OnSpeechwriting

Here’s something new for 2012 on www.TheSpeechwriter.com: the five-question interview. Throughout the year, I’ll run a series of short interviews with leaders in the fields of speechwriting and executive thought leadership. Some you may have heard of; others perhaps not. But all of them will be people I’ve been fortunate enough to run across and who I believe can add to our understanding of speechwriting and executive communications. So welcome to the inaugural interview with executive visibility maven Terry Catchpole.

The image of a speechwriter whose only job is to write speeches is a bit old-fashioned. Yes, some still make a living doing that as a sole endeavor. But the role has changed over the years. It has expanded and grown as organizations have begun to understand that sometimes it’s not just what you say, but also where you say it and how that fits into a larger communications plan. And with that recognition has come new opportunities for speechwriters to widen their ability to help their organizations and their speakers. There are as many corporate types, for examples, with titles like “executive communications” and “thought leadership” on their business cards. And we’re working on not only individual speeches but thought leadership programs that maximize leaders’ time and energy in very deliberate and focused ways.

With that in mind, I’ve asked one of the leading experts in executive visibility to provide his thoughts on what it takes to more fully develop this other role. Terry Catchpole is Executive Chairman of The Catchpole Group in Boston. For 25 years, Catchpole has been working with companies (full disclosure: he works with Dow) to help them elevate their speakers’ profiles and to more fully develop their thought leadership programs. Although their specialty is sustainability, they are experts in helping organizations that are eager to expand the presence of their leaders.

1Q: Based on your experience, as well as on feedback from clients, how important is it for companies to have an executive visibility speaking program in place for its c-level executives?

1A: The short answer is that it depends on the executives, as some are just not comfortable in a public speaking role and do not feel that it is important for them in delivering value to stakeholders. For most companies and most executives, however, it  is a very important part of their overall corporate communications plan to have a well-considered strategy for having senior executives articulate a series of messages that map to their overall business objectives and for effectively delivering these messages to key target constituencies – customers, partners, investors, and, in some instances, the general public.

2Q: Many organizations have not even considered having an executive visibility speaking program. How would you recommend that they launch such a program?

2A: The best place to start is by identifying the messages that the company wants to communicate to its target constituencies. These “messages” cannot be warmed-over boilerplate about how terrific the companies’ products or services may be. They should be new, compelling, and relevant insights into their market – genuine “thought leadership,” in other words, not lagging-edge cliches trying to pass as such. Next they need to identify the best executive speakers to address facets of the messages set – the CFO or CMO will have a different perspective to share from the CEO, for example. Finally, identify their target stakeholder audiences and the forums where they can be found in attendance – deep due diligence in the conference world.

3Q: What is the most common mistake that companies make in launching an executive visibility speaking program?

3A: There are several. One, alluded to above, is thinking that your marketing copy passes for a thought leadership message, and failing to bring original insight with which you want to establish your executives’ stature as business leaders. Another is failure to cast a wide net in amassing a universe of conferences and other platforms from which your executives might speak and then to perform careful analysis as to the pros and cons of each – you can never have too many forum options or spend too much time researching and analyzing them.  Finally, perhaps the biggest mistake, is failure to respect the role of a conference organizer in understanding his or her attendees and what it is they want to hear from conference speakers – it might not be what you think they should hear or want to tell them. It is very important to be respectful of conference managers’ understanding of their attendees and be flexible in tailoring your messages to be synchronous with their agenda program plans.

4Q: Are there any big trends that you are seeing in trying to place client speakers at conferences and other speaking venues?

4A: Probably the most important development with executive leadership forums is the trend away from the traditional standalone, PowerPoint-driven keynote. What we are seeing instead are highly informal, unscripted sessions featuring three or four c-level speakers interacting with each other, the moderator, and audience members. Or a one-on-one “fireside chat” session with a CEO interacting with a moderator-interviewer, who could be a prominent business journalist or industry analyst.  The solo keynote is a dinosaur that, while never perhaps to be extinct, is seen less and less.

5Q: If you could provide just one piece of adv ice to an organization that is considering launching an executive visibility speaking program, what would it be?

5A: It may be fudging the question a bit, but I would say the one tip would be, “Respect the process” – but under that I would have sub-categories, including:  respect the fact that your “thought leadership” messages should be comprised of “thoughts” that are genuinely “leading” the dialog in your market, and are not lame and stale; respect the fact that conference managers do a lot of research on what their attendees want to hear, and be willing to work with them in providing content that adds value to their attendees’ experience; and respect the fact that your CEO will not always be invited to give a solo keynote presentation and should be prepared to consider participating in informal, interactive sessions with multiple participants  - all of whom should be of comparable stature in terms of title and company, of course.

When More is Less: The Presenter's Paradox

Sometimes, more really is less.

A study released last month revealed that gift givers tended to believe that giving more would always be perceived by the receiver in a more positive light than receiving less. Giving a cashmere sweater plus a $10 gift card, for example, would always be viewed by the recipient as being better than receiving the sweater by itself. Not so fast, researchers say.

“The gift recipient is likely to perceive the cashmere sweater alone as more generous than the combination of the same sweater and the gift card,” they say. This happens because recipients tend to follow “an averaging strategy.” Adding a small gift to a big one, in other words, tend to cheapen the whole bundle.

Interestingly enough, the same behavior applies to speeches and presentations. People who present a lot of proof points to back up their key messages often assume that adding every bit of evidence to the presentation will bolster their case. Research suggests otherwise.

“The addition of mildly favorable information dilutes the impact of highly favorable information in the eyes of evaluators,” says Stephen Garcia, an associate professor at the University of Michigan. “Hence, presenters of information would be better off if they limited their presentation to their most favorable information – just as gift givers would be better off to limit their present to their most favorite gift.”

The bottom line for speechwriters? Use your biggest ammunition and use it wisely and ignore the call to include vats of proof points.

Call it amplification through simplification.

5 Steps to a Successful Speech - Part 2

Here's the second part of an article that was originally featured in Communications Director magazine.

The third big tip is to give your speech a recognizable structure. This is incredibly important from the audience’s perspective. Here’s why.

Imagine someone you’ve never met asks you to take a trip with them. They won’t tell you where you’re going, how long you’ll be gone, what you’ll see along the way or even when you’ll be back. Would you go? 

You probably wouldn’t. And yet every day hundreds of speakers stand in front of audiences all around the world and do essentially the same thing. They begin talking without giving the audience any clues about where they are headed or when they’ll be finished.

Yet, listeners need those structural clues much like travelers need road signs. Knowing where they are, where they’re headed and what to expect along the way will increase their attention span and engagement. They will become active listeners instead of passive passengers in this speech journey.

There are lots of structures you can use. Here are a few favorites:

• Chronological – This is a simple structure often used to explain what has happened and why. Dates become signposts and listeners understand the progression.
• Geographic – You can use geography to break down the sections of your talk. Explaining what’s happening in the North, South, East and West, for example, gives the audience a comfortable sense of control and anticipation.
• Numbered Lists – This is one of the most useful and, frankly, my favorite. After identifying a common problem, the speaker can easily tell the audience something like: I’d like to discuss three ways we can address this problem. This allows the audience to follow along, understand the journey and anticipate an ending.

The secret to using any structure is in letting the audience know what the structure is. If you tell them you’ll make three important points, for example, you’ll see people pull out notebooks and write down the number “1.”  They’re now actively engaged and paying attention.

The fourth tip is for all of those corporate types out there who belong to the PowerPoint brigade. The tip is this: Work on the words first and PowerPoint slides second (if at all.)

Too many speakers today rely on PowerPoint slides for their presentations. As a result, they forfeit a good deal of leadership potential.

Here’s the most important thing to remember about PowerPoint. It is NOT your presentation. The speaker – along with the words they deliver – is the presentation. Least important is the slide deck.

PowerPoint can actually undermine a speaker’s potential to lead. After all, the point of any speech is to put your speaker/leader in front of an audience in an effort to persuade listeners to take some action. That requires a certain amount of logic, a certain amount of emotion and a certain amount of character – the three essential components of persuasive communications.

When speakers rely too heavily on slides, they lose two of those components: emotion and character. PowerPoint is the “coldest” and passionless speech tool available. It encourages passive learning and, importantly, takes the audience’s eyes away from the speaker where the essence of character lives.

PowerPoint also asks the audience to do too much. When we use PowerPoint, we expect an audience to HEAR the speaker’s words, WATCH the speaker at the podium, and READ the words on the slides. They simply can’t do all of that at one time.

My mantra is fewer slides not more. And while you’re at it, try to use fewer images and fewer words on each slide, too.

If your speaker insists on using PowerPoint, ease them off their addiction by first explaining that the audience wants to hear them, not read slides. Then encourage them to at least open their speech with five minutes of pure talking (to help establish character and credibility), followed by a few slides and ending with talking (again to reinforce those important leadership attributes.)

Remember that listening alone is hard work. And we do a disservice to the audience when we introduce material that makes it even more difficult.

That’s why the last of my five big tips to make your speech something the audience will actually listen to and hear is to add a little style into your writing.

No, this isn’t where you make your speaker sound like Kofi Annan or Winston Churchill. It’s where you edit the words toward three specific goals. You want to 1) make the words simple and clear; 2) make the language exciting and fresh; 3) make your speaker sound warm and personable (even if they aren’t).

Too many writers approach speeches thinking they have to sound dramatic and grand. As a result, their speakers appear to the audience as pretentious and pompous. The objective shouldn’t be toward elevated language; the objective should be audience understanding.

Small words are better than long ones. Familiar words are better than unfamiliar one. Sentences, too, should be simplified for the audience and the speaker.

This is especially true if you are writing for a non-native speaker. Audiences need time to process unfamiliar accents and speakers need to be comfortable delivering the words. Simplicity helps on both counts.

Simplicity doesn’t mean making the speech as lean as you can, however. In fact, most speechwriting is more expansive than other types of writing because you must give audiences time to catch up to what the speaker is saying.

If the goal is to create understanding, you often have to repeat your key messages, repeat and restate statistics and use examples and anecdotes to amplify your points.

At the same time, the language should be fun and exciting to hear. That means deliberately editing in a few of the most useful rhetorical devices. Inserting a rhetorical question, for instance, not only breaks up the speaker’s delivery patterns, it makes the audience think.

You’ll also want to make sure to vary the length of your sentences. Follow a longer sentence with a few short, staccato ones and make sure none of the sentences are too long for your speaker to deliver without gasping for air.

Finally, strive to make sure your speaker seems warm and personal. No one wants to hear someone – or be led by someone – who is all business all the time. So make an effort to make your speaker seem real and approachable.

The best way is to have them share personal anecdotes with the audience. If the anecdotes include some soft, self-deprecating humor, even better.

You can also use short, humorous quotations to great effect. These allow the speaker to be funny even if they naturally aren’t. These don’t have to be from Greek philosophers or business gurus, by the way. The speaker could quote one of their own children, a spouse, a funny headline from the newspaper or even an ad from television.

Lastly, make sure the speaker uses the word “you” a lot. Rewriting sentences to include the word “you” ensures the speakers talk directly to the audience. It’s a subtle device that audience members appreciate and will respond to.

This simple exercise is one of the last editing steps I take because I find it helps me – as a writer – remember who I’m really writing for. I’m writing for an audience and the speech has to be interesting for them above all else.

 

New Speechwriting Book Available

 

It’s officially official. My new book – 10 Steps to Writing a Vital Speech – is being published by the best brand in executive communications and speechwriting: Vital Speeches of the Day.

Here’s a link to the publication on Amazon.

So what are you waiting for? Buy one. Or two. They make great Christmas gifts for the favorite speechwriter in your life.

Official News Release:

PHOENIX (November 16, 2011) - It happens every day. A boss asks a communication staffer, "Can you write a speech?" The staffer wants to say yes—not just to the boss, but to the thrilling and potentially lucrative opportunity to craft messages directly for the leaders of the organization.
 
But the truth is the communication staffer is not sure where to begin.
 
Now the staffer can get up to speed—quickly and completely—by turning to 10 Steps to Writing a Vital Speech  the wise, realistic and readable new guide to speechwriting. It's written by speechwriting guru Fletcher Dean and published by the prestigious monthly magazine, Vital Speeches of the Day.

Written to cover every aspect of corporate, nonprofit and political speechwriting in the most practical terms, the 10 Steps speechwriting process is a foolproof recipe. Readers learn how to analyze audiences and tailor their words. Research the speech and tell compelling stories. Structure the talk and lend it some style. Support the speaker with visual aids and sound coaching on delivery.
 
Award-winning speechwriter Fletcher Dean teaches it all, in his no-nonsense style and with illuminating examples from the corporate, political, military and religious worlds.
 
“Lots of books contain advice on one or another aspect of the speechmaking process but I wrote this book because I wanted to have the whole thing in one place,” says author Fletcher Dean. “Plus, I wanted a book that reflected my own philosophy of speechwriting in a way that will give confidence to anyone struggling to write a speech.”
 
And Dean has done exactly that, says Vital Speeches editor David Murray, who wrote the Foreword to 10 Steps. For aspiring speechwriters or communication generalists pressed into speechwriting service, “This book is the best start you could possibly have,” Murray says.
 
Murray also sees distributing copies of 10 Steps as a shortcut for communication managers to achieve a common framework for far-flung speech contributors and even freelancers. Murray says his publisher is prepared to make generous bulk deals.
 
Though the book doesn’t officially go on sale until January 10, 2012, it can be purchased for $39.95 in advance of that date directly through the website of publisher Vital Speeches of the Day.

ABOUT FLETCHER DEAN
Fletcher Dean has more than 20 years’ experience as a communications professional. He is an award-winning writer of speeches and articles for a wide variety of business, educational and motivational speakers. He won the Cicero Speechwriting Awards Grand Prize for the best speech of the year in 2008 as well as three other Gold Cicero Awards. He’s a four-time presenter at the annual Speechwriting Conference in Washington, D.C.
 
ABOUT VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY
Vital Speeches of the Day gives you an unbiased look at the most important speeches from today's top speech givers. You’ll read the finest examples of rhetoric by those who have attained leadership in the fields of business, politics, education, government, and more.

5 Steps to a Successful Speech - Part 1

This post was originally featured in Communications Director magazine. Here's Part 1. Check back for Part 2.

It can strike fear into the heart of even the most seasoned communications professional. You’ve been asked to write a speech.

The first reaction is usually flattery that someone thinks so highly of your writing skills. Then there’s panic. Then mind-numbing, blank-page introspection. How do I start? Should I try for humor? Does my speaker need to sound like President Obama? Or should he just try to be himself? Is it too late to find another job? Why me?  

Never fear. What to others may seem like a mysterious, arcane endeavor can actually be a very straight-forward and successful task. So what’s the secret to writing a successful speech? It’s quite simple: a successful speech is one the audience will listen and react to.

Yes, there are entire shelves of books on speechwriting. (I have one myself that’s coming out this fall in a project with Vital Speeches of the Day.) And yes people go to conferences and get training to become better speechwriters. But all of the books and all of the training essentially land on this single point: will the audience listen and will it react the way you want it to?

So here are five must-do tips for ensuring the next speech you write is must-listen-to material.

Tip One

The first tip is to begin every speech by focusing on the audience itself. If this is the only tip you follow, the next speech you write will be better than most.

When I first began writing speeches, an older and wiser speechwriter took me aside and explained this very bluntly. Like a lot of younger writers, I wanted the speeches I wrote to sound grandiose and soaring. I wanted the language to be lyrical and every speech to get a standing ovation.

“Listen,” he said, “all audiences are the same. They just want to know how to be healthier, wealthier or happier. If you can give them even one of those, you’ll do just fine.”

In fact, every audience member is asking the same thing when your speaker stands at the podium: What is this speaker going to say that’s going to make my life better?

Answer that first before you begin to draft your own messages.

Too many writers turn the speaker/audience paradigm around and begin with what they want to say. The result is that speakers seem out of touch and boring because they haven’t identified a common problem.

So tip number one is to focus on the audience and solve their needs. If you write a speech that could make them healthier, wealthier or happier, they will be interested in what your speaker says and you’ve got the beginnings of a great speech.

Tip Two

The second big tip for a successful speech is to rely more on emotions and less on logic.

I was listening to a radio program a few weeks ago about an effort by photographers in the United States to show the new face of poverty in the country. The interviewer asked why it was important to get these photographs in front of everyday people rather than simply giving them the data about poverty.

The photographer being interviewed said something every speechwriter should hear. “The fact of the matter is,” he said, “anecdote trumps facts every time.”

All of us are creatures of emotions. It’s why television commercials asking for asking for aid money to feed the hungry or help those injured in natural disasters use images of destruction and despair.

Unfortunately, too many speakers believe if they just explain the situation in a cool and reasoned way, the audience will get it. But if you really want to connect with an audience, use emotional devices. And the best way to do that is by telling stories.

More than any other device, stories can deliver the emotional appeal that audiences respond to. Stories can actually bring material to life and are often more believable than facts alone. Why? Because they do two things very well.

Stories let audience members place themselves inside the story, relate it to events in their own lives, and compare it with something personal to them. They also allow the listeners reach their own conclusions about the facts by putting abstract, logical data into context.

I encourage speakers to include stories about who they are or how they learned what they know to be true. Teaching stories – where they learned a greater truth – are especially powerful and emotional.

 -- To be continued --

Lessons from Photography

Years ago – before I moved into the print world as a journalist and then speechwriter – I was a photographer. I shot for a local paper and thought perhaps that’s where my future was. Then I discovered I was a better writer than I was a photographer and the rest, as they say, is history. 

The industry now refers to me as a serious amateur. Which means I shoot a lot. (This fall, I’m shooting a lot of football and clicking away upwards of 1,700 shots a week, for instance.) It also means I try to pay attention to what’s happening in the photo world. 

Rarely do the two worlds of photography and speechwriting mix. That’s why I was so pleased when I recently heard a photographer – on the radio – talk about a subject that resonated deeply with me as a speechwriter.

The story was on NPR’s All Things Considered. Michele Norris was interviewing Steve Liss, a project director for Americanpoverty.org, which is a collection of photographers who are trying to capture the face of poverty in America today. (Link to the interview transcript.) 

Norris asked what role photography played in getting this story in front of people.

The photographer being interviewed said something every speechwriter should hear. “The fact of the matter is,” Liss said, “anecdote trumps facts every time.”

There’s a big, big lesson for us here. Aristotle points out that persuasive communications requires three things: logic, character and emotion. We’re all familiar with logic. It’s the basic bread and butter of most speeches – those facts and stats that get plugged in as proof points.

Character is what our speakers take to the podium with them. We can enhance it by making sure the introduction is right, he/she is quoting the right people, the facts and stats and sources we use are credible.

But emotion is the real kicker here. It’s what the AmericanPoverty.org campaign uses.

Despite what we might want to believe, we’re all creatures of emotions. It’s why television commercials asking for asking for aid money for natural disasters use images of destruction and despair. They hit in places that logic can’t touch.

Too many speakers believe if they just explain the situation in a cool and reasoned way, the audience will “get it.” But if you really want to connect with an audience, use emotional devices. And the best way to do that is by telling stories and using anecdotes.

More than any other devices, stories and anecdotes deliver the emotional appeal that audiences respond to. Stories bring material to life and have an aura of truth about them.

They let audience members place themselves inside the story, relate it to events in their own lives, and compare it with something personal to them. And they let listeners reach their own conclusions about the facts by putting abstract, logical data into context.

This is one reason why PowerPoint presentations – by themselves – are generally so crappy. Most of the time they lack emotion. We fill slide after slide with data but forget that it’s stories people long to hear and stories that people respond to.

It’s why Michele Bachman used the story of the woman who supposedly claimed her daughter was mentally impaired because of the HPV vaccine. It was an incredibly powerful story – more powerful than facts alone – and could have won the day for her, especially if the media had been able to verify it.

So the next time you need to persuade an audience, think about photography and work to get a mental image into the audience’s mind. Logic is great. Character is a pre-requisite. But you really need emotion to make an impact.

Since I used one great Greek earlier, let me end with another. Archimedes once said, “Give me a place to stand - and a fulcrum - and I can move the world.”

Emotion is the fulcrum.  

 

Commencement Speeches 2011: The best ... and the rest

The familiar refrains of “Pomp and Circumstance” have faded. Mortar boards and gowns have been carefully folded and put away. The Class of 2011 has (mostly) left the auditorium, in search of jobs and new apartments. All of which means it’s time again to commit ourselves to a reckoning of the best, the worst and the merely mediocre commencement speeches of 2011. 

This year’s crop of speeches – from luminaries, CEOs, actors, and secretaries of this department or that – was largely “B” work. Most was filled with the typical fluff and pith: follow your dream, be passionate, don’t be a cynic, we need your talents more than ever, etc. But most of the ones I read tended to be shorter than usual so there wasn’t much room for the speakers to get into real trouble by going too far afield or losing their audiences in a reckless ramble of thought.

That’s actually an improvement over past years when it was easy to find several true stinkers without really trying. In fact, I had to read many dozen to find a couple that were so off-the-mark as to qualify as examples of “please-don’t-do-this” primers.

So here’s a sampling of this year’s commencement speeches and what we speechwriters can learn from them for next year. These aren’t the best of the best or even the worst of the worst. They’re only the ones I tripped across and thought we could learn something from. If you found a great example we can learn from, post it below in the comments section.

First, some of the best in no particular order:

• Robert Cargill, Fresno City College. This nice speech does several things right. First, all speakers like to tell a bit of their life stories but few have the skill to pull it off like Cargill. He doesn’t bore the audience with his life history, but collects his life’s ups and downs into a short, snappy segments punctuated repeatedly with “I am you, 18 years from now.” It’s an effective way to remind the audience that life is unpredictable but survivable. This speech is also short with a solid structure that respects the fact that the audience has better things to do than listen to a commencement speaker. The big lessons? Keep the language engaging, the length short and the structure simple.
• Denzel Washington, University of Pennsylvania. My confession: I picked this speech because I was sure that the actor – like so many other celebrities – would flub this one by focusing only on himself. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Washington begins this with some great “insider jokes” that all the grads would get. Specific comments about the food on campus, the squirrel population and a guy named “kweeder” all show he did his homework. Audiences appreciate that.  (OK, it probably helped that his son is a Penn student but what the audience hears is ‘I care.’) Two things make this speech (video version) a real success, though. One, his language is natural and uncontrived. It’s comfortable to hear. Secondly, he uses a very brief personal anecdote to segue into his main point: “don’t fall back, fall forward.” Big Lesson? Find a short, memorable theme and stick with it. Be yourself. It works.
• Robert Krulwich, University of Berkeley School of Journalism. Another surprise. I picked this largely because it was eight pages long, single-spaced! I knew it would be a first-rate example of speaking too long, disrespecting your audience, etc. Alas, it turned out to be a first-rate speech, my personal favorite, and probably the most appropriate one I found for the audience. Krulwich is a radio and TV journalist and he hit the J-school grads where it hurts: “How these days does anybody get a good job in journalism?” he asked. Given the rapidly changing world of journalism, you know it has to be on their minds. He provides an optimistic answer and along the way tells a host of good stories. For any other audience, this would be a misguided approach. The safe course is to get into the speech and get out. Be the apocryphal body at an Irish wake and all of that. But journalism students – like most speechwriters – love a good story. And Krulwich manages to tell several relevant stories without losing his audience. Big Lesson? Know your audience and write appropriately.
• Sheryl Sandberg, Barnard College. The COO of Facebook delivers a solid commencement speech here. It’s virtually a how-to all by itself. She uses short anecdotes from her life to make larger points. Her language has nice rhythms – short sentences, long sentences. She doesn’t make it a “Sheryl Sandberg” speech or a “Facebook” speech or a product ad (unlike Steve Ballmer of Microsoft who clumsily dropped in references to Microsoft products in his talk at the University of Southern California). Most of all, she has crafted a speech exquisitely appropriate for the audience of female grads: how to succeed in what is largely still a man’s world. Big lesson? Having something interesting to say – a real point of view – will take you a long way.

Now for the rest. The not-so-good, off-the-mark speeches that make you want to pick up the phone and offer your speechwriting services. Or at least some counsel.

• Sylvia Earle, Smith College. OK, it does make sense for speakers to pull from their lives and tell stories from their own realms. Business leaders talk about succeeding in business. Doctors talk about treating the ill. But the best commencement speeches use these anecdotes as short parables. They’re tools to find the universal theme the graduates can learn from. Unfortunately, Earle – an oceanographer – offers three full pages (about three-quarters of her talk) on how terrible the oceans are. What a bummer. On a day that should be celebratory! Big lesson? No one wants to hear the negatives on a day of triumph. Keep it positive and focus on the graduates.
• Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, Notre Dame. This was a great example of a fine speech … but a terrible commencement speech. Technically, this is as sound a speech (video version) as you would expect from Gates, someone whose speeches I’ve always admired. It moves quickly. The language is competent if not inspiring. The biggest problem is that it really doesn’t relate to the occasion. The speech is all about defense policy. Boring … for this audience at this time. A better approach might have been to share a few “observations” from his vaulted position – very appropriate considering he’s announced his retirement – and what that means for the grads entering the big, bad world. Tell them what he has learned that they can use. Big lesson? Give the audience a reason for listening.
• Jo Ivey Boufford, Pace University. Another example of taking yourself and your job way too seriously. Boufford is president of the New York Academy of Medicine. You get the feeling she didn’t have time to write a commencement speech and grabbed the first old policy speech she could get her hands on. There’s nothing here for the audience to listen to. Yes, I get it: healthcare is important. And she’s president of a medical association. But is it really appropriate to tell a bunch of grads that “Just last week, the first-ever grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to improve indoor air quality and eliminate household environmental conditions that exacerbate asthma symptoms was awarded to a faith based community organization Little Sisters of the Assumption with deep roots in East Harlem, a low-income, minority neighborhood where asthma is a leading cause of school and work absences, emergency room visits and hospitalizations”? Makes you pine away for a good, old-fashioned Mahatma Gandhi quote, doesn’t it? Plus, that was a 60-word sentence! I’m kind of surprised she didn’t faint just trying to deliver that one line and have to be revived on the spot. Unlike the rest of the speech, at least that would have been memorable. Big lesson? Lighten up a little, OK? Graduations are supposed to be fun.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach for commencement speeches. I do know – and this year’s speeches reinforce this – that if you want to fail: talk about yourself, talk about your company, talk about things the grads can’t relate to.

Success is more fleeting. Humor works (Denzel Washington). Brevity is an advantage (Robert Cargill). Having a real point of view helps (Sheryl Sandberg). Using language and stories that engages the audience and is fun to listen to is a real bonus (Robert Krulwich).

But perhaps the biggest lesson from this year’s offerings is the simplest. Once again, I’m reminded of my favorite mantra I try to deliver at every conference and every workshop: It’s not about the speaker. It’s not about their life’s work. It’s all about the audience. To paraphrase former Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca, if you begin with a deep respect for the audience, everything will fall into place.

Lessons from the Speechwriters Conference

I’m still unpacking – physically and mentally – from Ragan’s 2011 Speechwriters and Executive Communicators Conference in Washington, DC last week. But on the plane ride home and in the subsequent few days, I have come to a few conclusions – lessons, perhaps – about the conference and attendees.

1)     Speechwriters are good people – Everyone I met was willing to talk, share ideas and solutions for whatever problems the attendees wished to bare. They gave freely of their time and their knowledge and have made this my favorite conference over the years.

2)     Speechwriters are interesting company – Whether it was in a side-conference at the event itself or in a restaurant in another part of town, the speechwriters I met were fun to talk with and inherently interesting people. Perhaps it’s because the best speechwriters are already intellectually curious and well-read individuals, but the range and depth of conversations was inspiring.

3)     Speechwriters are in demand – This was the first Speechwriters conference I’ve attended where recruiters showed up with positions to fill. There were two that I met and a few others who weren’t there but asked that their positions be shared.

4)     We can do more – Perhaps it’s because the turnover rate for speechwriters seems so high – at least 2/3 of the attendees were new to the conference this year – but it was obvious to me that to add real value, we can do more than be “just” speechwriters. Many attendees – myself included – are interested in how to write better speeches. But too often we look at the individual speeches (the trees) and fail to see how they fit in with the rest of the organization’s executive communications strategy (the forest). Pete Weissman, Boe Workman and others shared great advice on this during the Executive Communicators track.

5)     Best tips – There were several but a couple hit home for me:

a.     Rob Friedman, from Eli Lilly, urged us to not only take the hill, but make sure we take the right hill when it comes to speechwriting. Lots of people can write nice speeches but are we giving it to the right audience for the right reasons?

b.     David Murray, the esteemed editor of Vital Speeches, gave his always entertaining Speechwriting Jam Session during which he reminded us that we need to talk beyond our base. We should, in other words, quit preaching to the choir that already believes in our message and start preaching to the non-believers, too.

c.     Michael Field, from Johns Hopkins, showed us in his “So You Want to Give a TED Talk” presentation that the best speakers and the best speeches are about ideas and not products. If you haven’t seen the TED commandments about giving speeches, look it up.

d.     The best tip I didn’t hear in a session? As one attendee mentioned, some of the best conversations didn’t happen in the organized sessions but in the hallways and after-conference get-togethers. And it was in one of these that I was reminded how important it was to have collaborators, people with whom you can safely trust your ideas (and early drafts) and who you know will provide you with solid advice in return. Set up a quid-pro-quo arrangement with someone – even if they are outside your own organization – and watch your speechwriting improve.

If you have never attended the conference - and speechwriting is even part of your responsibilities - hold a place on your calendar for next year's event. You won't be disappointed. You might even be inspired.

When Churchill Comes Alive

It’s always nice when some of our favorite quotes seem to come to life in the real world.

Here’s a brief story from the holidays that may help reaffirm something you speechwriters – and parents – have long believed but were hard pressed to prove.

We all know that repetition is one of the speechwriter’s most hallowed tactical devices. Unlike those scribes who dwell solely in the world of print (where readers can return to a line again and again to gain understanding through rereading), speechwriters understand that it’s nearly impossible for a live audience to “rehear” a speech.

It’s true that, if they hear a confusing line, they can hit the proverbial replay button in their head. But while they’re doing that, the speaker – and the message – has moved on.

So we often employ the same tactics speechwriters have used throughout history to ensure a message is heard and understood: repeat ad nauseum.  It was Winston Churchill, after all, who reminded us: “If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit again. Then hit a third time – a tremendous whack.” 

So I whack away in many of the speeches I write, finding new ways to deliver what is essentially a single message. Say it. Say it again. Say it a third time. Repeat as necessary.

But I was reminded over the holidays that Churchill’s advice has a broader meaning than a solitary speech.

Just before the holidays, my oldest son – a high school junior – asked when I was going to give him and his siblings “the speech.” Now, there are several speeches in my dad repertoire so I was understandably perplexed.

“The speech?” I asked.

“Yeah,” he said. “You know, the one about not acting crazy and doing something stupid on the last school day before the holidays.”

“Ah-hah!” I thought to myself. “That would be Dad Speech No. 47. The speech where I essentially say: Behave yourself ... don’t act up just because the other kids are ... give your teachers a break. Or else.”

And then it hit me. I have given that speech countless times. I gave it before every long school holiday and every summer break, times when I knew from experience that the temptations to be reckless were at their highest. What I never knew until that moment was that they were actually listening. But apparently, sometime (maybe it was the fifth time I delivered it or maybe the tenth), they heard the message. It was a Churchillian proof point in real time.

It was one of those times that reminded me – as a parent and a speechwriter – that you can’t say the important stuff too many times. The lesson applies equally well to corporate communication (think of the CEO’s safety message) as it does to parent-child communication. Repetition is the key.

Don’t be cute or clever. Don’t be subtle Use a pile driver. Say it. Say it again. And then say it a third time. Because it’s just when you’re getting tired of saying it that they actually start to hear.

McChrystal Speech a Model of Eloquence

I’m always on the lookout for speeches we can learn from. To tell the truth, most of the speeches I highlight harbor attributes that make them candidates for a “you-can-do-better-than-this” exposition: poor structure, too much hubris, confusing messages or lack of attention to the audience’s needs.

Then, once in awhile, something comes along and restores my faith in the awesome power of a well-written speech. This is such a case. The speech comes courtesy of the fine folks at Vital Speeches of the Day who included it in their Speech of the Week email. (It’s free. Sign up now.) 

The source is an unlikely one, at least for me. General Stanley McChrystal – often characterized in the media as being blunt and direct – delivers a retirement speech that is not only a model of eloquence but a great example of how to effectively deal with a difficult subject. It’s an admirable speech in terms of the circumstances in which it was delivered, but for students of speechwriting, it’s also a model of structure and pacing.

You can find the speech here, topped by speeches at the same occasion by General George Casey and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

First, the setting. McChrystal is the former Commander of the International Security Assistance Force and Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan. He resigned those duties after being recalled to Washington by President Obama for making unflattering remarks about Vice President Biden and others in a recent Rolling Stones article.

Days later, he announced his retirement from the United States Army after 34 years of service.

In his retirement speech, McChrystal demonstrates what many PR veterans often advise their clients to do but rarely see in action: he deals with the elephant in the room quickly. Through humor and humility, he successfully defuses the tension the entire audience must have been feeling and captures an amazing sense of admiration.

He begins with a joke about wanting to exaggerate his accomplishments then follows it up with another that signals he’s not there to dodge the question of his retirement.

“ ... to those here tonight who feel the need to contradict my memories with the truth, remember I was there too. I have stories on all of you, photos on many, and I know a Rolling Stone reporter.”

He follows it up immediately with a blunt admission and segues gracefully into the theme of his comments as he mentions his wife and their future together. As he does, notice how he signals the audience with such words as “still” and the stoic “that’s what I feel,” both important auditory clues for the audience. Plus you have to love the joke at the end of this section that keep things light:

“Look, this has the potential to be an awkward or even a sad occasion. With my resignation, I left a mission I feel strongly about. I ended a career I loved that began over 38 years ago. And I left unfulfilled commitments I made to many comrades in the fight, commitments I hold sacred. My service did not end as I would have wished ...

“Still, Annie and I aren't approaching the future with sadness but with hope ...

“And my feelings for more than 34 years I spent as an Army officer are a combination of surprise that any experience could have been as rich and fulfilling as mine was and gratitude for the comrades and friends we were blessed with.

“That's what I feel. And if I fail to communicate that effectively tonight, I'll simply remind you that Secretary Gates once told me I was a modern Patton of strategic communications.”

The remainder of the speech is a model in structure. First, he divides the people he wants to thank into four groups – audiences love number structures because they’re so easy to follow – and then calls out a laundry list of individuals to thank individually. He ends that section – as the audience might expect – with his wife with some extremely poignant – and humorous – words.

He ends the speech with some words to the wise for the comrades in arms he’s leaving behind. Known widely as a leader who was a “soldier’s soldier” and who earned immense respect for his direct leadership and willingness to say what needed to be said, his words most likely carried additional meaning for the largely military audience.

“As I leave the Army, to those with responsibility to carry on, I'd say, service in this business is tough and often dangerous. It extracts a price for participation, and that price can be high.

“It is tempting to protect yourself from the personal or professional costs of loss by limiting how much you commit, how much of belief and trust in people, and how deeply you care. Caution and cynicism are safe, but soldiers don't want to follow cautious cynics. They follow leaders who believe enough to risk failure or disappointment for a worthy cause.

“If I had it to do over again, I'd do some things in my career differently but not many. I believed in people, and I still believe in them. I trusted and I still trust. I cared and I still care. I wouldn't have had it any other way.”

We can learn a lot from this speech.

• The power of dealing with a difficult subject up front, on your own terms. This was not only smart PR, I consider it an amazing gift to the audience which was most likely anxious about what he might say. Through directness and humor, he lets them off the hook early and gives them the opportunity to enjoy the remainder of his remarks.

• The power of structure. His use of numbers, his preciseness of thanking individuals near the end and his use of signaling phrases such as “as I leave the Army” help the audience follow along and anticipate the speech progress.

• The power of pacing. Review this from top to bottom and you can see that McChrystal deftly keeps the speech moving forward. His regular and consistent use of personal anecdotes, humor and quotes is extremely effective. Likewise, he varies his sentence patterns with great effect. The combination promotes active listening by giving the audience something fun to hear.

In all, this is a speech that was just right: right for the circumstances, right for the speaker and right for the audience. You simply can’t do better than that.

New Study Says Foreign Accents Hurt Speaker Credibility: What Can You Do?

Now here’s something interesting for anyone who gives a speech in a foreign language or writes for someone who does. A new study from the University of Chicago finds that foreign accents make speakers seem less truthful.

I’ll leave it to others to debate why this is so. I’d prefer to look at the clear implications of the research for speakers and, importantly, what we can do to overcome this problem.

Aristotle told us that a persuasive speech consists of three elements. Ethos (credibility), Pathos (emotional appeal), and Logos (the logical appeal). Lacking any one of these can doom a speech, but arguably Ethos is the most important.

Without credibility, the audience may be skeptical from the beginning and, literally, tune out both the emotional and logical appeal of your words. In other words, they simply may not hear what you’re saying.

The very success of a speech hinges on the speaker’s credibility. Nothing else matters so much.

So what can we do to improve our speaker’s credibility? Here are seven simple tips you can use to help non-native speakers be more credible.

1. Establish credibility before you talk. There are two distinct – and extremely underused – ways you can do this. First, if you’re speaking at a planned conference or event, make sure that any promotional material that’s sent to the audience ahead of time establishes your speaker as an expert on the topic. It should demonstrate the speaker has the right pedigree to tackle the subject AND an understanding of the audience’s needs. Secondly, the speaker’s introduction – while short, should reinforce the same messages: this is the right person at the right time to talk on this subject
2. Demonstrate you care. All speakers should explicitly show, in the first few minutes of speaking, that they understand the audience’s concerns and are going to address them. Reinforce the fact that you share their values.
3. Demonstrate mastery of the subject. Very close to the front, you must demonstrate through words that the speaker understands the subject matter. This doesn’t have to be a litany of dry, recited facts. Just a simple “here’s what I’m observing” paragraph can go a long way toward establishing the fact that the speaker is paying attention. Got an “ah-ha” statement to make? Use it at the beginning.
4. Borrow credibility. It’s an old trick but it’s effective. You can actually borrow credibility by quoting someone – or something – the audience has a natural affinity toward. Perhaps it’s an business titan or well-known celebrity. Perhaps it’s the Bible. Perhaps it’s one of your industry’s trade magazines. As long as the audience respects the original source, you can use that respect and admiration to enhance your own credibility.
5. Mind the non-verbal. We spend so much time with words that we sometimes forget that the non-verbal is – dare I say – often more important. Make sure your speaker makes good eye contact and is in a body-open type posture. That means no crossed arms, hands are away from the body, hands aren’t locked in a podium death-grip and their head is up. Format the script to ensure their head doesn’t fall into their chest when trying to read the last few lines on the page and build in some natural pauses so the speaker can look up easier.
6. Write short sentences. Help non-native speakers by crafting sentences and phrases that are easy to pronounce. When you meet to discuss the speech with your non-native speaker, notice their speech patterns. Most people learn foreign languages in simple, direct sentences. Long sentences with parenthetical material and lots of phrases aren’t natural to them. Amend your writing accordingly and help them feel comfortable at the podium.
7. Encourage confidence with the material. Nothing tells an audience “I don’t care” like a speaker who’s unfamiliar with the speech. Mumbling through the script or telling stories that are too long or off-point erodes credibility very quickly. So make sure your foreign speakers practice.

Most of this boils down one simple tenet of good speechwriting: respect your audience. Remember the old Lee Iacocca comment about what makes a great speech. In the book "I gotta tell you" edited by Matthew Seeger, Iacocca says: I've been asked many times what makes a good speech. Good writing, practice, something worthwhile to say - all of them are important. But I think if a speaker begins with that deep sense of obligation to the audience everything else falls into place." 

On PowerPoint and Kindred Souls

Sometimes a quote comes along that so reflects your thinking that you have to stop everything you’re doing and just enjoy the moment, knowing that somewhere out there is a kindred soul. I read such a quote today. My kindred soul? He apparently wears olive green and is known as the “Warrior Monk.” Cool.

Gen. James N. Mattis of the Marine Corps, is the commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command located in Norfolk, Va. He was quoted in a recent New York Times article as stating the following gem: “PowerPoint makes us stupid.” 

I don’t know whether to salute, applaud or just cheer.

Think about this: Across the globe, people are subjected to thousands upon thousands of Powerpoint presentations daily. Leaders of all experiences stand in front of a group (actually, they usually stand to one side, out of sight) and rattle through slide after slide after slide of numbing ... what? Stuff? Information?

Yet here’s a man who’s accustomed to leading knows the difference between delivering information and actually leading. He’s not only charged with running an organization but with inspiring troops and, ultimately securing objectives. And he’s no fan of PowerPoint, the ubiquitous tool of every business professional and wanna-be.

Turns out there are a lot in the military who aren’t fans of PowerPoint.

“It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control,” said Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster said in a telephone interview afterward. “Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.”

The article goes on to say that many commanders believe PowerPoint “stifles discussion, critical thinking and thoughtful decision-making.”

PowerPoint does have a place in the world of speechcraft. It’s great at delivering information and helps in creating understanding, the two most basic of communication goals. But it’s lousy at everything else like reinforcing values, changing attitudes or eliciting action. In other words, it’s lousy at doing things leaders are called on to do most, the areas where they can add the most value.

Edward R. Murrow, the legendary radio correspondent, once said that the fastest computer can only compound – at speed – the oldest of dilemmas between people. “In the end,” he said, “the communicator will be confronted with the old problem of what to say and how to say it.”

And PowerPoint just can’t help there.

Enter the Cicero Awards - Impress your Boss

Well, it's that time again. End of the year. Those of you in real companies and organizations are thinking of your performance reviews and wishing you had a taken the time to enter your great material in some awards competitions. After all, we are the silent profession. If not for awards ceremonies, how does anyone really know what we do - or how good we do it? Wouldn't a nice award look awfully good to the boss? 

So what's keeping you from entering the grand-daddy of speechwriting awards competitions: The Cicero Speechwriting Awards sponsored by that most  august of speech publications, Vital Speeches.

As Cicero Awards chairman and known flimflam man David Murray puts it, these awards "recognize the work—the sweat and the blood and the magic—that goes into making the speeches that help leaders achieve prominence in all sectors of business, politics and society."

In addition to a nice certificate, Cicero-winning speeches are included in a broadly publicized book of winners and lauded in a special presentation at the Building and Protecting Reputation 2010 conference in Phoenix in February … a Cicero Speechwriting Award will showcase your work as a superior example of contemporary oratory, and it will recognize you, the writer, as a standout in your field. Again, that according to the prolific blogger and noted motorcycle enthusiast Murray.

So send in any speech - send in every speech - that you’re proud of having written, delivered or both. Here's everything you need:

• Entry Form
• Entry Guidelines
• Categories

So, instead of waiting and wishing, enter now. Get recognized. Put it on your resume. Impress your boss, your mom or your spouse.

 

An Interview with the New Editor of Vital Speeches

Vital Speeches of the Day has a new editor. David Murray, the former editor of Speechwriter's Newsletter and chair of Ragan Communications' annual Speechwriters Conference, has just been handed the reins at the most respected speech journal in the country. He was kind enough to give me an interview about the new position and his goals.

Murray's Background

Murray brings nearly two decades of experience to the position. He's covers speechwriting and executive communications out of Chicago where he lives with his wife and daughter. He also edits the weekly e-newsletter Executive Communication Report and writes and speaks widely on business communication.

If that isn't enough, he also covers politics, society sport and adventure for publications ranging from ESPN the Magazine to the Chicago Tribune and websites ranging from the Huffington Post to Vibe.com. For a look at his personal blog, check out Writing Boots.

As the new editor at Vital Speeches, Murray says in the interview below the personal writing may take a backseat as he gorges on his new job. But he does have time, energy and desire to read your speeches so be sure to send them to him.

The Interview

I realize you just  got the job, but do you see any changes ahead for Vital Speeches of the Day (VSOTD)?

You’re right, I’m just getting settled. I’m afraid to move anything, for fear that one of these great stacks of speeches might fall on me! More important than editorial changes is establishing Vital Speeches online.

I’m pouring all my extra time and energy into our new website, vsotd.com, and into social media surroundings like the herding speechwriters into our new Vital Speeches group on LinkedIn, shoveling historical and contemporary speeches onto our new You Tube channel and—yes—Tweeting.

I want to make Vital Speeches relevant to more than just the Baby-boomer-and-older policy makers, executives, academics and speechwriters who read it now, and the thousands of librarians who subscribe. I want to place Vital Speeches back where it belongs—as something that gets read by everyone who’s interested in what Americans are saying, and how they’re saying it.

As far as my editorial vision, I’m not changing the 75-year-old mission of the publication. I’m just determined to search high and low, as broadmindedly as possible, for powerful oral expressions on every subject, from every point of view imaginable. I want Vital Speeches to be more than the publication of rhetorical record. I want it to be a thrill to read every month.

There’s also now an international version of Vital Speeches. Are you involved in that?

Yep, I edit Vital Speeches International, too. Traditionally, Vital Speeches has focused on American speeches; Vital Speeches International gives us a chance to showcase great talks being given outside the States.

One of the best things about Vital Speeches is that it has always showcased not only important speeches from well-known people (like Presidents and legislators) but also brought readers some fantastic speeches from relative unknowns. Is that still a goal?

Not a goal, Fletch, a mission. Check the October issue—my first—for examples of my willingness to entertain speeches on odd subjects.

What makes a vital speech today and what can speechwriters do to potentially see their work in VSOTD?

As simply as I can put it: A Vital Speech is an authentic attempt by one person to make an audience understand something that’s important to all involved. Whether that’s about healthcare, stained-glass, free trade, dog-fighting or antique Cadillacs—I don’t care. Sincere attempts to communicate ideas to audiences. That’s what I’m after, and that’s what people will subscribe to Vital Speeches to read.  

What’s the biggest no-no for speechwriters hoping to get into VSOTD?

The most tried-and-true test of a speech is: Could any other speaker but mine have given this speech to any other audience but this, at any other time in history? If the answers to most of those criteria are “no,” you’re pretty much a shoe-in. If the answer to two or more is yes, the speech is probably headed for our shitcan. 

I saw something recently I thought I’d never see in VSOTD – slides. Is that recognition that speech giving is changing and technology like PowerPoint is more accepted now?  

Don’t look for many more slides. I do, however, believe our YouTube channel will be an increasingly important part of the Vital Speeches offering. The ability to read a speech—or read along with the delivery—this’ll be instructive to speechwriters, and more interesting for readers. So expect to see some YouTube URLs at the bottom of speeches we have video for.

Is a VSOTD print publication still relevant in an Internet-era and, if so, why?

Take it from the guy who searches the World Wide Web for speeches—there’s still no other central, reliable source of good speeches out there. So as relevant as speeches still are—and I think they’re as relevant as ever—Vital Speeches is still important.   Speeches are long and hard to read online. I don’t see The New Yorker going online-only, and I don’t see Vital Speeches going that way either.   The magazine is also important a big, fat, friendly physical embodiment of a broader community of influential people and the people who help them communicate. That community will probably thrive mostly online, and I hope very much that it grows to the point that we can even have Vital Speeches gatherings someday.  

VSOTD used to be bi-weekly and now it’s a monthly. Is that a reflection of the quality of speeches or simply a reaction to production and printing costs?    

That decision was made before my time, but my understanding is that the move didn’t affect the number of speeches we carry every month—just cut the frequency of publication, which did help with costs. I think it was a good move. One of the reasons I don’t subscribe to The New Yorker is that the darn thing stacks up on me. If you launched that magazine today, you’d never in a million years do it weekly. I think VS is a natural monthly.  

What else are you doing at McMurry to connect with speechwriters and speech givers?

I mentioned Vital Speeches is on Twitter and YouTube and LinkedIn sites. I also blog and podcast at VSOTD.com and we offer news, ideas and opinions on rhetoric there. We want Vital Speeches to be the hub the rhetoric community has never had.

I know you’re passionate about speeches but you also have a personal writing project you’re working on based on your recent motorcycle trip to the Canadian maritime islands. Tell us about that.

Yes, on my personal blog, writingboots.typepad.com I wrote a serial account of that trip, to explain to my five-year-old daughter, when she grows up, why her 40-year-old dad risked his life (and to some extent her childhood) by taking off on a 4,600 mile motorcycle journey. But that seems long ago to me now. I’m up to my ears in speeches, vital and otherwise—and happy to be here.

European Commission Speech: A Showcase in Structure, Language

I was talking with a friend about the state of international speeches the other day and he said that, in his opinion, most international speeches are missing some of the same attributes of those given in the U.S.: quotes, anecdotes, statistics. Those little things that often give a speech life. The speeches for the most part, he said, were workmanlike and without embellishments.

So I went looking for some examples. Almost immediately I ran across one that fit that mold. What surprised me, though, was that it was also a great example of structure and language, a model of how to write a perfectly good problem-solution speech even if you don't use some of the stylistic add-ons so common in the U.S.

The speech is from José Manuel Durão Barroso, president of the European Commission and was given in Prague on March 2. The European Commission is "the executive brance of the European Union.  The body is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union," according to Wikipedia.org. The speech was given to celebrate and highlight the successes in the five years since the EC membership was englarged.

Barroso begins with what seems a typical "thank you." But five paragraphs later, he's still at it, thanking those in the audience. My initial thought was that he stayed at that part just a bit too long. And then at the last minute, he explains his reasoning.

"I feel it is important today to highlight these facts up-front and clearly," he says. "Particularly as the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis work their way through our societies to devastating effect.

"If we are to continue to realise the full potential of the European Union during these difficult times, a basic condition must be respected: that coherence and solidarity are not pushed to one side. On the contrary, they should be reinforced."

And a thesis is born: the importance of member states to avoid nationalistic measures that will undermine all the good work the EC has accomplished.

This is a nice bit of style. Pump the audience up, congratulate them on their work and then explain why they need to keep it up. But he's not finished. In fact, he's just getting started showing the structural components of a good problem-solution speech.

First, Barroso defines the problem. Then he presents the alternative solutions to the problems. These are straw man descriptions that he can quickly - but effectively - knock down. Then he provides his solution and reinforces it with a nice emotional reminder that the enlargement of the EC coincided with the 20-year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall.

So in a sense, this is a workmanlike speech so far. What sets this speech apart is his language, a refreshing mix of evocative wording and sentence variation that helps the audience stay engaged.

After mentioning the amount of money being spent to shore up lagging economies, for example, he says: "These are large sums of money, showing the EU is serious about solidarity. And the Commission will always be on the side of those who want to make solidarity a reality for our citizens."

No one can argue with that.

And later he gives us this nice line: "As businesses fail, and job losses mount, the siren voices of economic nationalism are making themselves heard again, as if we have learned nothing from the 1930s." Followed by a quick one-two punch: "But there is one small problem for those hoping economic nationalism will protect them: it won't."

In all, this speech is a success. Great language. Great sentence variation. Great, classic structure. It may not have quotes and anecdotes and jokes, but at this rate, who cares. It gets the job done.

Biden's Speech: Built on "You"

There’s a curious distinction in the most recent speech I posted about below (from McCain) and Sen. Joe Biden’s speech when he was announced as Barack Obama’s running mate: their respective use of the words “you” and “I.” It’s difficult to make any broad generalizations about the candidates from just two talks, but tracking the way the two candidates use these words differently will be illuminating as the election heats up.

And looking at them here – with these two speeches – gives us an interesting (albeit brief) glimpse about personalities and the way these two men approach their audiences.

I was taught – several years ago – a fundamental lesson about speechwriting that I still try to use today: Talk more about the audience and less about yourself. One of the ways you do that is by making sure you literally use the word “you” in your talk a lot more than you use the word "I." Whenever I teach speechwriting, I ask students to go back and see how many “yous” they put into their speech. If there’s not one every paragraph or so, they should rewrite.

Why? Three reasons. One, the exercise ensures the speaker/writer is focused on the audience. Forcing yourself to write the word “you” also forces you to think about what your audience wants and needs to hear, what their interests are, what the touchpoints are.

Second, it’s so much warmer than always talking about yourself with the word “I.” You know this instinctively. Some people are always lacing their language with “I did this” and “I did that.” Most politicians, I would guess, do this quite a bit. They do, after all, have to explain themselves and their votes on a regular basis.

The third reason for introducing a lot of “you's” into your speech is to keep the audience’s attention. Here’s an example of that. Remember in school that one teacher who just loved to call on students, by name, and ask them questions about what they were supposed to have read the night before? We all had one. They were hated people because they forced you to pay attention. (Can you believe teachers would stoop that low as to expect us to pay attention?) Which student would, after all, want to daydream and be caught off guard – and embarrassed – when the teacher called their name?

Audiences are similar. If you talk to them – and lace your language with the word “you” – they are apt to pay more attention. Which of these phrases are warmer and more appealing?
•    I want to speak briefly about the issues …
•    I want you to know …

The second one is because it’s more audience-centric. The first is from McCain’s speech; the second from Biden’s. In fact, doing a quick analysis of McCain’s speech versus Biden’s is extremely revealing. What a contrast in styles!

McCain’s talk referenced below is 1,118 words long, a short speech by most measures. He uses the word “you” 11 times, or once every 101 words.

By contrast, Biden used the word “you” a whopping 69 times or once every 24 words for his 1,667-word talk. He outpaced McCain by 4X on the "you" factor.

Let’s look the word “I.” McCain referenced himself with the word “I” 28 times, or once every 39 words. Biden used the “I” word 27 times, or once every 61 words.

Now, there’s more that goes into how an audience will react to a speech besides the “you/I” ratio. But it is one measure I use to evaluate a speech. Chalk this one up to Biden. We’ll see if McCain’s speechwriting crew tries to make him warmer and more audience-centric in the days ahead and whether the notoriously loquacious Biden can maintain his warmth.

McCain - A Rhetorical Lesson (in the negative)

First, a disclaimer. This isn't about politics. This is about speaking powerfully and getting your messages heard and understood. So if you're a McCain supporter, don't take this personally.

McCain's recent speech in Lima, Ohio is a great example of rhetorical devices used with less effect than we might like. It's a short speech - which is good. And it does have some nice phrasing in it. In fact, probably more than you would think if you heard this delivered. But it could be shorter and better and get his messages across even more powerfully.

First, the good. The opening paragraph - with its staccato phrasing and declarative sentences - is right on. "I have been called a maverick. Sometimes it is meant as a compliment and sometimes it is meant as a criticism. But what it really means is I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party. I don't work for a president. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you and for the country we love."

Nice, hard punching. I like it because audiences will appreciate the rhythm and cadence. "I don't work ... I don't work ... I don't work." That kind of drum beat is almost hypnotic.

The next paragraph continues that rhythm but then tails away at the end. The steady beat becomes one long roll that fails to deliver the knock-out punch that paragraph deserves. Some crisp editing would have helped here.

But that's not the most grievous editing problem. No, that comes in the following paragraphs and, I would bet, is where the audiences' mind began to wander.

McCain sets it up nicely with a short "Senator Obama says he's going to change Washington." In boxing terms, that's a quick jab to the gut. You can feel it. But where's the followup punch? The big blow to the head? It's missing.

Instead, we get five long sentences of air jabs. The next paragraph is even worse. Again, we get the gut-jabbing setup punch: "Senator Obama says he will only raise taxes on the rich." But it's followed by 10 - count them 10 - sentences about how Obama doesn't do what he says he will. Worse yet, mixed into that section is a "here's what I would do" couple of sentences.

Then it's back to the gut jab again. Followed, yet another time, by a series of air jabs: long sentences that are too detailed to keep the audience's attention and too messy to make any kind of rhetorical impact.

How much better this would be if McCain had continued the rhythm he established early on. "Senator Obama says this. But he did that ... Senator Obama promises X ... but he did Y in the Senate .... Senator Obama says he's working for you. But he voted for this bill."

Those would be jabs to the gut followed by uppercuts to the jaw. Instead, the knock-out punches never come.

The Bottom Line: A little crisp editing would help this talk tremendously by helping the audience follow along. Establishing a rhytym the audience can follow is important. It keeps them focused, keeps their eyes on you (where they belong) and allows them to feel good about what they're hearing because they can anticipate where the speaker is going. 

Canadian Speech Does the Job

It's not often I get to see speeches from across the border in Canada. But this one popped up and I'm glad it did. What an interesting speech this is. Full of detail. Skimpy on classical rhetorical devices. Long. And effective? Probably, but not for the traditional reasons.

The speech is from The Honourable Iona Campagnolo, the Lt. Governor of British Columbia to open the third session of the 38th Parliament. It does, in many ways, follow a traditional course. After opening with a tribute to those who passed away over the past year, she gives the audience the traditional "here's what I'm going to say" nugget. Five items that the government will focus on.

And she follows that with a straight-forward attack on each of those five items by setting it up with the nice set of declarative statements: "At the heart of the government's agenda lies this simple question: What can we do today to secure the future for our children and grandchildren."

She immediately launches into what has become a mandatory statement in politics today: the bipartisanship statement. Instead of letting it sit out there by itself, though, she includes it in a very effective triple: "This is a time for partnership not partisanship, for boldness not trepidation, for action not procrastination."

And then the five issues. And, oh boy, did she cover them. In detail. Lots of stats and figures in here. Some nice  statements, too, that could easily be picked up by media. And here is the strength of this speech. It seems, in some ways, to be written more for posterity than for immediate consumption which typically goes against the grain of good speechwriting.

Point in case, it's long. Somewhere around 7,000 words or about an hour long. Lots of sore bums and fidgety people after that, I'm guessing. And, as mentioned, the speech is a bit skimpy on the traditional rhetorical devices that engage audiences: sentence variation, rewriting stats and figures,alliteration, word plays, rhythmic triads, etc. There are some rhetorical questions. A few short sentences. But on the whole, the speech seems to fall into a sing-song pattern with a traditional subject-verb-object sentence structure.

For the audience, this might have been difficult. But (and here's why I'm not quick to say it was ineffective) it did a very nice job of laying out the issues and what the government's position is on them. And it did an excellent job of providing material that could be quoted wholesale by the media. That is no small task when you're also trying to write for the ear. 

You'll have to ask the politicos from BC whether the speech covered all the things it should have. And here is one -- and now a second -- critique from that standpoint. But it did cover the things it did very well. And that's good enough.

Bush Speech Fails to Warm

OK. So I'm a stickler when it comes to the virtues of warming up an audience. Some don't. Some speakers launch right in by telling stories or relating funny anecdotes. I've done it myself.

BUT … and this is the key … I've only done that when the audience members already had a mostly favorable view of me. I didn't have to warm them up.

Compare that to the jarring beginning of President Bush's wooden address to the nation on Jan. 10. Already down in the polls – I mean, way down in the polls – with an electorate that thinks his strategy in Iraq has failed and that has no confidence in him as a leader – he starts off his "new way forward" speech in the most impersonal way possible.

 "THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror -- and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror. "

Um. OK. That's kind of like trying to get a woman who you've stood up twice before at the wedding chapel to go through the whole shebang again by saying: "Tonight, thousands of couples are engaged to be married for a life of wedded bliss. The marriage I have outlined for us will change your life forever."

Maybe it will and maybe it won't. First, you'll have to get her to the chapel. President Bush, in many ways, was still standing on the front stoop, trying to plead his case twenty minutes after he started to a potential partner that never even opened the door.

And why would Americans open the door for him? He gave them no reasons to listen from the very beginning. The newscasters on CNN pointed out ahead of the speech that President Bush was giving this speech from the White House library in hopes of giving it a warmer feel. Too bad the words didn't match the setting.

Instead of the wooden recitation of the obvious that he did present, how about instead trying to curry a little favor with the American people by acknowledging up front that he knows they're concerned? That he knows American men and women are in harms way? That he realizes many American worry that the wheels have come off the freedom express and the whole thing is careening toward a deep chasm?

Acknowledging the audience's concerns is a good way to get from arms-folded stoicism to ears-opened engagement. Unfortunately, at the end of his 20 wooden minutes of prime time rhetoric (apologies to Aristotle), the bride was no closer to walking down the aisle than before.