All things Public Speaking
As times of the year go, Halloween is terrible. Wonderfully terrible. Ghoulishly terribly. Fantabulously terrible.
I like Halloween!
So – while I head off to prepare my pumpkins, allow me to leave you with this little offering inspired by the literary heights of horror. How do authors put shivers down our spines?
Re-blogged from Make A Powerful Point — it’s our Dirty Rhetoric Guide to Horrifying Writing.
A hundred-thousand voices screaming into an electronic echo-chamber. Welcome to modern communications. Your idea must be heard, but how?
We’re not the first to face this test. Our communications ancestors competed in the (literally) screaming markets of the ancient world. They developed a fix for the problem. A simple and elegant and beautiful fix. Whether you are writing or persuading or presenting, it’s time to bring it back.
That fix was a simple system of word-structures designed to take your message and lift it clear it of the noise.
Your message needs to be the one that’s heard. Your message has to stand-out. In the words of the Roman genius Cicero, a message needs to have ‘brilliant lights’. Lights to capture the eyes and imagination of an audience. To win you must wow. The Ancients left us a full tool-kit to do just that.
We’ve developed a simple system to put that toolkit right back into your hands. That toolkit is Dirty Rhetoric.
Dirty Rhetoric is a selection of 53 rhetorical techniques designed to light up your message. As the name implies – we’ve designed it to be quick and dirty – no rhetoric classes required. Just pick-a-card and boost your message.
I hope I’ve piqued your interest. Today we launch Dirty Rhetoric on KickStarter. Go here to find more information on how Dirty Rhetoric can help your message.
We have an exciting schedule of communications activities planned to help us launch Dirty Rhetoric, ranging from webinars through to ‘Peter’s Podcasts’ – highlighting the uses of rhetoric in topical politics and product launches and maybe even the occasional pop-song.
I’d be delighted if you would join us for the ride. It promises to be fun!
Let’s break-out of that echo-chamber. It’s time to be heard!
2000 years ago our Greek and Roman presenter-ancestors left us an awesome inheritance — the formulae for magic. They left us scrolls and manuscripts full of magical word-spells. Spells that help us to bond with an audience. Spells that create indelible soundbites. Spells that let us influence an audience’s perceptions of scale and logic and argument. And those spells have always been there for the taking! We know them in today’s world as “rhetoric”.
The snag? 2000 years of dust, detours and occasionally deliberate destruction had turned rhetoric into a tangled mess of ancient names and obscure descriptions.
Someone needed to re-write the spell-book and that’s just what we set out to do.
Partnering with Gavin McMahon and his sensationally creative team at New York’s leading transformational change and communications agency, fassforward consulting group, we’re now close to liberating the long-lost power of words — for presenters big and small.
And today, we’d like to show you for the very first time what it is that we’ve come up with.
It’s quick, it’s dirty, and our pilot sessions are showing that presenters, from Jersey to Johannesburg, just love it!
Want to know what we’ve got? Just click this link!
Photo credit: Sarah Barlow / Billboard.com
Taylor Swift’s new album ‘1989’ contains three ideas to stir-up your writing and your speaking.
Listen to the songs and you’ll notice that Swift doesn’t just sing those lyrics – she acts them. There are nuances and inflections that she milks with the precision of an actress. That scope for drama, and irony, and occasional comedy tells us there are things going on inside the words of the songs that are worth a closer look.
Swift uses metaphor and simile but what makes her lyrics interesting are three unusual techniques designed to make things sound weird — to mix things up.
Clashing Contexts
“‘Cause darling I’m a nightmare, dressed like a day-dream”
It’s my favorite lines from ‘Blank Space’. How often do you see the words nightmare and daydream so close together. They’re a clash. They don’t belong in the same sentence.
Here’s another one, this time from ‘I Wish You Would’:
“Band-aids don’t fix bullet-holes”
Little tiny band-aids — good for covering a paper-cut — but worthless when set beside a bullet-hole!
And finally, another personal favorite, once again from ‘Blank Space’:
‘We’ll take this way too far,
It’ll leave you breathless
Or with a nasty scar’
Those first two lines contain gushing, emotional language – ‘way too far’ and ‘breathless’. You would expect the words that are used to describe that scar to be just as rushing. Words like ‘livid’ or ‘vicious’ or ‘lethal’. But no – it’s a ‘nasty’ scar.
That’s how you describe an injury to a small boy! “Ohhhh… what a nasty cut. Where’s that bandaid?”
Mixing phrases up creates surprise in your audience, and surprise always grabs attention.
Flipping Cliches
Cliches are tired, over-used phrases and pop songs are packed with them. You can tell it’s a cliche if you offer someone the first few words and find that they can complete the phrase.
For example, complete the two following cliches: ‘Built to…….’ and ‘Fade………’.
You probably came up with some variant on ‘Built to last’ and ‘Fade away’. Taylor’s versions through give us ‘….built to fall apart.’ and ‘Fade into view.’ She’s taking cliches and giving them unexpected endings. Those endings spike our interest.
It’s a simple technique to copy. Find a list of cliches online and play with the endings.
For example, could a lazy person be described as ‘Up at the crack of lunchtime’?
Cliches delivered straight, are boring. Cliches modified are fun!
Confusing Senses
Swift’s final musical twist takes our senses and churns them up. It has us hearing colors, or seeing sounds, as in:
‘….screaming color’ and ‘Kaleidoscope of loud heartbeats’.
It’s called synesthesia, and takes a little getting used to but is worth the effort. The next time you want to describe a sound for example, ask yourself what color the sound might have been. If you want to describe a smell, ask what yourself texture it had. If describing a texture then wonder what flavor you would associate with it. When you play with your senses, you play with your descriptive power.
Over the months to come as tracks from ‘1989’ continue to be released you’re guaranteed to hear people humming the tunes. If you enjoy playing with words and ways to arrange them, spend some time with Taylor Swift.
by Peter Paskale
Thanksgiving morning, and if you’re lucky enough not to be in the kitchen wrestling a turkey, then maybe you’re reclined in front of the TV and watching the floats glide down 6th Avenue.
Thanksgiving is one of the most uniquely American holidays. The day is heartwarming and kind. It’s a day when we eat and drink and watch old favorite movies and cheer in front of afternoon football. It’s a day when we come together as friends and families to celebrate, and to enjoy happy traditions.
One of those traditions however, is the Thanksgiving toast, and for the family member assigned the “honor” of making it, composing that toast can seem more than a little stressful.
Fear not. Whilst watching the Macy’s Parade, you witnessed a floating formula for the perfect Thanksgiving toast.
First, there needs to be a giant Snoopy – that’s something traditional. Then there needs to be a nod to whatever the latest hot children’s character is – that’s something contemporary. And above all, the whole thing needs to be wrapped around in a general feeling of childlike sentimentality – and that’s something heartwarming.
Something traditional. Something contemporary. And something heart-warming — the three essentials for your Thanksgiving toast.
First off – the traditional
This is the easy bit — it’s the most formulaic. There are three things you need to do.
Recall tradition
Express gratitude for the family and friends coming together to celebrate the holiday.
Mention those no longer with us
Are there any significant people who have departed this world in the past year? — GrandPa or GrandMa, Mom or Dad, or Great-Aunt Ethel. It might seem counter-intuitive to mention the dead when you’re aiming for happy, but Thanksgiving lunch is a meal where the dead are present. Those who would once have been at the table but are with you no longer, will be in everyone’s hearts. They need a mention, and the living need to hear those names.
Thank the chef
Move from the dead, straight back into the living. There’s going to be someone vaguely panting, with red-chafed hands and hair awry. Someone who has spent the whole morning stressing in the kitchen. Focus attention on this person, and look them firmly in the eye as you thank them for their labors.
Next – The Contemporary
This bit is slightly trickier. What are you giving thanks for? Everybody present will, hopefully, have something this year that they are proud of, or feel that they would like to mention. This is the moment for audience participation. In our family, we go around the table and everybody says a few words about what they, personally, have been grateful for this year.
Don’t however, just drop this question onto your unsuspecting audience. An awkward silence will be guaranteed to follow. You need to give them warning, so use words such as:
“There have been so many wonderful things this year. Let’s have everybody share just a few words about what they’re thankful for this Thanksgiving.”
As you say this, look to the person sitting beside you, and then cast your glance down the side of the table along which the statements are going to flow. Let the group know what they are meant to do. It’s also a good idea to have pre-informed that first person in the chain about what’s going to happen. That way they are ready to respond. As they are speaking, others will, in turn, be planning what they might like to say.
Finally – The HeartWarming
Two simple techniques create heart-warming:
Slow and smiling
When we become tense, as so many of us do when speaking in public, we gabble. Gabbling creates tension, and tension is the direct opposite of heartwarming. You need to slow your rate of speech just a little, and the best way to do that is to smile. If you’re smiling, then it becomes a physical impossibility to gabble. You’ll look like you’re enjoying the moment, and if the folks around the table believe that you are relaxed, then they’ll be relaxed too.
Lots of “us”. Lots of “we”. Lots of “our”.
It’s scary how often we use “I” and “my” when we’re speaking. Natural speech is more possessive than inclusive, and at Thanksgiving, it all needs to be about inclusive.
As far as you can – aim for pronouns that bring everyone together. Use “we” and “us” and “our”, whilst actively avoiding “I” and “my” and “you”.
This one small but important skill will inject more natural warmth into your speech than the finest and most soaring rhetoric.
Finally, three standard rules that apply — not just to this speech, but to any speech:
Plan what you’re going to say. Practice what you’re going to say. And keep it short! Less than 20 seconds, and it’s a little too short, but more than four minutes, and it needs some editing.
Remember those balloons in the Macy’s Parade. They’re light, and bright, and colourful. That’s what makes the parade such a much-loved tradition, and the same will be true for your Thanksgiving toast!
by Peter Paskale
How do you choose which candidate to vote for? I’ll bet you go into the booth, earnestly scratch your head, and muse:
“Now which of these candidates do I most fervently disagree with? Ah – yes – this guy or gal – they really upset me! I’ll vote for them!”
No? You don’t? Why in that case you must be voting for a candidate that you agree with! It sounds like you might even be voting for someone who agrees with your values! And that makes you, my friend, a Values Voter! And for many of us, this news will come as something of a surprise – not having been invited to that big political summit of our fellow Values Voters that took place this weekend in D.C. Maybe the invite is still in the mail?
Phrases like Values Voter and Moral Majority are badges of political honour, worn with pride by certain sections of the electorate. Look a little closer though and you’ll spot an interesting fact about these terms – they are completely meaningless.
Everybody who votes, votes on their values, and therefore everybody is a values voter.
Most people in this world are moral thank goodness, and therefore there is, of course, a moral majority.
Both labels are truisms – statements that while sounding true and occasionally profound, actually say nothing at all. So how come both of these junk-phrases have gained so much traction?
It’s because they are great political examples of alliteration – the art of taking two words that begin with the same letter and then sticking them side-by-side. Think of “Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers” and you’ve got alliteration taken to extremes by small children. Think of Batman and Robin – the Caped Crusaders – and you have alliteration in comic books. Think of Kit-Kat or Coca-Cola and you have it in famous brands. Think of the mainstream media and you have it in the folks who bring us the news.
Alliteration is everywhere, and it’s function is to create catchy soundbites. When used to denote groups of people however, something a little unpleasant starts to happen. That sheer catchiness creates a profoundly polarising smugness. For example, if you come to think of yourself as being part of the “moral majority”, then your neighbour who possibly doesn’t agree with you, can only be part of an “immoral minority”. If you see yourself as a part of an exclusive sect called “values voters”, then you must have a pretty judgemental view on the voting habits of the rest of us.
A good political alliteration will seize the soundbite and spice a speech. JFK knew this and used alliteration to deliver empowering phrases such as “let us go forth and lead the land we love” and “a grand and global alliance”. More recently though, it seems to be used to divide and conquer.
As we enter the final weeks of campaigning for the mid-terms and many a speech is made, let’s listen out for those alliterations and ask ourselves if this is a phrase designed to inspire the electorate, or to divide us? When we can answer that question, we start to gain insight into the true, unstated values of the candidate.
Voting on the true, interior values of the candidate? Now that’s being a values voter.
by Peter Paskale
It wasn’t a speech. It wasn’t even an address. It was a book report.
Speaking today on the White House lawn as Marine One spooled up it’s engines behind him, President Obama tripped-up the media. What was billed as a ten minute speech on last night’s Syria actions against ISIL, was delivered in just 3 minutes 11 seconds. Obama was already striding back to the White House door before TV news crews even realised that the speech was over.
What happened? For a President whose foreign policy credentials are so often doubted, you would think that he might have wanted to make a little more out of the moment.
What happened was a delicate, if dull, attempt to keep a coalition together. A coalition in Congress, and an unusual coalition in the Arab world. Both are exceptional and crucial.
Lets consider the speech for just one moment. The president paid tribute to the armed forces involved. He paid tribute to the Arab nations who joined the attacks. He laid out the rationale for the attacks. End of story.
We heard no moments of pride, and it was almost devoid of rhetorical flourishes. All of Obama’s usual speech elements were, oddly, missing.
The clues to Obama’s mission in this speech were the words “bipartisan”, which occurred twice, ‘coalition’, which occurred once, and a special-guest appearance by that horribly tired old cliche “shoulder to shoulder”. These four phrases comprised the closest that we could hear to any form of a dominant message, and that message was ‘let’s stay together’.
We did receive one slight rhetorical flourish, and that was when the president used a form that carries the marvellous name of Dirimens Copulatio – it’s the “not only, but also” figure. The purpose of Dirimens is to amplify a point – to make things appear bigger. We heard it in the president’s phrase “…this makes it clear that this is not America’s fight alone.” Again – this is a shove towards that topic of bipartisanship.
It must have been tempting for White House speech writers to incorporate a couple of political point-scorers on behalf of the president. He’s taken such heat in recent weeks and months for a seemingly toothless foreign policy. When we’ve just seen American missiles and jets pounding a repulsive terrorist group, then surely this is the time to notch up at least a couple of political bonus points?
Absolutely not. Had the president attempted to take any form of political credit for last night’s attacks, what would then have happened to that rare bi-partisanship? It would have fractured – both at home, and potentially between the growing coalition of Gulf States.
That’s why we got a book-report on the White House lawn, and not a speech, and for today’s needs that was just what was needed. It will hold the coalition together.
Now let’s see how he does at the UN. Will we get more of the same, or will there be a change of tone?
Over the years, I’ve killed my throat. Or toughened it up – it all depends on your perspective.
You see the thing is – I love spice. Whether it’s black pepper, cayenne pepper, or chilli pepper, I’ll incorporate it into recipes in some of the most surprising, and occasionally inappropriate ways. Just ask anybody that I’ve ever made hot chocolate for.
Over the years though, my taste buds have toughened up to the constant flow of tobasco. It now takes fairly incredible amounts for it to register on me. I’ve developed a tolerance.
In a similar way, our polarised politics and news media means that if you don’t have a really strong opinion, a Scots-Bonnet of an opinion (chilli lovers will know what I mean), then you’re not going to be heard, because audiences too have developed a tolerance for heat.
Then I spotted this piece on the web-site of my friend and fellow blogger, Broc Edwards. That tolerance for polarised heat that we’ve all developed exists in the commercial branding world, and in presentation world as well.
In a world where we’ve all become used to a good dose of chilli with every message, what’s the right amount of heat to be adding to presentations?
I’m fascinated by branding. Not the marking-cows-so-the-don’t-get-rustled kind. The kind of branding that’s about identity and messaging and clear authenticity. How clear? If No One Hates You, No One is Paying Attention. That statement is the title of a great piece by Alf Rehn (@alfrehn), and gets at the heart of branding. Alf reminds us that trying to be all things to all people doesn’t work, despite the legions of businesses that attempt it. It makes sense to know and declare who you are as a business and what you stand for. But the ugly, unmentioned downside is that in doing so you are also declaring who you aren’t and who you stand against.
So truly strong branding is only telling people “Our products are for you. You will like them. You will like what being associated with them says about you. You should buy them.” But it’s also…
View original post 767 more words
Jeanine McDonnell, daughter of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, says that her mother has a “mild obsession” with another man.
Mild lives in detergent adverts. Obsession gets draped around designer perfume. Put the two words together however and you get something that’s… well… kind of interesting. It’s refined and yet ever so slightly dirty. It’s an oxymoron, and in politics, oxymorons get a bad wrap.
Politicians will cry “oxymoron” in the same way that English footballers cry “foul” – usually as a cheap way to distract the referee. The president, for example, was excoriated from the right for the oxymoron of “Leading from behind”, while Sarah Palin took a rough-ride from the left when she mentioned “Conservative feminism”.
Look past the mockery though and maybe there are some interesting ideas being deliberately driven into the shadows by that accusation of the “O” word.
What would a Conservative Feminist actually be like? And how about if stopped to give “Leading from behind” a little of the consideration that John Boehner clearly doesn’t want us to?
Is the cry of “Oxymoron” meant to embarrass us into burying ideas before they’ve even taken their first steps?
Oxymorons aren’t fouls. They’re verbal spice. Oxymorons gave us the most delicious phrase in the English language – “sweet and sour’, which became especially flavourful when combined with the oxymoronic “jumbo shrimp”. Does double the oxymoron equal double the delicious? Definitely maybe.
Oxymorons ever so slightly screw with accepted realities. They slam the right combination of the wrong words together in such a way that can open up whole new lines of thought. Entrenched political interests usually dislike new thoughts, and maybe that’s why oxymorons launch witch-hunts.
Let’s take the phrase “religious freedom”. To a non-believer this is a clear oxymoron – the prescribing of life based on religious dogma is far from freedom. To a believer however, life lived by religious code is not only the direct path to freedom in this world, but also in the next.
Oxymorons tamper with established meanings in a way that can deliciously subversive and that’s why proscriptivists of all stripes hold them in such contempt.
So, long live Conservative Feminism, and here’s to Leading From Behind. Oxymoron is the glorious birthplace of brand-new concepts. The next time you hear somebody levelling the political charge of “OXYMORON”, then find out what it is they’re attacking, and give that very concept some extra thought.
You might find that they’re trying to distract you from something rather interesting.
The Presenters' Blog 