Communications professional Robert J. Holland wonders “What “secrets” would we never tell our clients about the work we do or about their own communication practices?” His list of nine secrets lifts the lid on the frustrations speechwriters and other communications professionals have with corporate clients. Well worth a read.
There’s a long tradition of heckling at political events in the U.K. and in many other countries where deliberately interrupting public speakers is seen as a legitimate form of protest.
In the 1960s, of course, America saw a number of heated interruptions in courtrooms and conventions to protest the Vietnam War, and this summer we’ve seen the well publicized brouhaha at Democrats’ town hall meetings on health care reform. But disruptions of this kind are rare in the United States, and we’re surprised when they happen.
In corporate settings, too, disruption during executive speeches is an uncommon occurrence. Sure, CEOs presenting at company town hall meetings might have to deal with a few aggressive questions or mutterings of discontent; and yes, unruly crowds occasionally interrupt shareholder meetings or protest outside plant gates. But overall, employees are pretty well behaved, and executives rarely have to worry about heckling and harassment.
But what happens when corporate audiences aren’t well behaved? What should executives do when their listeners speak up and speak out, and the flow of their carefully scripted speeches becomes a backdrop for somebody else’s agenda? The answer is that they should expect the unexpected and be prepared to handle feisty audiences.
You not only need to know what to say in a speech, you need to understand how it will be received by the audience. So what can you do to find this out?
The Greek philosopher Aristotle listed three forms of persuasion available to a speaker: Logos, Pathos and Ethos. A speaker’s failure to connect on any one of these levels, Aristotle said, undermines his or her effectiveness. Faults in logic (Logos) give rise to doubt in the audience’s mind and might lead to pointed questions and requests for clarification. More significant, failing to win the sympathy of the audience (Pathos) or a lack of credibility on the part of the speaker (Ethos) is likely to lead to spontaneous, or staged, interruptions from the floor.
When audience members erupt in an angry outburst, it’s rarely because they find fault with the logic of your argument. It’s more often because of their underlying emotional issues with your message, or because they arrived at the event lacking any respect for you.
Staged interruptions, such as those planned in advance to protest the health care town halls, are extreme examples of a lack of respect.
In any case, it’s important to realize that responding to challenges to your credibility with a logical argument alone will not work. The emotional impact of your message is a far more potent response. To paraphrase a well-known saying, when you have them by their hearts, their minds will follow.
Prepare by researching the audience’s concerns and hot buttons. Check into local issues. Did your plant manager in Oshkosh just fire the local scoutmaster? People in Wisconsin might not be willing to listen to your presentation — no matter how well scripted.
If your research suggests controversy is likely, build in feedback circuits ahead of time by providing an e-mail address or Web site where people can send in comments and questions in advance.
Practice delivering the speech under hostile circumstances. While rehearsing, have someone distract you. Learn how to not get thrown off balance by ringing cell phones, loud noises off stage or loss of power to your microphone. Professional speakers have ready responses to each of these events.
If someone in the audience does interrupt you, don’t just ignore them. Simply acknowledging that they exist will give them a sense of belonging. Once you have responded, quickly move on. You want to avoid getting into a one-on-one discussion.
Stand-up comedians relish their ability to make it painful for hecklers – they can chop people off at the knees. Don’t do this. The sympathies of the audience might well be with the person who spoke out (remember that scoutmaster). If you are too unsympathetic or sarcastic, you risk winning the battle but losing the war.
Appeal to the wider interests of the audience while acknowledging the issue. When a heckler interrupted Obama’s speech on abortion at Notre Dame in May 2009, the president immediately responded: “It’s all right. We’re fine, everybody… We’re not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable…”
However, if things do get out of hand, remember that discretion is the better part of valor. A lone speaker exposed on stage does not stand a chance against a hostile crowd if things get physical. So get out of there. A graceful exit will serve you better than getting into a screaming match.
[This article was originally published on 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?
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.
The main aspects of the pitch include:
For a pitch to be compelling you also need to:
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.
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.
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.
These comments raise a number of interesting questions.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Freelance speechwriter Mike Long was interviewed by Mark Ragan at the recent Ragan Speechwriters Conference. Mark asked Mike to share some ideas about the ways speechwriters should conduct research.
Mike shared his tips on:
A speech is more than a collection of dry facts. Stories make your talk come alive. Storytelling is a powerful way to drill your message into the listener’s mind. Stories are a great way of emotionally connecting with an audience. Stories engage the audience and raise their levels of motivation, acceptance, and approval. No matter how dry the topic, a personal story will build trust with the audience since you’ll come across as human. These 10 ideas will help you give a talk that connects with an audience, moves them to action and leaves a positive impression.
Speakers who use some of these ideas in developing their next speech will connect with the audience in ways they would not dream possible. Don’t just read stories to your kids. Tell us a story.
Times are tough. As the world economy lurches from crisis to crisis many leaders – from the President of the United States and captains of industry to school principals and Scoutmasters – will have to give speeches which motivate the audience to overcome obstacles and achieve tough goals in challenging times. Such speeches are never easy, but done well they make a huge difference. These ten tips help you tell it like it is.
Speakers who follow these tips will meet the challenge of presenting in challenging and dynamic times in ways the audience will feel is honorable and worthy of respect. Great challenges offer great opportunities. More than in easy times, speeches delivered in tough times make a difference.
Attendees at the 2009 Speechwriters Conference comment on the effect of the economic hard times on speeches by CEOs and politicians. In today’s tough economic environment, is executive communications more or less important?
