OnSpeechwriting

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.

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.

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 --

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.  

 

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.