It took me years and years to finally be… present… on stage. My thoughts used to go wild during my speeches: Did you prepare well? What if this humorous line doesn’t work? What will they think? Why did you have to say that? My thoughts used to get stuck in the past and in the future. But the magic of #publicspeaking happens in the now. Today, I am 100% present, always. You speak in public for one sole purpose: to make your audience a present. But how can you make someone a present, if your are not present yourself? Apart from that, being present on stage offers three big benefits, which your audience will appreciate tremendously. ______ publicspeaking #charisma #beingpresent #audienceinteraction #calltheroom #humor #courtesy #authority #spontaneity #fminsights
You’ve probably met a few of them. They’re eloquent, they’re exuberant, they’re entertaining. They are full of stories and examples. About themselves. Off stage too, they know what’s important. Themselves.
They are the prototype inflated self-centric speakers.
And that is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Audience-centric
Because it is not about the speaker. It’s about the audience, right? Your stories and examples need be relatable. Your expressiveness, energy, and enchantment should be tailored towards their needs, not yours.
This is what I learned at Toastmasters. And it’s absolutely correct.
But it’s not enough.
He who pays the piper calls the tune
But in the world of professional speaking there is a next step. Sometimes you don’t give the audience what they want. Or need. Because the audience is not your client.
It’s your client who pays the bills. It’s your client whose agenda you need to adhere to.
So suddenly you need to be client-centric.
I found out after concluding a keynote on cyber security with the message that security can be easy and cheap. But I was hired by an insurance company to speak for potential customers and this was not the message my client wanted.
Ever since that day I make absolutely sure that I know what my clients want to achieve with my presentation.
But wait! There is more!
Now you could choose to be that kind of speaker that just does whatever the client wants. But…
We want to change the world, right? Make it a better place Help our audiences become wiser, more adept, energised.
What is your cause?
If what your clients wants you to do conflicts with it, do you take the job?
I believe the best speaker are cause-centric. They believe in something that is bigger than themselves and they stick with it.
All together now
Self-centric. Audience-centric. Client-centric. Cause-centric. Wouldn’t it be great if we could be a bit of every one of them?
To thoroughly enjoy yourself, giving the audience and your client value, while staying true to your cause? I believe it’s possible. Not always, but often.
In my example above I could have reframed my message to include insurance. As I do believe insurance is part of the solution, everybody would have been happy.
What are you most centered on?
(Depending on where you stand any answer might be good*)
*yes, even self-centric. That takes some explaining. Which I won’t do here
pics: Gert Altman. Pierre Carreau. Clip: Monty Python
In my storytelling workshops there is always a discussion about whether you should be honest and tell personal stories exactly as they happened or you should “improve” them. I say: improve them.
And we all automatically do. We fill in gaps, attach meaning where at the moment there was none, merge different conversations into one, basically paint a brighter picture than there originally was. If we wouldn’t our stories would be boring, and we instinctively know this.
But is this lying?
Hardly. Our memory is a wonderful thing. Every time you recall a memory you change it. What you remember is not the original story but your recollection of a story. So your story will be different from the original, but you don’t realise this. That’s what makes eye witness accounts in court so unreliable.
Changing the story
But as a speaker you go one step further: you wilfully change the story. To make it better. To fit your message. To keep the audience’s attention. And again, most of the times I think this is a good thing. (Law and science might be exceptions)
I think there are two levels of truth: literal truth and intrinsic truth.
Literal truth means that your account is 100% correct. Literal truth is needed in some contexts, even on stage (don’t mess with the annual figures). But most of the time it is not what you or what your audience needs.
Intrinsic truth keeps the meaning and the message of the account intact, while romanticising the account itself. If you had three conversations with professor X you condense those into one. The fact that there were three conversations is not relevant. Intrinsic truth is reached when you change the facts, but only the unimportant ones. Afterwards, when an audience member comes up to you with more questions, you should be able to say: “this is how it really happened but for the sake of the story, I left this part out, I condensed that part.” And the audience member should agree that that doesn’t really matter.
Doing a Ratner
And then, of course, there is the way in which you are honest. Take a look at this short clip – a fragment of a speech by Gerald Ratner speaking at the Institute of Directors Annual Convention in 1991. In the years prior Ratner had built an empire in cheap jewellery. While the regular jewellers were suffering from the depression his shops did tremendously well by selling jewellery to the general audience at knock-off prices. How was he able to do that? By allowing the quality of his products to be far, far inferior. Which of course, everybody knew. In this fragment of his speech he is extremely candid about it.
“We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, “How can you sell this for such a low price?”, I say, “because it’s total crap.”
The result? Ratner group lost £500 million and almost went under. The consequence of Ratner being too honest. And the media picking up this juicy fragment rather than the rest of his speech.
What should Ratner have done? There is no shame acknowledging that his products were of inferior quality than those of the competitors. But it might not have been smart to laugh at the expense of his customers. Instead of “I say, because it’s total crap” Ratner should have chosen for a more boring alternative like “because the quality is not the same as with expensive jewellers.” Same intrinsic truth, but a different way of wording it.
It would cost him his laugh but not his company.
__________
The full Ratner speech is published by the Institute of Directors:[link to full speech]
As a public speaker don’t seek affirmation from your audience. You are the leader of the pack. Doubt, hesitancy, uncertainty? No way! Show your belief; show your conviction, affirm!
Device: Symploce (pronounced sim-plo-see or sim-plo-kee)
Origin: From the Greek συμπλοκήν (simplokeen), meaning “interweaving”.
In plain English: Repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive sentences or clauses and repetition of another word or phrase at the end of those same sentences or clauses.
Effect:
Symploce highlights the contrast between different options or possibilities.
It adds a sense of balance that neither anaphora nor epistrophe can do alone.
As is the case with anaphora and epistrophe, speakers should be careful not to overuse symploce.
Examples:
“There are many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.”
— John Kennedy, 26 June 1963
———
“Much of what I say might sound bitter, but it’s the truth. Much of what I say might sound like it’s stirring up trouble, but it’s the truth. Much of what I say might sound like it is hate, but it’s the truth.”
— Malcolm X, Date unknown
———
“My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to rightit, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.”
— Ted Kennedy, Eulogy for Robert Kennedy, 8 June 1968
———
“When there is talk of hatred, let us stand up and talk against it. When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it.”
— Bill Clinton, 23 April 1995
———
“In 1984, we introduced the Macintosh. It didn’t just change Apple, it changed the whole computer industry. In 2001, we introduced the first iPod, and it didn’t just change the way we all listened to music, it changed the entire music industry.”
— Steve Jobs, 9 January 2007
———
“Together, we will make America strong again. We will make America wealthy again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And yes, together we will make America great again.”
— Donald Trump, 20 January 2017
———
“First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”
— Popular version of the poem First They Came by Martin Niemöller
Post courtesy of: John Zimmer @ mannerofspeaking.org [link to source] This post is part of a series on rhetoric and rhetorical devices. For other posts in the series, please click this link.
How many times in my life did I have to sit through presentations I couldn’t have cared less about? But was it my problem? It is your job as a speaker to make your message, your content relevant to your audience. Over the years, I collected seven ideas to make my audience care more about my talks. Be creative, find your own ways, but never assume that someone cares, from the start, about your added values, KPIs or market entry strategies in western New Hampshire. ______ #publicspeaking #charisma #relevance #whyshouldtheycare #speechcontent #speechwriting #fminsights
Origin: From the Greek σύλληψις (sillipsis) meaning to take together.
In plain English: When one word–often a verb–is used in two different ways, or applied to two different things.
Effect:
It’s a clever play on words that surprises and thus catches our attention.
Notes:
In its simplest form, syllepsis is a pun.
According to Mark Forsyth in The Elements of Eloquence, the advantages of syllepsisare also its failings. “Syllepsis makes the reader astonished and go back to check what the word was and how it’s working now. It’s terribly witty, but it’s terribly witty in a look-at-me-aren’t-I-witty sort of way. There’s a sense in which it’s a cheap thrill.”
Post courtesy of: John Zimmer @ mannerofspeaking.org [link to source] This post is part of a series on rhetoric and rhetorical devices. For other posts in the series, please click this link.
Origin: From the Greek ἐπιστροφή (epistrofi), meaning “turning about” or “upon turning”.
In plain English: Repetition of a word or phrase at the end of successive sentences or clauses.
Effect:
Because the emphasis is on the last word(s) of a series of sentences or phrases, epistrophe can be very dramatic.
It is particularly effective when one wishes to emphasize a concept, idea or situation. Note, for example, the concepts emphasized in the quotes below: people; problems; moments; domination; togetherness; ability.
As is the case with anaphora, speakers should be careful not to overuse epistrophe.
Epistrophe is effective even when the words differ slightly; for example, when they are singular and plural as in the quote from Bill Gates below.
The potential downside of using epistrophe to emphasize the subject of an action is that the sentence is often in the passive voice, which is weaker than the active voice.
Examples:
“… that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.“
— Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 19 November 1863
———
“There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem.”
— Lyndon Johnson, Washington, D.C., 15 March 1965
———
“Our struggle has reached a decisive moment. We call on our people to seize this moment, so that the process towards democracy is rapid and uninterrupted. … I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination.”
— Nelson Mandela, Cape Town, 11 February 1990
———
“Market forces cannot educate us or equip us for this world of rapid technological and economic change. We must do it together. We cannot buy our way to a safe society. We must work for it together. We cannot purchase an option on whether we grow old. We must plan for it together. We can’t protect the ordinary against the abuse of power by leaving them to it; we must protect each other. That is our insight. A belief in society. Working together.”
— Tony Blair, Blackpool, 4 October 1994
———
“I left campus knowing little about the millions of young people cheated out of educational opportunities here in this country. And I knew nothing about the millions of people living in unspeakable poverty and disease in developing countries.”
— Bill Gates, Harvard University address, 7 June 2007
———
“But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we’ve been told that we’re not ready, or that we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes we can. It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes we can.“
— Barrack Obama, New Hampshire primary, 8 January 2008
Post courtesy of: John Zimmer @ mannerofspeaking.org [link to source] This post is part of a series on rhetoric and rhetorical devices. For other posts in the series, please click this link.
Origin: From the Greek ἀναφορά (anafora), meaning “to bring back” or “to carry back”.
In plain English: Repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive sentences or clauses.
Effect:
Key words or ideas are emphasized, often with great emotional pull.
Repetition makes the line memorable.
The speaker’s words have rhythm and cadence.
Notes:
In English, an active sentence (“We developed the plan.”) is more effective than a passive sentence (“The plan was developed by us.”). Thus, anaphora is particularly effective when one wishes to emphasize the subject of an action.
Anaphora, like any rhetorical device, can be overused.
Speakers should be careful to limit the number of times a word or phrase is used in a single anaphora. For most speeches and presentations, three is an ideal number. Beyond three, a speaker risks sounding affected, theatrical or bombastic.
The examples below from Churchill, Kinnock and King are exceptions, delivered by exceptional speakers in exceptional circumstances. The examples from Jobs and Aylward are better suited for most presentations.
— Julius Caesar, shortly after the Battle of Zela, 47 BC
———
“We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills …”
— Winston Churchill, House of Commons, London, England, 4 June 1940
———
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”
— Martin Luther King, Jr., Washington, D.C., 28 August 1963
———
“If Margret Thatcher wins, I warn you not to be ordinary, I warn you not to beyoung, I warn you not to fall ill, I warn you not to get old.”
— Neil Kinnock, Bridgend, Wales, 7 June 1983
———
“As you know, we’ve got the iPod, best music player in the world. We’ve got the iPod Nanos, brand new models, colors are back. We’ve got the amazing new iPod Shuffle.”
— Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007 Keynote Address
———
“We have a new vaccine, we have new resolve and we have new tactics.”
— Bruce Aylward, TED Talk, March 2011
Post courtesy of: John Zimmer @ mannerofspeaking.org [link to source] This post is part of a series on rhetoric and rhetorical devices. For other posts in the series, please click this link.
Rhetoric is the art of using language with persuasive effect. Aristotle wrote the classic book on the subject, On Rhetoric, in the 4th century BC. For centuries, the study of rhetoric—the ability to speak in public and to move audiences with logic, emotion and credibility—was an important component of many educational systems.
The word “rhetoric” comes from the Greek word ῥητορικός (rhetorikos), which means “oratorical”. “Rhetorikos” is derived from ῥήτωρ (rhetor), meaning “public speaker”, which in turn comes from the verb ἐρῶ (ero), meaning “to speak” or “to say”.
Simply put, a rhetorical device is a speaking technique that is used to persuade an audience to consider a subject from the speaker’s point of view. When used properly, rhetorical devices can have both logical and emotional appeal, and thus be very effective. Public speakers should know how to use them, and should endeavour to incorporate them into their speeches and presentations.
This post marks the start of a series on rhetorical devices. Each subsequent post will examine a single rhetorical device, explain its meaning and use, and look at examples from speeches, presentations and literature.
Post courtesy of: John Zimmer @ mannerofspeaking.org [link to source]
