 pages of compelling narrative in his striking honest autobiography. It covers his Unitarian origins in the soil of Nebraska, to Washington DC and the Kennedy years, to the recent past. While it does not include his endorsement of Barack Obama there is no doubt that his political sympathies are on the left of the Democratic Party.

Speechwriting Tips

The book contains a fascinating number of insights into speechwriting and the role of the speechwriter:

• Speechwriters should have a “passion of anonymity” so as not to diminish the principals’ stature by accepting any credit for the speech. (p. 131)
• Sorensen writes speeches in longhand, with painstaking precision, requiring uninterrupted time, with piles of notes gathered on the floor around him, each pile reflecting a different topic in the outline. (p. 136)
• The six basic rules of speechwriting (p. 138-141) are:

1. Less is almost always better than more.
2. Choose each word as a precision tool.
3. Organize the text to simplify, clarify, emphasize.
4. Use variety and literary devices to reinforce memorability, not confuse or distract.
5. Employ elevated but not grandiose language.
6. Substantive ideas are the most important part of any speech.

Nevertheless, Sorensen warns, “Saying it so doesn’t make it so” :

Rare is the speaker who has the power to make others listen, and, if they listen, to act, and if they act, to do so in the manner he advocates. Nevertheless, I do not dismiss the potential of the right speech on the right topic delivered by the right speaker in the right way at the right moment. It can ignite a fire, change men’s minds, open their eyes, alter their votes, bring hope to their lives, and, in all these ways, change the world. I know, I saw it happen.

Kennedy’s impact on the world

As fascinating as the ‘inside baseball’ view of speechwriting is, the real value of the book is Sorensen’s role as witness to the defining crises of JFK’s Presidency. Supreme among these was the Cuban Missile crisis, the thirteen days in October 1962 when the world teetered on the brink of destruction. Sorensen had a ring-side seat as a member of the ExComm group who met daily in the White House as the situation unfolded. Many senior advisers encouraged Kennedy to invade or bomb Cuba. Former secretary of state Dean Acheson advised bombing both Cuba and Soviet missile sites in Russia.

Kennedy, as we know, chose the option of blockading Cuba against that of gung-ho military aggression. Sorensen notes that “It is not difficult to amass public support for a belligerent policy against a national adversary… (but)… I believe that a president who refrains from going to war may actually be showing more courage than one who follows the more politically popular course and launches military combat.” (p. 296)

Sorensen’s role as trusted policy adviser during the crisis elevates him far above that of any other speechwriter in history. His drafting of key communiques to Khrushchev helped save the world.

The chapter on Kennedy’s assassination is heart-wrenching for any of us alive on November 21, 1963. More than anyone except Kennedy’s immediate family he felt the loss which robbed him of his future.

Sorensen’s view of 21st century politics

His epilogue reveals his utter contempt for the Bush/Cheney policies. In early 2004 he stated:

The damage done to this country by its own misconduct in the last few months and years, to its very heart and soul, is far greater and longer lasting than any damage that any terrorist could possibly inflict upon us.

Nevertheless, he remained optimistic that “a one-man aberration, however disastrous, is not permanent…Inept political leaders can be replaced.”

He’s lucky to have lived to see the replacement take office. It remains to be seen if Obama fulfills the promise that Kennedy heralded.

Virtual JFK

Coincidentally, the weekend I finished the book, I saw a remarkable movie in San Francisco which was a nice visual coda to many of the highlights in the book.

Koji Masutani’s compelling movie Virtual JFK: Vietnam if Kennedy Had Lived emphasizes the contrast between Kennedy’s approach to international relations and that of LBJ and every President since, save perhaps the current one. It examines the challenges Kennedy faced, from The Bay of Pigs to Berlin and the crescendo of the Cuban Missile Crisis. We are shown documentary footage of press conferences and speeches which all confirm Sorensen’s eye-witness accounts in Counselor. The movie implies that, had Kennedy lived, we might well have avoided the loss of 2 million Vietnamese and 58,000 American lives in that conflict.

The movie is on very limited distribtution, if it’s not showing in your area, at least take a couple of minutes to view this trailer on YouTube:

My good friend David Murray has done a brilliant job advertising his freelance writing services with a YouTube video that takes you all the way back to the golden days of the silent movie. See the thrills and spills as David saves a damsel in epistolary distress.

Brilliant job, David!

Back in August 2006 I speculated if we’d ever see bards in business class to entertain airline passengers with poetry and epic stories on long-haul flights.

I was pleased to read in Tuesday’s FT that Yorkshire-born poet David Whyte is helping stir imagination in the workplace. He has made it his mission, through corporate speaking tours and seminars, to help businesses harness the insights and metaphors that poetry can offer to broaden their language, improve interaction within the workplace and stir imaginations.

He’s worked with blue chip companies like AT&T, Microsoft, NASA, Boeing and Kaiser. Thus his muse has helped people reach out and touch someone; know where they want to go today; reach for the stars, line their dreams and thrive.

Of interest to corporate communications staff and speechwriters, Whyte stands for precision in language “listening and talking to a group until he is able to articulate an uncomfortable and unspoken truth.”

As I noted in my article on The Medieval Speechwriter, aspects of modern corporate life recall life at Court. Whyte agrees:

“All these organizations are like Shakespearean plays writ large, with the nobles telling their truths from the podium while the gravediggers are telling it like it really is in the bathroom. And every epoch ends with a lot of blood on the floor”.

He sees real value in poetry as a tool to help managers make sense of their work. It enables novice managers, overwhelmed, desperate, hungry for some ground in a world gone mad, to analyze things:

“The idea is to get deeply into experiences where they have different images and metaphors to use out of the poetry. A lot of the images will have to do with being lost, with not having the usual bearings, and therefore looking at the world in a different way.”

Whyte has a new book, The Three Marriages: Reimagining Work, Self and Relationship. In it, he explores three commitments we have in life: to our partner; our work; our self. He calls for perspective to keep grounded in oneself.