OnSpeechwriting

On PowerPoint and Kindred Souls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And PowerPoint just can’t help there.

Enter the Cicero Awards - Impress your Boss

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

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

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

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

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

• Entry Form
• Entry Guidelines
• Categories

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

 

An Interview with the New Editor of Vital Speeches

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

Murray's Background

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

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

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

The Interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Commission Speech: A Showcase in Structure, Language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one can argue with that.

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

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

Biden's Speech: Built on "You"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCain - A Rhetorical Lesson (in the negative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian Speech Does the Job

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush Speech Fails to Warm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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