Why Speech Training Is Harder Than Media Training

July 13, 2012 Leave a comment

Some years back I asked an astute young colleague why he thought training someone to be a better presenter and public speaker was often more challenging and time consuming than training someone for press interviews.

“Because it’s more quotidian,” he said.

It took me a moment to process that (let’s see – quotidian – every day, ordinary – got it). Good answer. In fact, nearly everyone has experience speaking before groups – it’s part of our culture. Most executives (in the US) have given speeches and presentations in high school, college or on the job. Many have had instruction. Of course, that does not mean everyone is good at it, or that everyone likes it. (“Public speaking” routinely appears on lists of top ten fears.)

So, virtually all our training clients will be familiar with the basics of public speaking. Many of them will come to us with ingrained, difficult-to-change issues that may include anxiety, vocal production, and body awareness. Or they may already be acceptable or even good speakers seeking incremental advancement. In every case, the first challenge for coaches is making the right diagnosis and zeroing in on real needs.

Contrast that with an experience that is for most people not ordinary: being interviewed by a reporter. A trainer with the right approach can provide a perspective shift on the interview process, along with a handful of techniques that will have a striking and immediate impact on communications behavior.

There are fewer quick turnarounds when working on speeches and presentations. Yet the trainer’s job is to provide as much insight and helpful technique as quickly as possible to accommodate the needs of busy executives and professionals. If we have scheduled four-to-six hours with someone, we have to make meaningful, discernible progress in that time frame.

What makes a good speech trainer or coach is not what we know. We’re are all dealing with pretty much the same set of physical metrics (articulation, vocal variety, eye contact, gesture, motion) and similar ways to make content clearer and more compelling.

While the metrics are much the same, however, individual speakers are most definitely not. They have different bodies, voices, personalities, patterns of thought and levels of commitment to changing how they speak in public. Which is why the best speech training is based on closely reading the client, diagnosing the behaviors that need work and – this is most critical and most difficult – knowing how to draw out the desired behavior.

Total buy-in from the client is, of course, important. When clients devote themselves to change, when they are willing to work long hours and practice over and over again, they can transform themselves.

And by the way, I’m not saying that becoming comfortable and adept with interviews is necessarily a breeze. Just that the process tends to begin at a different place. The majority of the executives I meet speak only occasionally to the press, but they speak and present to audiences nearly every day.

Filed under For PR Pro's Tagged with , ,

A Useful Pattern for Three Key Messages

July 9, 2012 Leave a comment

The need for key messages — specifically three key messages —  is among the most widely accepted concepts in communications. Helping clients develop these messages is one of the most important tasks in public relations. That’s why discussion or development of key messages is an agenda item for every media, speech or general communications session I and my colleagues – and probably every other coach in the world – do.

And though plenty of very smart people I meet do not know about the value of three key messages, the concept is an easy sell.  It’s difficult to dispute the idea that audiences take away very little of what they hear – there is simply too much evidence for that.  And it’s easy to grasp how a few, clearly articulated and relevant points will help focus both the speaker and the audience.  In thousands of encounters with clients, I can’t think of a single instance of push back on this.

I do occasionally get questions like, “Why three messages?  Why not two — or one?”  That is to say, if it’s true that most listeners will forget most of what a speaker says within hours, then why not limit the number of messages as much as possible?  Wouldn’t one message be more effective?

No, not if the objective is to tell a story, which it is in most communications — certainly in an interview more substantial than passing on a single quote.  One key message, for example a tag line like “Just do it” or “You’re in good hands,” can create an image, but is not satisfying if repeated again and again.  Even two key points lacks development and finality.  Three key points is the smallest — and therefore the ideal — number on which to build a story.

And listeners love stories.  Telling a good story is the essence of effective communications.

It’s worth noting that recent science backs up the value of having a limited number of key messages,  concluding that our short-term memory can only hold from three to five points or chunks of information at once.  You can read an expert paper about the matter here.

A Useful Pattern

There are many ways to determine key messages.  One of the simplest is to ask, What is the most important thing I want my audience to remember?  Then, What is the second most important thing; then, What is the third?  That probably won’t give you a story line, but it’s a good start for honing in on what needs to be top of mind when developing and telling the story.

A useful three-part pattern – and the one I generally start with – is based on the classic “problem – solution” story line.  Essentially, the speaker gives the listener context in the form of a problem (or, if less negative, a situation), then proposes a reasonable solution to the problem (or way of dealing with the situation).  The third key message either adds additional detail about the solution or differentiates the solution from others or adds a motivational “call to action,” or some combination of all these.  As you can see, this is an accommodating pattern, notable because it requires thinking about narrative flow.

A number of high-tech companies I’ve worked with use this pattern naturally, given that they are in the business of solving problems for their customers.  So the first key message in a company’s new product press release (i.e., their story) will be about the customers’ problem, the second key message will outline their solution to the problem and the third key message will differentiate their solution from others in the market.   Works nicely.

As I say, this is not the only pattern for three key messages, but it is a good one.

Filed under For PR Pro's, For Spokespersons Tagged with , ,