Training update: training the media, regional businesses and international clients
Canola crop
Dry creekbed
Me at Little India
Lately, I’ve been traveling, not blogging.
In two months I’ve seen half of Victoria and some of Tasmania by car, flown to Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane–and revisited Singapore.
In the past year, I’ve trained several editors of major metro newspapers and magazines in presentation skills. The work is being so well received that our client (one of Australia’s largest listed media organisations) has commissioned a complete program for more editors and journalists in 2009.
My travels around Australia have involved running marketing workshops for businesses employing staff with disability. Our client is the Commonwealth government (FAHCSIA). We have nine NSW regional centres to go. I’m enjoying meeting many different people, many of them with great belief in and energy for the terrific work they’re doing.
In mid-October I returned to Singapore to work for three days with agriculture company, Monsanto. Monsanto has a lot of history, some of which draws criticism, but it does terrific work in agriculture and has an important place in the world, especially given foreseen global food shortages.
Machines to spot the spin?
A friend sent me a link to a new Internet browser add-on that claims to highlight occurrences of spin in web pages. The site owners say that spin is a threat to democracy.
I don’t doubt that lies are told in the name of public information and news on any given day, but I (perhaps naively) continue to think that the best protection for democracy is not machines telling us when something is awry, but using our brains to review, interpret and judge information.
I will continue to feel safer making up my own mind about whether something seems informed, properly sourced, balanced, logical and so on.
Speaking fluent human
One sign that standards of public communication are low is the delight we feel when a public figure says something with insight briefly and clearly. Too often, our ears glaze over under the wash of drivel and dross, our eyes fail to see the vision because the speaker hasn’t made their message clear.
Unmask your message.
Unclear thinking is bad for communication. Unfortunately well-established, poor communicators legitimise bad communication. Poor communication in high places is copied by less experienced communicators who think that what they hear and see is ‘best practice.’ It usually isn’t.
It’s easy to see that the most experienced communicators are not always the best communicators. A British Labour MP recently said that his boss, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, needs to learn ‘fluent human’ if he wants to connect with voters. No doubt Brown is intelligent, experienced and politically savvy, but those things do not necessarily make for great communication. An Adelaide-based English professor writing in The Australian accused Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of speaking bureaucratese and diplo-babble. Rudd can communicate well, but like most of us, he doesn’t always do so.
It’s easy for speakers to justify themselves with excuses: ‘This is a highly regulated/sensitive/specialised/ complex field,’ or ‘I was speaking only in the context of such and such a forum.’ In other words, ‘My content is above or beyond simplification’ or ‘In this context, it’s acceptable to speak incomprehensibly.’ Rubbish. Be as complicated as you like within very limited professional circles, but not in public (and by extension not in the media).
So what to do? Here’s a short list of ways to add zip and sparkle to your language (written and spoken):
- Cut out unnecessary words
- Use simple words
- Use short words
- Avoid or explain technical words
- Let verbs be verbs, don’t turn them into nouns
- Use fewer abstract nouns and more concrete nouns (i.e. words that create pictures)
- Avoid double and triple negatives (e.g. “I could not fail to disagree with you less.”)
- Link your thoughts so others can more easily follow
- Cut out the jargon
- Avoid ambiguity (repeat nouns rather than use too many pronouns)
- Use the active voice (e.g. ‘the dog sat on the mat’ rather than ‘the mat was sat on by the dog’)
- Emphasise the positive aspects and people will want to keep reading. Negative phrasing can seem bossy and hostile. Negative words may give you an unintended headline if you’re speaking to the media.
- Cut unnecessary preambles
- Kill or define initialisms (not to mention calling initialisms acronyms)
Hiding behind a lack of (presenting or other) education is not good enough. If you’re an adult and have access to the Internet, you can access and learn from the best resources in the world.
Do you use too many buzzwords? Britain’s Campaign for Plain English offers a simple remedy: Write down the top ten buzzwords or phrases you use and come up with a plain English alternative list.
In private and informal conversations, speaking conversationally includes hesitant starts, unplanned repetition, half thoughts, trailing off, expletives, not quite saying what you mean, and so on. That’s all fine in private, but disastrous in the media and in public.
The start to speaking powerfully is to speak clearly. Politicians who focus as much on speaking plainly as much as they do on speaking politically, will win more votes. Businesses that shorten and tighten up their written communication will increase efficiencies and sell more products. Lawyers who write in plain English help people engage more effectively in legal action and processes.
Poor communication certainly costs. It adds to cynicism and lack of trust. Is there hard evidence that clear communication can make a positive difference? Back to the Campaign for Plain English, for a single example. The campaign helped British Aerospace redraft and cut a 150-page international leasing agreement down to 50 pages. The result: shortened timeframe to close a ₤120 million deal by several months.
Speaking in colour
Speaking well involves the right content AND the right delivery, but most speakers focus only on the content. (Frankly, many speakers in business and politics don’t even do that very well, using hackneyed phrases, jargon, unexplained initialisms, passive voicings, double negatives–and so on.)
Speaking well involves more than choosing content.
Proper attention to delivery involves lots of things, including posture, expression, dress, location, projection, nerve management, and using your voice.
Communicating excellently and achieving excellent communication results involves proper expression through the vocal ‘instrument.’ Sadly for speaker potential, proper and maximal use of the voice is often ignored by speakers, usually because they aren’t aware of the possible improvements and how to make them.
Take speaking pace for example. How fast is the right pace? Most people would have to guess. Knowing the right natural pace in words per second (and what that feels like) will help you work out the number of words required for any speaking performance. Pace also directly influences speaker potential to project and vary tonal patterns, draw on speaking fuel (i.e. breath) and to make the most of rhythm.
If you have to speak in public, don’t forget that your vocal performance can enhance your message, allowing light and dark, rhythm and pitch variation to lift your audience out of a soporific vocal monotony.
If you want more specifics about how we train speakers to harness their personal vocal style and potential email me at antoni@redact.com.au.
Whose word counts?
One of my colleagues is Sydney-based technology marketing guru Eric Phu. Helping me prepare for a presentation, Eric showed me this video.
The video parodies what happens when too many people have a say in a communication idea, before it even reaches the intended audience. The result is cluttered and diluted communication. After watching the video, I asked Eric what his take out from it was. Without hesitating, he said:
“It’s not what you put in, it’s what the consumer takes out that’s important.”
That’s gold. If you’re in a communication career, you probably know what it’s like to undergo frustrating review and approval processes. It’s common for content experts to push their views into communication arenas, and for communicators to capitulate. We do so often in the interests of keeping the peace, but often because we lack the skills to push back tactfully and convincingly.
Ann Wylie, in her great e-newsletter, Revving Up Readership, offers sound advice about how to streamline and improve approvals processes. She suggests for example, specifying more clearly (i.e. limiting) exactly the type of approval you’re looking for.
So, in the end, whose opinion counts? That’s right, the audience.
Safire, Valenti, Noonan and Hertzberg
This post’s flavor is North American. Another time I might focus on British or antipodean work.
If you’re a communicator, you’re interested in diction, and William Safire’s On Language column in the New York Times will be a useful and enjoyable reference. Safire writes well on clarity and precision.
Safire was a Nixon speechwriter and has written several books–mostly to do with language and politics–but his book, Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History, is the best collection of speeches I’ve found in print. Safire added to and aided the anthology with his own explanatory preface to every entry.
If you want good advice about speech making, read the late Jack Valenti’s Speak Up with Confidence: How to Prepare, Learn, and Deliver Effective Speeches. Valenti was Lyndon B. Johnson’s speech writer before moving on to lead the Motion Picture Association in Hollywood for nearly forty years.
Peggy Noonan was a Reagan speechwriter (and remains a vocal Reagan apologist) and writes weekly for the Wall Street Journal. Noonan’s book, On Speaking Well, is neither as thorough nor specific as Valenti’s, but it’s also worth reading. (It’s companion book, On Writing Well, by William Zinsser is excellent.)
Finally (for now) on the topic of speechwriters, New Yorker liberal columnist, Hendrik Hertzberg, wrote for Jimmy Carter. Hertzberg’s book, Politics: Observations & Arguments, is a gem filled collection of his reportage spanning forty years of reflections on culture, politics and media.
Valenti seated l. as LBJ sworn in
Professional spokespeople can be likeable too
I often ask spokespeople in media training, What kind of spokesperson would you like to be? What qualities would you like to embody? Adjectives they cite include: professional, credible, informed, brief, honest.
Then we look closer. What does professional mean? Trainees say: service oriented, conscientious, knowledgeable, informed, business-like.
I ask, Why do organisations put spokespeople forward? Why don’t they always issue unattributed messages? The main answer is that the media and the public like to see real human beings representing organisations. Direct quotes enliven, inform and personalise stories in any medium.
Many corporations are adept at professionalising their spokespeople. They do this for understandable and valid reasons, including to convey concise and conservative positions and to guard against unruly expression. But this also creates problems. When a person tries to be professional, they often become serious. Serious is fine, except that it’s easy to over-do. It arrives stripped of humanity, cloaked in clipped, drab, monotone and boring responses. It’s safe, but it’s often not very likeable, and there’s not an organisation I can think of that doesn’t depend on being liked by someone. (Aristotle pointed out a long time ago, that logic is only one part of the persuasion equation-other key elements are pathos and ethos.)
Professionalism is admirable and necessary, but being informed and credible need not be an excuse for being boring. Being boring can be useful (e.g. in keeping you OUT of the news), but more often, it’s a communication vandal. It stops people reading, listening, watching…and liking.
One consummate professional and credible communicator who isn’t boring, is investment expert and chair of Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffett (consistently one of the world’s richest people). The company’s annual report lacks design sizzle, but it’s read because it’s informative and entertaining-it even has a couple of funny (and relevant) jokes.
Another terrific communicator in a so-called boring sector, is the ANZ bank’s chief economist, Saul Eslake. His speeches and presentations prove that credentialed economists can also be in demand writers and speakers.
In summary, don’t let being in business be an excuse for being boring. 
Planning media interviews
The following post is from the Dec ‘06 edition of my Message Matters newsletter. Sadly, ignorance of the topic is a regular cause of interview failure leading to poorer than necessary publicity.
Not long ago, a top company launched its new line of audio equipment to Australian media. The product was impressive. The spokespeople looked good. Presentations started. Before long, a reporter interrupted: What format does it copy music in? The reply: We don’t know − maybe MP3. Further questions followed, and so did the we don’t knows. We don’t know is valid sometimes − even for CEOs − but not to predictable, reasonable and easy questions.
The result was a conspicuous story lampooning the product launch. What should have been a company high became a low. (Any publicity is not good publicity.) The problem was not media error, misreporting or bias, but poor planning.
Some planning tips:
1. See an interview as one of many options. If you decide to do one, WRITE DOWN WHY. For example: to correct a misperception, to announce an initiative, or to raise an issue. Keep it that simple. This gives you focus.
2. Distill and jot down the essence of what you want to say in a few (no more than seven) points. Running without your own agenda is ill-advised. Dumping a set of lengthy briefing papers on a spokesperson doesn’t go far enough; help the spokesperson cut the content down to one page. Make the information manageable.
3. Pick your rhetorical tools. Assign a concise example or illustration to each assertion or claim. Align your logical, emotional and ethical tones. Present any radical ideas conservatively.
4. Order your messages. Beginners and experts alike can enumerate to offer cognitive and audio cues.
5. Write key words for brief opening and closing statements to start and end the interview. These may be as simple as a context-setting and a summary line.
6. Practice saying your messages out loud. Even for print interviews, compress each main point to a 10 or 15 second statement. You can then embellish to suit available time. As Mark Twain said, Use the best words, not their second cousins. This is first a matter of substance, then style. Cut out clichés, jargon and abstractions. Turning abstract nouns into concrete ones, or even verbs will give your message more zip.
7. Practice again, but this time, frame your answers in response to predictable media questions. Remember, the media don’t need to know everything, but effective issues managers will give them something.
Preparing well is the key to tackling information needs thoughtfully, advisedly and professionally. You may say, I don’t have time! I agree that it’s a bit late once the reporters are already in your foyer. If they’re not, feel free to contact me about programs to prepare spokespeople in advance.
You gotta love the Chicago Manual of Style
For some time I’ve been receiving CMOS’s monthly Q&A style alert. I don’t always read it, but when I do, I either learn something or at least enjoy the writing’s brevity, accuracy and humour. A case in point:
Q. About two spaces after a period. As a U.S. Marine, I know that what’s right is right and you are wrong. I declare it once and for all aesthetically more appealing to have two spaces after a period. If you refuse to alter your bullheadedness, I will petition the commandant to allow me to take one Marine detail to conquer your organization and impose my rule. Thou shalt place two spaces after a period. Period. Semper Fidelis.
A. As a U.S. Marine, you’re probably an expert at something, but I’m afraid it’s not this. Status quo.
Here’s a longer, but no less useful and clever entry:
For some reason, questions about periods have dominated the Q&A mail lately. Why the sudden confusion? Why, after a lifetime (I trust) of never encountering two periods in a row, do readers suddenly think this might be a good idea? In any case, here are some answers: Don’t ever put two periods in a row. Put one period at the end of a declarative sentence, even if it ends with an abbreviation or a URL. (Questions and exclamations use question marks and exclamation points instead of a period, not in addition to one, even in quotations.) A sentence that stands alone within parentheses needs a period inside the parentheses with it. (Here’s an example.) A sentence in parentheses within another sentence does not take a period, because the period is reserved for the main sentence (questions and exclamations, however, must have their respective marks!). An abbreviation that ends with a period must not be left hanging without it (in parentheses, e.g.), and a sentence containing a parenthesis must itself have terminal punctuation (are we almost done?). Finally, an abbreviation ending with a period that is immediately followed by a question mark or exclamation point requires both marks (Q.E.D.!).
See the CMOS Online Q&As for more useful and clever entries.
Hologram spokesperson?
This wouldn’t be news to Philip K. Dick (author of the books Hollywood made into Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report and A Scanner Darkly), but in Adelaide (S.A.) on Tue 27 May, the hologram of a guy in Melbourne (Vic.) addressed a business conference. It’s only a few years away from ubiquity.
