Many people acknowledge that President Obama is a good public speaker.  At the same time, many note a significant difference in the quality of President Obama’s speech between those occasions when he uses a Teleprompter and those when he speaks extemporaneously.

They assert that his oratorical gifts are actually not as great as they seem because when he speaks without a teleprompter he says “er and uhm” like the average oratorical duffer, and often pauses awkwardly once he starts a sentence, as he seems to re-think how to arrange the thought into words that will not play against him.

While I’ve noticed a certain partisan tone when this distinction is made, I too feel concerned about the use of TelePrompters.  They seem to make public speech more dead than alive. But would we prefer that our leaders step to the lectern and reach inside their breast pocket to withdraw a written speech?

Barbara Tuchman, the great American historian, had a few radical thoughts on this subject.  She suspected that Teleprompters would bring down our democracy.

She said, in an interview with Bill Moyers, that the devices were “the most devastating tool that technology’s invented…” Our public men, “don’t speak spontaneously. You don’t hear them meet a situation out of their own minds. They read this thing that’s going along there in front of them. Words that have been created for them by PR men or by advertisers or whatever. And this is not the real man that we see. And it allows an inadequate, minor individual to appear to be a statesman, because he’s got very good speechwriters. Mr. Reagan! Boy! And to read the stuff off, because he reads it very well. He’s an actor, I guess, a trained actor. … you never know what he’s reading. Nor do you really know this with any of them. They learn it very fast…the teleprompter–is a really, in my opinion, it’s a terrible tool, because what we have is an artificial result.”

Then Bill Moyers says,  ”And yet George Washington had Alexander Hamilton as a speechwriter. The Farewell Address, his final major statement as he exited the Presidency, was largely penned by Alexander Hamilton. Is there a correlation?”

And by the way, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address had help from William Seward, his Secretary of State.

Then Tuchman says, “No, because the teleprompter shows the person in a situation which is not real, and which is phony, and which is deceptive. The thing is, you see, that we’re a public that is brought up on deception, through advertising. From the moment we are children, we learn that some kind of cereal is going to make us strong and win races and one thing and another, and the next thing you know, if you use a particular kind of toothpaste, you’re going to marry Gary Cooper, or at least have a glamorous romance somewhere; all that is deception.”

She raises some questions.
1. Are teleprompters a form of deception?
2. What’s the difference between a teleprompter and a piece of paper with the speech written on it?
3. Do we want our Presidents to speak without benefit of speech writers, teleprompters, or written notes?
4. How important is it that our President be a good “communicator”–meaning a strong advocate for his ideas and for our country.
5. What are the skills, attributes, and behaviors of a good communicator?

These are questions that are worth answering well, and ones that we at Sims Wyeth explore.

Oh!  One more question!  What about PowerPoint? Don’t most of us use it as a teleprompter to remind us what to say?

Sims Wyeth is a speech coach in Montclair, NJ specializing in presentation skills andpublic speaking training in order to give accomplished people the knowledge and skill they need to become accomplished speakers. Learn more public speaking tips atwww.SimsWyeth.com.

The Constant Contact ads on NPR are annoying me.  They promise great business relationships through email campaigns.  Who are they kidding?
 
Giving a speech is a much better way to build relationships with prospects, and even that doesn’t work all the time. A lot of speakers have a boilerplate talk, and they blast it out regardless of who they’re talking to.

That’s basically what e-mail campaigns are like.  They lack intimacy, which is a pretty basic component of trusting relationships.

I estimate that most e-mail campaigns die in the dust bin of the spam filter.  And some get their senders classified as internet outlaws, as recipients either hit the delete button hard, and harbor resentment, or complain to the authorities about unwarranted email.

Getting spam is like being forced to attend a speech or presentation you don’t want to hear.  I often hear clients at large pharma companies complain that they are expected to attend presentations which have little or no relevance to their work. 
 
E-mail only gets opened if it’s from a trusted source.  People who don’t know this will spend a boat load of dough learning this lesson through experience.

And if the recipient opts in and gets crummy content as a result—content all about how cool the sender’s company and products are—then they will unsubscribe.

I know this from experience, as a sender and as a receiver.

To promise businesses that sending more e-mail is going to win customer loyalty is crazy.  Sending more email is going to drive customers away…unless…
 
…unless senders somehow find a way to connect with the interests of their readers, and Constant Contact isn’t about to teach them how to write well, or market well, or empathize with those on the receiving end of their junk. 

 It’s not about constant contact, it’s about relevant content.

I attended a family wedding last weekend, and the sister of the bride gave a great toast.

I heard her round up her brothers as the cake was being served, saying, “Now is the time. Somebody has to say something.” They looked glum and stricken, and left their wine glasses on the table as they followed her to the center of the tent.

I thought to myself, “This is going to be hard. There are a hundred people yammering and drinking. Music is playing. Some people are dancing.” But I was wrong.

Lizzy tapped a wine glass with a fork. The crowd came to a hush. Somebody turned the music off, and Lizzy said what was on her mind.

It wasn’t fancy, clever, prepared, or eloquent. Just real. Sincere. Simple. Felt. She was happy for her sister and happy that so many family members had come to witness and support the marriage.

She stood still. She projected her voice. She was able to think while she was speaking, and she seemed completely comfortable.

The brothers didn’t need to say a thing. Any more would have been overkill. We clapped. The music returned, and I went back to work on my piece of cake, impressed with Lizzie’s grace, her sentiment, and the fact that her remarks were brief and unadorned.

Dividing the Dais

Sharing a podium is a frequent method for by-passing yet another dry presentation and (we hope) generating heat and light between two or more people seated on stage engaging in friendly verbal exchanges.

In my experience, each speaker prepares and delivers a short talk (less than 10 minutes) on the topic being considered, takes a few questions from the moderator, his fellow panelists and the audience.

After all the panelists have had their turn to address the audience for 10 minutes, the moderator encourages the audience to ask more questions, which they do, and each panelist, in turn, ventures a response.

It can be a good model.  It limits the damage that any one presenter can inflict on a meeting.  It allows for a variety of perspectives.  It is more audience-centric than a traditional presentation.  And if the moderator is good, she can create drama by teasing out the differences between panelists and creating healthy debate.

But speakers and panelists should remember a few rules of etiquette.

1. Prepare your opening remarks as you would a public speech.  It should be engaging, formally presented, and end on time.
2. If you are first to speak, acknowledge at the start the moderator, the sponsoring organization, and your fellow panelists.
3. If you can, and if it’s allowed, stand to deliver your opening remarks.  If there’s a lectern, move to stand at it.  Please click here to learn the difference between a lectern and a podium.
4. If you are not first, it is always a good idea to find something positive to say about those who spoke before you.
5. If you want to disagree with someone, do so in the most diplomatic manner.
6. In fact, before disagreeing, ask the speaker you disagree with if your understanding of her remark is correct.  If she says yes, then you may proceed.
7. It is never a good idea to say, “You’re wrong,” to someone, especially on stage.  Rather, you could say, “I see it differently,” or “I have a different perspective.”
8. Resist the temptation to be the center of attention.  Your goal should be to contribute to the public discourse by throwing whatever light you can on the subject.
9. Refer to your fellow speakers by name.
10. Remember to sit up straight and project your voice, even though you may be seated (I sound like my mother.)  Make sure you make effective use of any microphones supplied.  And finally, visibly enjoy yourself.  Refrain from looking and sounding like a leg of lamb moldering on the table.

The audience will be alert to any signs of tension between panelists.  Treat your fellow speakers with respect, and your character will speak even more persuasively than your thoughtful remarks.