So I heard an amazing story last week at the Ragan Speechwriters’ Conference. OK, maybe not amazing but it’s a story every speechwriter and everyone who uses a speechwriter should hear.
I was there to mingle with some of the best people in the world: speechwriters who “get it.” And I delivered a workshop, a breakout session and was on a panel. But the whole conference began with a great keynote.
The speaker was Jon Favreau who was President Obama’s chief speechwriter for about eight years before he stepped out of the White House to open his own shop. That’s heady stuff, especially for someone as young as Favreau.
He talked about what it was like to write in the White House, what it is like to be on his own now – see this related article by David Murray – and what it was like writing for Obama.
It was this last part that I found so reassuring and relatable. What he described was a speech process founded on collaboration, trust and mutual admiration. At least that’s what I took away. He said it’s humbling to write for someone who’s a better writer than you are. (That was, indeed, a refreshingly humble thing to hear from someone who had every right to have a puffed chest.)
He said he would often send drafts to POTUS and have them come back with many, many tracked changes. And that it was OK. That it was part of the process. And that the process wasn’t over with one draft but often multiple drafts as they worked on the right words for the right audiences.
So many times, I hear of speechwriters who get no initial input yet are expected to write solid drafts and who have to send material up the line for approval anyway. They then have a graf or two changed and are seen as “missing the mark.” And yet here’s a guy who can write as well as anyone and describes a process that is characterized by a constant and respectful give-and-take.
Hmmm. See some problems here?
What he described is the way the process SHOULD work … and yet rarely does according to so many of my speechwriting friends in Washington. Instead, they describe an opaque process where they write in a black hole with little or no initial input then are criticized for a speech that doesn’t hit the target.
One speechwriter was so distraught he told me privately he was thinking of simply retiring. He said it wasn’t worth the frustration any more. A man who’s a capable writer, smart and engaging and yet who’s bosses stifle him at every turn by shutting him out of the one process that’s critical to his job and his client’s success: the speech-making process.
Even Favreau complained that some of his corporate clients had no clue WHY they should speak. They just wanted to sound like a leader. And they have no time for the initial discussions. As Favrau said, if POTUS has time to think about his speeches and discuss them between fighting Congress and managing wars, corporate clients should, too.
The best process includes an initial discussion about what the communications strategy is, what the speech itself needs to accomplish that goal, and some real back-and-forth discussion built on a foundation of mutual trust and respect. Then you go write and have some additional back-and-forth.
Are you going to hit a home run every time? No, not even with the best process. But having a process in place like I described prevents a lot of missteps, gives a better end product and makes for happier clients and satisfied writers.
And it is amazing, if only because it’s so often rare.
David Murray - in the aforementioned article - believes it's because the clients no longer believe in the power of a speech. Maybe. I'm willing to entertain that idea.
Then again, maybe it's our fault for not making the case strong enough. I've found that speechwriting entails a constant process of re-education. Most executives I know don't come up through the organization giving a lot of speeches. They're managers who - at most - speak to employees in small town hall sessions. They haven't been on the big stage. They don't know what it CAN do.
Part of our job, it seems, is to demonstrate that speeches still matter. Becuase you and I know that looking people in the eye and telling them what you think - instead of hiding behind an anonymous twitter feed or blog - is amazingly effective when done right.