OnSpeechwriting

The Professional Speechwriters Association: Welcome to a Brand New World

David Murray, long-time speech hound and editor of the invaluable Vital Speeches of the Day, is at it again. Actually doing stuff that others had only dreamed about. This time? Two major events. First, he's co-founded the Professional Speechwriters Association. And, second, he's arranging for the first-ever Professional Speechwriters Association World Conference.

He was gracious enough to share some of his thoughts about the association, the future of speechwriting and, mostly, the "why" behind the "what." Here's a short interview with him.

Fletcher: You’ve formed a new Professional Speechwriters Association. Tell me why you thought one was necessary.

David Murray: Car wash managers have a professional association! Almost 2,500 years after Aristotle, speechwriters don't? The question is, why has it taken us so long? This is a unique discipline, demanding more specific kinds of intellect, craft and emotional intelligence than other public relations specialties, like media relations or community relations. So speechwriters need a way to learn from one another—because they have many problems only fellow speechwriters can solve.

Also: Though speechwriters are generally better paid than their peers in other communication disciplines, they are also much more vulnerable. It's common that a leadership turnover leaves a perfectly good speechwriter suddenly out of a job, as the new leader wants to bring in his or her own person. So speechwriters need to have a one-stop shop for networking, and as PSA grows, it will provide that.

Finally, speechwriters are a tribe. They like to be together. For years I organized the Ragan speechwriting conference, and invariably people would come up to me afterward and pump my hand. Thank you for putting this together. The Professional Speechwriters Association is designed to give that sense of comfort, stimulation and sense of community all year round.

FD: What’s the benefit to speechwriters for joining?

DM: Members will basically get lots of stuff they need, for cheap or free. They get to use the PSA logo, which marks them to employers and prospects as committed members of the profession. They get a free subscription to Vital Speeches of the Day, which keeps them current on what the leaders of the world are saying on all the current issues. They get free access to an exclusive, members-only LinkedIn Group Almost half-off the annual World Conference. 

They also get big discounts to industry events, discounted entry into the Cicero Speechwriting Awards and lots of other benefits. Basically, a membership is a bulk discount on all or most of the things speechwriters normally by. And we plan on adding benefits as we go—making discount deals for our members with conveners of speechwriting seminars around the world, and making affinity deals with regional speechwriting groups so that the whole speechwriting world.

Eventually, we also see ourselves conducting salary surveys, studying trends in the business and possibly providing member spokespeople to represent the point of view of the speechwriting profession in public conversations that call for it—really doing all the advocacy and information-gathering that other associations do, but just for this very select group: people who call themselves speechwriters.

Speechwriting, as a profession, seems to be changing since I joined the ranks 20 plus years ago. Do you see if changing and how?

DM: It's changing in a million ways, for good and ill. But the Professional Speechwriters Association is a sign of one of the best ways it's changing. Twenty years ago two speechwriters working in the same city would have had a hard time finding one another. Now speechwriters commonly have speechwriting friends all over the world thanks to the Internet and to regional speechwriting associations like the UK Speechwriters Guild and the European Speechwriting Network. Having a global umbrella organization like the PSA will only make the small world of speechwriting that much smaller, so speechwriters can find one another and get the information or inspiration they need. Speechwriting need not be a lonely job any longer.

To help kick off the PSA, you’ve organized the first annual World Conference. What’s the goal and what can attendees expect?

DM: Attendees can expect to listen to speakers and share space with other speechwriters who are committed to the profession and experienced in the peculiar facts of the life of a speechwriter or executive communicator. They can expect candid, high-level discussions. Among the keynote speakers at this conference are PR legend Fraser Seitel and a leader with experience on both ends of the speechwriting game, actually—former CIA director and U.S. Forces Commander (and onetime speechwriter, did you know?) ... General David Petraeus. But most speakers will be people you've never heard of—anonymous speechwriters—who have found better ways to do this difficult work, and want to share their knowledge with their peers.

Also at this first conference especially, we're going to talk explicitly about the profession itself, answering questions like yours, on how the business is changing, what speechwriters need to do to adapt—and how the Professional Speechwriters Association can help them do it.

And particularly cool—and I think some speechwriters might actually enjoy this aspect the most—attendees will get a chance to talk to undergrads at the NYU's Department of Strategic Communication, Media and Management about a speechwriting career: What it is, what it's not, and what it takes. NYU is hosting the conference this year, and we hope to make mentorship an important part of the conference every year—and a big component of the PSA. 

Let's try to make speechwriting something more than a weird job people just "fall into" by accident. And let's make it a lot more comfortable landing for those who do.

 

The Amazing World of Speechwriting

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.

 

 

LBJ, Speechwriting and the Quest for Brevity

In my last post I lamented about writing coaches who encourage all writers to pare their work. Not all writing is created for the same purpose, I argued, and speeches need to be more expansive because audiences need time to hear – and interpret – the words spoken.

Now for a different view.

Robert Hardesty was a speechwriter for President Lyndon B. Johnson, whom I consider to be one of most under-appreciated Presidents in history. Hardesty, who passed away earlier this year, recalls in this article that Johnson had his own style and sensibilities when it came to speeches.

“We soon learned that LBJ had strong opinions about how a speech should be written. And brevity was a cardinal rule. For some reason, 'four' seemed to be a magic number.

“‘Four-letter words,’ he would say, ‘four-word sentences, and four-sentence paragraphs. Keep it simple. You’ve got to write it so that the charwoman who cleans the building across the street can understand it.’”

But it went further. Unless the President was delivering a major address, he wanted everything in 400 words or less.

As you might imagine, this was a difficult task. “You don’t just write a speech like that,” Hardesty says. “You chisel it. You carve it. And when you finish, you start cutting—and your most beautiful prose usually goes first.”

No speechwriter would voluntarily restrict themselves to a 400-word limit. “It wasn’t natural,” Hardesty says. “It went against a writer’s training … to be limited to four-letter words, four-word sentences, four-sentence paragraphs, and 400 words – that’s cruel.”

In the end, Hardesty said he and his fellow speechwriter, Will Sparks, came to appreciate the President’s mandate. Capping the comments at 400 words “forced you to organize your thoughts and disciplined you to write sparingly and clearly. If you did it right, you ended up with a little gem.”

But it also took its toll. He relates that one Friday, after a particularly difficult period, he finally had a long and free weekend ahead of him. No writing assignments. When a colleague asked how he was going to spend his time, Hardesty replied, “I’m going to go home and do nothing for 48 hours but think in long, convoluted sentences.”

 

 

You can't cut your way to great speechwriting

Oh those ubiquitous writing coaches and workshop leaders. They do mean well, don’t they?

They send out invitations to writing classes and seminars which invariably suggest that one of the keys to better writing is to trim, trim, trim.

Now, in fairness, if you look at the some of these closely it’s hard to argue with anything there. They provide great tips like “avoid passive voice,” “refer to people as ‘who’ not ‘what’,” and avoid words like “currently.” Good stuff. Solid advice.

But they almost always include instructions to prune unnecessary words. Cut out the repetition. Spare the poor consumer your excess prose.

In short, would-be writers hear a frequent and unfortunate message that writing – all writing – can be improved by the knife. That is advice you’ll never hear from me about speechwriting.

To the contrary, good speeches are expansive. Good speeches need air to breath. Good speeches repeat important points and rhetorical phrasing. Good speeches verbally and mentally separate important points and give the audience enough time to marinate slowly in ideas. Good speeches have rhythm and dance on the ear as a melodic song. Good speeches care more about the emotional connections that can only occur through careful – but often capacious – verbal expressions than they care about brevity for the sake of brevity.

Yes, all of our work – whether it is writing designed for the ear or the eye – can use a good dose of editing. There’s no good reason to use a $10 word, for example, when a 50-cent word will probably work better.

But writing for the ear is different than writing for the eye. Audiences can’t “re-hear” what a speaker says unless the speaker repeats it. Have a jackhammer loudly pounding the ground right outside your speech venue? You better repeat your most important points because there’s a good chance your audience will be distracted.

Indeed, good speech writing does (at least) two things concurrently. It reduces noise in the speech by being as clear, plain and understandable as possible. But it also mitigates noises and distractions that plague the audience’s ears and minds from outside.

It does that not by being necessarily succinct and pithy but by giving the listener the best opportunity to hear – and understand – the words just spoken. That enormous task takes time. It often takes repetition. And it most definitely requires a more comfortable and voluminous approach to language that is unique to the genre.

So remember when you see those emails encouraging you to cut your writing that not all writing is created for the same audiences. Speeches are a different type of writing and require a different sensibility.

Required Reading for Speechwriters

Attention all speechwriters (and the leaders they serve): There is required reading for you this weekend.

Two great pieces on communications appeared over the weekend and if you missed them you missed a fantastic opportunity to learn about the importance of real, purposeful communication. The first talks about how to determine a key message in a speech. The second talks about how - and why - to connect that speech to a larger narrative.

When I speak about and teach speechwriting, I often encourage writers to begin with a simple 1-2-3 process:

1. Analyze the audience and determine what it’s needs are;
2. Determine your purpose for speaking;
3. Choose your key message - your narrative - carefully and accordingly.

These have to be taken in this order, by the way. One builds on the other. If you pick your key messages before you know what the audience needs – a mistake more common than you might believe – you waste a tremendous opportunity and risk alienating the audience. In fact, you will probably do more harm than good to you and your organization.

A common gaffe among many speakers is going to the podium with either A) too many key messages or B) no key messages or narrative at all. The result is a confusing jumble of words and speeches that may inform but do little else. They don’t creat understanding. They don’t reinforce values. They don’t change opinion. And they certainly don’t elicit action.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. Two illuminating pieces over the weekend reinforce this idea very eloquently.

The first is from the master speechwriter Bob Lehrman, the chief speechwriter for Al Gore and now a professor at American University. His opinion piece at The New York Times is a must-read for any one who even ocassionally writes speeches.

In this highly entertaining essay, Bob talks about how he got into speechwriting, the importance of story, why establishing and protecting ethos is critical and awesome power of simplicity. And he speaks with the experience of someone who’s fought the battles: “It also can be difficult,” he writes, “to make someone sound like Moses addressing the Israelites when you announce a three-point plan for reducing the deficit.”

I would encourage you to pay most attention, however, to his words on Monroe’s Motivated Sequence. He says it’s the most popular structure for political speeches and I have no doubt he’s correct. But it could be – and perhaps should be – the go-to structure for those in the corporate and not-for-profit sector as well. Why? Because it forces the speaker to go through the 1-2-3 process I outlined above and places the speech message where it should be: on the audience and its needs.

I call it choosing your own headline. If you fail to choose your own headline – by writing speeches with either no clear, audience-centric message or too many messages – you leave that critical task to the audience. That's a failure of purpose communication and a failure of true leadership.

The second piece is from The New York Times Magazine, a great piece of writing from Matt Bai. Again, the subject is how – and why – establishing your own narrative with the audience is crucial. Case in point: President Obama’s failure to do just that for four years.

Too often, leaders get caught up in the day-to-day. A speech here on health care. A speech there on trade. Another one on the importance of energy or national defense. As Bai points out, there is nothing wrong with that, expect when it’s unconnected to an overall narrative or storyline. In other words, it's fine to have great speeches but do the speeches - collectively - help tell a larger story that resonates with your audience?

David Gergen is quoted as comparing a leader’s need for a clear narrative to a clothesline: “You adopt your clothesline and then you hang your policies from it. They’re missing the clothesline.”

And when you fail to establish that narrative, you create a vacuum. And nature abhors a vacuum ... but only for an instance. Why? Because the moment you fail to fill that void with your own story, someone else will fill it for you. And why would anyone surrender their own narrative to someone else?

Two great articles. Two great lessons. Enjoy.

Learning to Write a Vital Speech - In 60 Minutes

The essential truth that speechwriters share is, “A speech is not an essay standing on its hind legs.” 

A great speech is so much more—and in an exclusive one-hour audio conference sponsored by Vital Speeches of the Day, I will show you the art and science involved in crafting a persuasive speech that connects the speaker with the audience.

You’ll learn:

• How to make speeches that connect with audiences—emotionally, intellectually, even spiritually—and why those connections aren’t just ideal, but actually crucial to a successful speech.
• The one best structure for virtually any talk. (No, it’s really not any more complicated than that.)
• How to use evocative language. The right way to use statistics. How - and when - to tell stories.
• Why less is always better than more.
• And why planning a speech is just as important as actually writing the speech.

By the time this conference is over, you’ll be able to take your speechwriting to an entirely new level.

And you won’t even need to take notes, because with your registration you’ll receive a FREE copy of my definitive speechwriting guide, 10 Steps to Writing a Vital Speech. That’s a 39.95 value—and a priceless professional asset.

The 135 Rule

Heres a question that comes up nearly every week from someone: How much do I need to write for a speech of XX minutes?

Seems like an innocent question. Unfortunately, reality and experience suggest otherwise.

My general rule of thumb on the length of speeches is to write – as a first draft – 135 words per delivered minute. Notice I said “as a first draft” and “general rule of thumb.” Exceptions abound.

In general the 135 Rule will get you in the ballpark. For a 20-minute speech, shoot for 2,700 words. For a 15-minute speech, 2,025 or somewhere around 2,000.

Problems arise on two big fronts. First, not every speaker is the same. I used to write for an executive from Mississippi. A great man, leader and gentleman who used to routinely deliver at 89.5 words per minute. Some of that was his deliberate, southern speech. But he also liked to ad-lib. I learned to build those factors in and adjust my copy. If I didn’t, he would exceed his time limit, and that has the potential to antagonize an audience.

When a speaker goes beyond their allotted time on a conference agenda, it not only frustrates the audience it makes it harder for them to hear the speaker’s message, especially the close. They’ve already built in a “the speaker will stop here” mindset and when the speaker goes past that – when they’ve violated that audience expectation – the audience tends to tune them out. (Going over your time slot is also a great way to make conference organizers upset, in case you were ever hoping to be invited back!)

Another CEO – also a great leader – was once clocked at 250 words per minute. Suddenly the amount of copy I had written for one leader was severly inadequate for the other. The good writer listens to the speeches, both past and present, and adjusts accordingly.

Likewise, speakers who are speaking a non-native language typically do – and should – speak a little slower than usual. Not only do the sentences tend to be shorter with more breaks between them, but the audience needs time to catch up as they adjust to any accent.

The 135 Rule lasts as long as the first practice. It’s great for a first draft but might need to be adjusted once the speaker delivers the speech out loud. Delivering the speech verbally – as opposed to simply silently reading it on paper or computer screen – is critical because we all read at a different pace than we deliver. Every now and then I’ll have a speaker say something like “I thought this speech was supposed to be 20 minutes but it took me only 15 to read through it.” It turns out they’ve read it on screen instead of delivering it.

So if you can be in the room – with a stopwatch – when the speaker practices, do it. Or at least ask them to time themselves. Have them go from beginning to end at least once. You’ll not only learn more about the speaker’s style and cadances, you’ll get great insight into how quickly they deliver. And the next draft won’t rely on the 135 Rule.

And if you have to make a choice of either writing too little copy or too much, remember this: Not one audience member ever got angry because a speaker gave them a little time back. It’s a small gift to be sure. But one they’ll appreciate and convey – with warm feelings – onto the speaker.

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.

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 --

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.

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." 

A good beginning, then ....

My intent was to write glowingly about the opening of a speech I ran across recently by Jim Rogers, the Chairman and CEO of Duke Energy. I really enjoy the way Rogers began this talk. (Here's a video version, by the way.)

“I am going to start by sharing with you three numbers. Three. Twelve. Forty-one. These numbers drive my  passion for addressing the climate issue. These numbers are why I am here today. Three – We are the third-largest emitter of CO₂ of all the companies in the United States.

“Twelve – Of all the companies in the world, we rank No. 12 in our emissions of CO₂. Forty-one - Of the 192 countries in the United Nations, we would rank 41st in our emissions of CO₂. These are not numbers to be proud of or numbers to brag about, but it should tell you, as CEO of Duke Energy, why I am committed to addressing this issue – because I think it is critical for us to do that.”

That’s a nice, intriguing opening. No preamble. No poor attempt at humor. It sets the tone immediately.

Alas. What begins with promise unwinds into structural mess. This is unfortunate, by the way, because Rogers has been a visionary in the energy field for a number of years and his messages deserve to be heard.

Ironically, the fall from promise to painful oratory has all to do with the use of numbers, the same artifice that so intrigued me in the beginning.

Here’s a secret about successful speeches: a speech’s success is directly proportional to the ability of the audience to hear and understand it. Simple, right?

If the audience doesn’t hear the talk – and understand it – you might as well be speaking jibberish. That means a successful speech must have a logic to it the audience can follow.

I’m not necessarily talking about the logic of the argument within the speech. Certainly that has to be present. No, what I’m mostly talking about is the logic of the speech’s structure. Does it make sense? Can the audience follow it? Can an audience member anticipate where the speaker is going and mentally take the trip as well?

That’s where this speech falls apart. Great information but so ill-packaged that the listener may get lost going from beginning to end. There is no over-arching theme or structure that the audience is familiar with … no ribbon of thought to connect Point A with Point B and Point C.

Instead, we have a hodge-podge of pieces. Here’s the speech progression:

• We start with the above-mentioned numbers opening. So far so good.
• Rogers then talks about the three solutions he wants to speak on. OK, I can buy that. It's a common structure and that, by itself, makes it a good structure because the audience can anticipate it.
  
• On page two, however, he talks about three big trends. 
• Half a page later, he talks about the four ways he’s judged in his job (without, by the way, signaling that he’s judged in four ways.)
• A few paragraphs later we’re given the three company objectives.
• This is followed by a couple of pages of company examples that are capped by the phrase “the fourth and last thing I will report to you …” (I should mention here that the “last thing” he will report is 10 pages from the end.)
• A few pages later he begins a discussion about the political climate by giving the listener a “global perspective first,” followed by a second point, which is followed by “another point,” followed by the phrase “lastly, I would say…” (We’re still four pages from the end. HINT: Never say “finally,” “lastly,” or “in conclusion” until you’re ready to wrap it up. Those words send distinct signals to the audience.)
• Three pages from the end we get the “In concluding …” setup which is followed a page and a half later by “I want to close …” phrase.

All of these numbers and phrases are sign-posts for the listeners. They’re auditory clues about the structure of the speech and, as such, should help them perform a very difficult task – listening – with much more ease.

Instead, they’re used here as artificial sign-posts that make the speech clumsy and complicate the audience’s listening experience. Which is a pity because Rogers truly is a leader in the energy field and has taken a contrarian's position that serves him and Duke well. A speaker's job is to not only deliver the content, however, but deliver it in a way the audience can hear and understand.

In conclusion (yes, I really am stopping now), how we say it is just as important as what we say. Good speakers will give the audience not only content but a structure they can follow.

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.