Guido Fawkes does Craig Oliver a favour - suppressing the story is only going to make it worse!

Yesterday saw a great example of how to make your communication challenges worse by trying to suppress them.  The Prime Minister's head of communications Craig Oliver gave BBC correspondent Norman Smith a bit of a 'talking to' about the negative way in which the BBC was reporting the on-going Cameron/Murdoch/Hunt saga and he was caught on camera doing so.  The clip was soon on the internet and creating a buzz.  

Then it was removed from the internet.  Quite why it was removed remains unclear, but Guido Fawkes came to our rescue, reposted it and gained more than 100,000 hits in the process.  In the short space of time that the clip was missing all kinds of loose talk about 'threats, rage, bullying, rows, Oliver becoming the story etc, started to circulate.  This is no surprise - Alastair Campbell set the template and Malcolm Tucker magnified an expectation that we now have of government spin doctors.

When the clip went up again, however, we could see that Oliver was actually quite measured and reasonable, albeit a bit longwinded and repetitive.  Guido did him a favour!

One big black mark for Craig Oliver, though.  Gordon Brown, Andy Gray and Richard Keys have taught us very valuable lessons about checking for microphones.  The trouble is that they are so small and inconspicuous it's still easy to fall into the trap.  But cameras Craig - surely you can spot those - you worked in television until quite recently!

Bugdet policies failed because they worked too well as 'a good bar call'

When I worked in drinks marketing and we brainstormed names for new brands there came a crucial point in the analysis stage when we asked ourselves: "Is it a good bar call?".  What we meant was: would people be comfortable calling it out at a bar?; would they be able to pronounce it?; and was it memorable enough to stick in the mind until you were next at a bar? The classic example of a bad bar call at that time was Bleu de Brasserie, an attempt by Allied Breweries to make lager appeal to women.  The name failed in every respect and and if the brand was ever discussed it was invariably referred to as 'The Blue Bra'.

One of the reasons the government has had to backtrack on its budget plans is that some seemingly small and inconsequential moves simply work too well as a 'bar call'.  Attempts to tidy up some anomalies in VAT charges and pension allowances were all too easily dubbed 'Pasty Tax' and 'Granny Tax' by those not in agreement with the bigger picture.  And once you have the sort of snappy phrase that makes a good bar call it conjures up all kinds of imagery and comic potential.  Above all, it's a gift to columnists and headline writers.  Having initially suggested that David Cameron would never be able to return to his favourite holiday spot in the West Country, the Sun has now heralded the climb down with 'PASTY LA VISTA TAXMAN'.

So, when you are planning any sort of policy or announcement, think beyond the plain facts - pasties, pensioners and fixed caravans were minor issues that were never going to raise any significant revenue - and look at it from the headline writer's perspective.  Above all, is it a good bar call? 

Steve Jobs's big presentation mistake - be wary of big screens!

Steve Jobs is rightly hailed as the king of business presentations, but there was one occasion when he failed badly and confessed later: "It was my worst and stupidest staging event ever".  

There are many reasons for Jobs's brilliant Presentation Skills, and learning from mistakes is undoubtedly one of them.  The 'worst and stupidest' mistake that he admitted to occurred in 1997 when Apple controversially entered into a partnership with Microsoft, having been at war with the company for many years.  Jobs had just returned to Apple and the partnership, which appeared to go against many of the company's founding principles, was now essential to its survival.

Jobs therefore announced the deal at the Macworld conference with some trepidation, knowing it would need to feature an appearance by Bill Gates, Apple's very nemesis in the eyes of many staff and supporters.  Bill Gates made that appearance by satellite on the big screen, the immediate result being that his face appeared huge, looming over the tiny figure of Steve Jobs below.  As Gates began to speak he was oblivious to the boos, gasps and jeers that greeted his screen image, on which his smile could all-too-easily be interpreted as a smirk.

As Jobs said: "It was bad because it made me look small and Apple look small, as if everything was in Bill's hands."  And when Gates later saw the tape of the show he was embarrassed, saying "I didn't know my face was going to be blown up to looming proportions".  

In this case, though, the scenario was even worse than it might have been for anyone else. As Walter Isaacson pointed out in his Steve Jobs biography, it was a brutal echo of Apple's legendary 1984 ad based on George Orwell's Big Brother concept.  In Ridley Scott's much lauded commercial Big Brother was broadcasting his orders to the masses from a giant screen as an athlete representing Apple ran in, threw a hammer and smashed the screen into thousands of pieces.  How many of the Macworld audience were hoping or even expecting on that day in 1997 that another athlete would come racing to the rescue with another giant hammer?

I am always wary of big screens.  Clearly you need a screen big enough to make your images visible and readable to everyone in the room - and there is a formula to achieving that* - but thereafter, wherever possible, you want to keep the screen in proportion with yourself, so that you remain the dominant feature and it fulfills its proper supporting role.  The trouble is that screens and projectors are often selected and installed by people like office mangers and engineers rather than people who actually do any presenting.  Various places I have worked have a screen and projector combination that fills the entire wall - probably because that seems neat and tidy!  This is one of the reasons I carry my own equipment whenever possible, the other being that it's unwise to rely on third parties and unfamiliar equipment.

So please lap up all the great things about Steve Job's presentation successes, but remember that he undoubtedly learned as much from his mistakes as he did from his triumphs.  On a personal note, I am just hoping that talking about Jobs and his presentation techniques does not become too much of a cliche.  Of all the business presenters I have ever seen, it was Jobs who came closest to performing like the greatest magicians, adopting many of the Rules of Magic as he went.  He was a true inspiration and will continue to be so for many years to come.

* The formula for ensuring you have a big enough screen is known as the 'Six Rule'. The distance from the screen to the furthest person in the room should be less that the screen width multiplied by six.  So a 10 metre room needs a screen width of 1.5 metres or more.

The Powerpoint Therapist opens his consulting rooms

Whenever I am coaching business people in Presentation Skills I soon find out how much time we are going to need to spend on the topic of PowerPoint.  I would much rather be using their valuable time to focus on areas such as engagement strategy, key messaging and pacing, but all too often it becomes apparent very quickly that we going to have to start by taming the beast that was was meant to support them.

'Death by PowerPoint' is such a well-established phrase that it has gone beyond cliche stage.  Now people are talking of throwing away the PowerPoint and banning it; Switzerland even has its own Anti-PowerPoint political party.  Let's deal with the last of these first: it's a publicity stunt for a firm that sells Presentation training, so shouldn't really warrant the amount of attention it has generated.  I too am in the business of Presentation training, so there is a degree of profile-raising going on here as well but hey, feel the softness of the sell!  As for throwing away the PowerPoint and banning it, I have a couple of clients with a 'No Powerpoint' policy but that is mainly to differentiate themselves when on a roadshow and presenting alongside seven competitors, all armed to the hilt with PowerPoint.  My usual advice is to map out your presentation without any PowerPoint at all and see how you get on without it.  The moment you are struggling to describe something or need to create some pacing devices then consider whether PowerPoint might help with that, or whether something else such as a prop, an anecdote or an exercise might offer the best solution.


What too many people have forgotten is that PowerPoint is meant to be a tool to support you as a speaker - YOU are the show; it has a supporting role at best.  I believe the real problem is that many people are suffering from PowerPoint Dependency Syndrome - it has become a crutch that they cling to and in the worst case scenarios PowerPoint ends up driving them rather than supporting them.  If you simply throw away any sort of crutch you are more than likely to simply fall over.  If, however, you are given help to wean yourself off a dependency then you can start to stand up for yourself and use support systems in moderation as and when you are seeking specific enhancements.  


I believe that PowerPoint can be a fantastic tool - provided that you restrict its use to that of a tool. I want more business people to understand and appreciate this, so the PowerPoint Therapist's consulting room is now open at http://www.powerpointtherapist.blogspot.com


Business people can either send in their own PowerPoint challenges to seek a consultation, or they can simply log on to gain inspiration and tips from those who have already taken the important first step of accepting that they need to embark on a recovery programme from PowerPoint Dependency Syndrome. 

As Monty Python would say, talking yourself down at the start of a presentation is just silly

Few would argue that self-belief is one of the most essential elements in your Presentation Skills tool kit.  And yet, many of the business people I coach in this area slip in a little pre-cursor to their presentation along the lines of “this is not going to be very good because…” or, “I’m sorry but I only had time for a quick run through on the train….”.  My response is always: “we will talk about Preparation techniques later on, but for the moment don’t talk yourself down – you will almost certainly meet your expectations!”. 

I told this to the publisher of a glossy magazine and she said: “You know, you’re absolutely right.  We went recently to a breakfast presentation by Tommy Hilfiger and we were all very excited because he very rarely does this sort of thing.  But he started off by saying he was really sorry, he felt awful having just got off the plane and not slept all night, so he might not be very good.  And you know what? He wasn’t very good!  Had he said nothing and concluded by thanking us for our attention as he wasn’t feeling great we would probably have enjoyed the talk and thought 'good on him' for doing it under what turned out to be difficult conditions.

I was reminded of this incident at the weekend as I watched the Monty Python documentary on Sky Arts. The team had made ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ and they were very nervous because they had never made a film before and had been learning on the job. They kept re-editing – 13 times in total – and no one laughed when they were shown it. They thought they had a dud on their hands. Then they were given an opportunity to show it to a paying audience in California and they loved it, laughing all the way through.

Python member Terry Jones observed – some 35 years and many films later - that no one had laughed at the previous showings because they were watching as a favour in response to the Pythons’ plea “we’re really worried about our film, would you come and have a look and tell us what you think”. They had been setting expectations low – and living down to them. The final test audience, however, had paid money to come out for good time – that’s what they were expecting, so that’s what they got.

So, while it may not feel very ‘British’, be sure to talk yourself up at the outset, not down.  Indeed, with a touch of ‘hyper-confidence’ up front you should soon feel a sense of energy bouncing back between yourself and your audience.  Get off to a good strong start and you should sail through.  Just make sure you conclude with a big, impactful Call to Action.

And now for something (slightly) different

While I am on the subject of Monty Python, I am also reminded of an excruciating Python-based incident that I experienced personally a few years ago.  I live in South-East London, close to what was for more than 30 years the home of the aforementioned Terry Jones.  Friends of mine moved in immediately next door to him; they had a lot of parties and Terry was usually in attendance, so I got to know him a bit.  As we sat down for dinner on one occasion I was seated two places away from him so we started with a bit of polite conversation about what each of us had been up to.  I concluded with a congratulatory mention of his success in a film-goers poll.  That week his famous line from 'The Life of Brian' had been voted the funniest line ever in a film.  

Terry thanked me with a hint of embarrassment, sparking an enquiry from the woman between us as to what we were talking about.  I explained that Terry's famous line in the 'Life of Brian' had been voted the funniest ever.  "Which line was that?" she asked.  I looked nervously at Terry, who shot me back a very definite 'I'm not doing Python's greatest hits tonight thank you' glance.  Which left the onus on me to say: "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy".  I had just re-enacted the funniest line ever heard in a movie - in front of its originator!

Prime Minister's negative language on gay marriage says the opposite of what he means

David Cameron has come out strongly in favour of gay marriage but has done so in a way that comes across - on first reading - as if he is against it!


Negatives are a minefield when you are presenting because the audience has to unscramble them before they can be understood - we think in positives and pictures.  The classic example is giving a small child a tray of drinks with the instruction "Don't drop it"; the way they take in that information is: 'drop it' - got that as the general concept, 'don't'.  All the focus is on dropping so that is probably what they do; much better to say "hold it steady" - there is a certain amount they can actually do about that.


So the rule is to change negatives into positives wherever possible, but Cameron's slip was much more fundamental than any of this.  He has been widely quoted as saying: "So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative; I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative".  It probably helps to be there and hear the inflections and emphasis in all the right places, but when you read the reporting of it what hits you is "I don't support gay marriage......"- which is the opposite of what he intended to say!  Aside from sending the audience off in the wrong direction, some wag is going to get a recording of it and cut just where I have.


So what should the Prime Minister have said to get his intended message across? Something like this: "I support gay marriage; some might say I support gay marriage despite being a Conservative; I say I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative." When presenting you want it to be conversational but having made it so, you need to crank up the clarity. 

Magic magazine October 2011