We now know that the  debates will take place in three English cities, upsetting the Welsh and Scots, and that they will be termed “Prime Ministerial”, pleasing Nick Clegg. We also know that some 76 protocols are in place to ensure no-one gets an unfair advantage.

As Dominic Lawson put it, “the effect is to ensure that the entire affair will be characterised by a depressing combination of rigidity and superficiality”. The approach is lifted from America where even Obama in his clash with McCain was “rendered soporifically dull by the rigid entirely unspontaneous format.”

What will this mean for our three contestants? Well rehearsed and prepared, as they each will be, to deliver their prepared statements, debate  for a minute or so, and reply to planted questions, the chances of any competitive advantage from what they say, the policy content, are zero.

So, we will be left with judgement based almost entirely on looks. “Do we like this person?”

 All the non-verbal clues will be in play. Tone of voice, gestures, facial expression, genuine warmth, natural smile, ease of body language, eye contact, all the normal signals of a confident personality but all under threat from the  television camera.

David Cameron has the toughest job. Once  the ‘charismatic telegenic’ performer his aura is diminished along with the Incredible Shrinking Man (Gerald Scarfe cartoon) polling figures.  As the still just-favourite he has most to lose and the temptation will be to try too hard. He needs the confidence to relax and take cues from Bill Clinton at his charming best.

As the least exposed and with no real form, Nick Clegg should go in with confidence high, certain that his freshness will give him an edge. We have little idea of what he stands for so anything he says will seem original. He can, and should come across as the one enjoying himself, so we might enjoy him.

Gordon Brown as ever is unpredictable. Recently his public preparation is the best. The Piers Morgan show and then 4 hours of Iraq enquiry will have fuelled confidence in his newly found ’nice Gordon’ persona. If he can combine the nice with the formidable authority, lacking in both his fresh-faced, ‘inexperienced’ opponents,  the debates will favour him.

 However, for all the protocols and the preparation it would be unfortunate, as Lawson said,” if a close British general election were to be decided by a single cleverly worded put down or an unfortunate behavioral twitch on camera.”  But it could be.

It has just been reported that both Cameron and Brown are hiring consultants who helped Obama to help them as they face  the TV debates, potentially more vital as the gap narrows. Help!

 Their ‘joint’ decisions influenced presumably by the fact that America has done more of it for longer and by the power of ‘brand’ Obama.  But are they both right?

Taking Obama first. His truly great performances have been as orator, calling for very different skills to those of the live debate. No one is challenging, the audience is ‘out there’ ready to be captivated by virtuoso performance, two teleprompters his best friends.

Incidentally, Cameron’s own best so far performance was his famous, leadership winning, ‘no notes’ speech at Blackpool. But the debate calls for something different and although Obama won his against McCain, the competition was not up to much.  Since then his more intimate television interviews have not impressed.

America and Britain being divided by a common language is another reason to treat with caution the Obama victory-claiming consultants. And we still do not know the format for the debates as all sides seek to negotiate the least risky formula.

Given these caveats what should our three reality show contestants be seeking from their learned consultants? Basically, how to be both relaxed and confident enough to be themselves, allowing us the viewers to feel we have met them.

This may well be easier for Nick Clegg. He needs to inject an element of surprise but he  comes across naturally and more conversationally than his rivals.

 For David Cameron it has become more difficult as his constant exposure has left the impression of  someone whose only communication mode is one of  ’finger wagging’ over-emphasis, where charm and the art of conversation come second.

Gordon Brown has survived the bullying barrage and if anything the polls suggest he has benefitted, perhaps because of a glimpse of the real person, however many warts.  As ever when he is bad, he is very very bad, but when he is good then the others should look out.

Perhaps he would do better with Piers Morgan as his consultant.

Last week saw Tiger Woods making the toughest pitch of his life. Tougher than any pitch onto the 18th green to win a major championship! How did he do?

Opinion, and there was lots of it all around the world, was surprisingly divided with generally the golfing press being more forgiving than the rest.

He undoubtedly achieved objective number one to put Brand Tiger back on the map ensuring that when he does return he will be as popular as ever. After all, as the world’s best golfer his spitting and swearing have not alienated his followers. So why should a little sex?

The performance itself was stage managed to the nth degree.  He dressed down to provoke sympathy, and read a carefully crafted speech as if coached by Tony Blair.  As sports journalist Mat Syed wrote, “It had it all, regrets, tears, apologies, dramatic pauses, stern words about privacy even religion”.

Despite all this, for most it was his tone that betrayed him. Although apparently emotional he never lost control.  He lacked ‘any tangible sense of authenticity’. Or, as Kevin Garside put it in the Telegraph, “he spoke with the sincerity of a double glazing salesman”.

Given that he is a perfectionist to whom practice (and presumably rehearsal) is second nature, how did he fail to make any emotional connection with so many viewers? Perhaps it was, that like Blair in the Iraq enquiry,  he was not the least bit interested in ‘us’, the public.

Like Blair, the only audience he was there to appease was corporate America. Not fellow golfers, not the media and not us.

Lorraine Kelly in the Sun caught the feelings of many.  ”Then we have the daddy of them all, the shamed and disgraced Eldrick Woods, (previously known as Tiger), who was badgered into saying sorry for being an arrogant, philandering, smug sleazy git”.

Over this past week many tears have been publicly shed. All, no doubt, reflected genuine private grief. But all with political gain in mind.

 The belligerent Alastair Campbell shed his over harsh words aimed at  Tony Blair, hoping one assumes to dilute criticism at the Iraq enquiry. Jacques Rogge’s tears at the opening ceremony were followed by assigning all blame to the athlete who died and none to the Canadian organisers (who later did make the run safer).

Then, we had an interview with David Cameron getting his tears out just ahead of the week’s  main cri de coeur with Gordon Brown talking to Piers Morgan. Genuine expressions of emotion, but in response to questions publicly orchestrated.

As the live TV debate looms, both appreciate that it is not their policies which will determine the viewers’ response. It is their personalities, or rather their public personae that will strike an emotional chord, or not.

Of the three  contestants Nick Clegg has more natural empathy and nothing to lose so will probably perform best.  Cameron is the polished communicator but  has never reached the heights of his leadership winning speech in Backpool. He needs to offset his ’slick salesmen’ image (56% agree) with  real warmth.

Brown until now has not attempted to let his more human side interfere with getting his convictions across. In the three way debate, with the benefit of the warm-up with Piers, it will be interesting to see  if he lets his emotions show.

If any of them sheds a tear then, as a woman interviewee on the One Show said about men who cry, “…. sweet, it brings out the mothering instincts!”

After days of  media frenzy and ecstatic speculation over the affair of John Terry, ‘legend’, and Vanessa Perroncel, serial lover of England footballers, it came as no surprise that Fabio Capello was the  man who sorted it, seemingly without difficulty, doing so in a mere 12 minutes.

Why were we not surprised since few of us actually know him or what his views are?

First of all is his  iconic body language. Upright, crossed arms, trademark spectacles and a jutting chin, the like of which last seen on Popeye. As one writer put it, ”every small phrase of body language, every facial gesture speaks of professional indignation”. Not since Margaret Thatcher has any high profile person radiated such certainty.

Second, is his power of silence, speaking only when absolutely necessary and then with brevity resisting the need to embellish, to justify. In that 12 minutes with Terry, he only spoke for a few of them. Compare this with his garrulous predecessor  Maclaren whose only memorable gesture involved sheltering under an umbrella.

Interestingly on judgement day both protagonists advised, one by the ubiquitous Max the other by an ex-News of the World editor, tried damage limitation with carefully chosen photographs projecting ‘optimum’ body language.  The normally sultry Perroncel shown demure, grieving, the normally snarling Terry heroic and saintly. Sadly, neither learnt  that silence can be golden.

Lessons from Capello for interviewees or pitchers? Talking too much, not listening to the question, gabbling are common mistakes. So too is forgetting that the way you sit, stand or move will be sending a signal of confidence, or not.

Last week was an important one for this political  X-Factor reality show, where pitching success is all about the Q&A. Setting aside the content, which for the most part held few surprises, how well did the contestants perform?  Did they command the stage? Did they engage with their audience?

For all, the panel was the same. Not exactly Spanish Inquisition nor even would-be Simon Cowells. Deliberately low-key, decently British, they lacked cohesion and with over long preambles gave time for considered response, with less chance of the gaffe.

Last week’s main contestants.

The Spin Doctor, Alistair Cambell. An entirely predictable reprise of his bully boy attack dog in ‘lawful’ defence of his master. Past its sell-by date, as the master no longer has power, and the television show, The Thick of it, is so much better than the real thing.

At least he is not a lawyer. In the words of a sixteenth century proverb,”The devil makes his Christmas pies of lawyers’ tongues”.

Lawyer Number One, Sir Michael Wood used all the right words then and he articulated them again in his replies. He had made the legal position  clear, ”we would not have a leg to stand on”. Regrettably, actions speak louder than words and when ignored he remained silent, remaining in post, rewarded with the gong.  Result, largely ignored again.

Lawyer Number Two, and outright X-Factor Winner was Elizabeth Wilmshurst. Having resigned seven years ago as a matter of principle, she might have been expected to use the enquiry as an outlet for her justifiable outrage. Instead she arrived unburdened with supporting files, composed and almost serene such that her carefully chosen words, ‘like a scorpion’s sting,’ ridiculed this “lamentable” affair. 

Lawyer Number Three, Jack Straw, but not as Wilmshurst scathingly put it “an international lawyer.” Another predictably reasoned performance, smoother and less interesting now lasered, he managed to sit reasonably on the fence both supporting and distancing himself from Blair. His theme song ‘I am a survivor’.

Lawyer Number Four, Lord Goldsmith was “calm and reassuring like chocolate” and  used legalese at its most opaque, sheltering behind his role of looking after ‘my client’, always a good get-out. Except are we not his client? As Quentin Letts put it .. “over-rehearsed tones, his unctuous attempt at modesty, his amazing lack of human sorrow..”

Lawyer Number Five, ex-PM, Tony Blair had as expected mastered his brief, he certainly mastered the panel and as ever displayed his mastery of the art of public performance. Six long hours of sustained brilliance, the strong body language, expressive with his hands, the practised use of his spectacles, the studied pauses for thought and careful acknowledgment of the questioner.

It was all there, a master class apart from one vital ingredient, something that was once his trademark, the ability to make an emotional connection with his audience. This was a cold performance with no Princess Diana moment.

Why? Simple. We are not his audience, he has no need or wish to engage with us. His audience is corporate America where a righteous Rambo commands top dollar, regrets rather less.

Wherever law ends , Tyranny begins” . John Locke.1690

The Foundling one of London’s very best small museums is punching above its weight with its current exhibition  It is well worth a visit . Guardian Online has pitched the story beautifully. The artists,Tracey in particular, talk movingly about how their work is inspired by stories of childhood, loss and abandonement.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2UaYbwa8lQ

 Here is just one of several original works, this one Mat Collishaw’s lightbox, Children of a Lesser God,that have been placed with imagination throughout the museum in vivid contrast to older masters like Hogarth, an original patron of the Foundling Hospital. 

As viewers what we will be hoping for is the gaffe. If there isn’t one we will feel let down. So will the programme producers. It’s the same for live coverage of a Grand Prix where the most compelling viewing is the pile-up at the start. 

Our plucky contestants, of course, are desparately hoping to avoid the gaffe. They know only to well that an entire campaign can be sabotaged by one mistake captured on camera and to be repeated for ever on the net. The stakes are high!

 The format, with restricted questions and interviewers less threatening than Paxman, or the deceptively ‘easy’ Frost (who famously nailed Nixon) is more contestant friendly than in US. However danger lurks. All will be preparing assiduously, studying every debate since Nixon/Kennedy, rehearsing in front of cameras and audiences, with tough interviewers alongside substitute contestants.

They may even seek advice from impersonator Tina Fey, who as Sarah Palin, ”thanked the third graders of Gladys Wood Elementary School who were so helpful in my debate prep.”

The gaffes they may still make will be verbal or, just as damaging non-verbal.

Nixon won his famous debate with Kennedy with the radio audience. He lost it on television because he looked sweaty, tired and shifty. Kennedy looked youthful, confident and sincere.  The first President Bush glanced at his watch and lost the election as Bill Clinton took three paces towards his audience and won it.

Verbal gaffes can be equally devastating. Ford, said “there is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe”. Wrong, and it probably cost him the election. Biden, known as king of the gaffes, managed to plagiarise an entire speech by, of all people, Neil Kinnock. It didn’t work for him either.

So, avoiding the gaffe is a priority but even more important is the way you handle it when you do make one. You can prepare. As always, its not what you say but the way you say it.  The gracious acknowledgment, humour and the prepared remark that diverts.

The master exponent of this was the often forgetful but ever charming, Ronald Regan. In debate with Walter Mondale who, unlike him,  knew what he was talking about, he said “ I am not going to exploit for political purpose my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Even Mondale laughed…and lost.

One of the toughest of all pitch battle grounds is the fundraising arena for charities and good causes. Over 10.000 charities in the UK alone. All of them for a deserving cause. All of them with a powerful emotional call. It is a dog eat dog world -where dogs and pets often fair better than humans!

Succeeding in this intensively competitive space, where everything from rattling of tins to sophisticated direct marketing is a weapon, calls for creativity and originality.  This special award was nominated, and written up, by Hannah Briggs.

ORIGINAL PERFORMANCE IN FUNDRAISING. FRANNY ARMSTRONG.

For Franny Armstrong – the not so stupid director behind ‘The Age of Stupid’, mastering the art of pitching has become critical to her success, not only as a filmmaker but also as a climate change campaigner. Pitching for financial support is one thing however, changing people’s behaviour is quite another.

Having raised over $1.2 million to finance and distribute the film using a business model known as ‘crowd sourcing’ (essentially persuading cinema goers to buy a stake in the film), Franny has now taken a more direct approach to reducing Britain’s carbon footprint.

 The launch of the 1010 campaign in September last year made front page news in the Guardian following her impressive pitch on London’s Southbank. “We’ll be the first species to wipe ourselves off the planet knowingly” said Franny as she urged the public to pledge their allegiance and commit to reducing their carbon emissions by 10% by 2010.

 Another attention grabbing moment included getting Environment Secretary Ed Miliband on loudspeaker whilst on a trip to India and persuading him and his cabinet to sign up there and then. So far 58, 839 individuals, businesses and organisations have joined the campaign and that number continues to grow by the day.

 If the 10% cut is achieved by the end of this year, it looks like Britain should be in good shape for its next big eco pitch - the 2010 climate summit in Mexico. 

RELENTLESS PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE. LOCOG.

Arguably, the pitch of the decade was London’s successful bid for the 2012 Olympics. It was glorious, it was theatre at its most compelling, it had the whole country on the edge of its TV sofas. It was, as Seb Coe said, about making the emotional connection.London 2012. A triumph of emotion.

For the sponsorship team at LOCOG, charged with raising totally unreasonable  sums from the commercial sector, it must have seemed a case of “how the hell do you follow that?”

Their battleground was rocky! The soaring costs, from some £2 billion to £9  billion pounds, not the kind of figures that fill business with confidence. The plum global sponsorships already assigned by IOC. Add to that the always difficult task of demonstrating the value of sponsorship and doing this when the economy had gone into total meltdown!

LOCOG have achieved their own Olympic record, an astonishing £600 million!!

 With the general election now in sight, our three plucky contestants are gearing up for the ultimate TV reality show.  It could be better than anything from Simon Cowell. For them, it is the pitch of a lifetime and who better to help them in their preparation  than Pitch Coach!

This, the first in a series of pitchcoach precepts for our aspiring leaders, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg,  looks at how we the viewers will be judging them. How will we be assessing who is the right one to lead us out of the abyss?

Well, it won’t be on our evaluation of their policies. It will be on our assessment of their performances.

Following Obama’s victory over McCain, in the presidential TV debates in America,  a report in the Sunday Times evaluated them against these  eight criteria: 

1. MASTERY OF POLICY,

2. REBUTTING AN OPPONENT,

3. BODY LANGUAGE,

4. ADAPTABILIY

5. LIKEABILITY,

6. TONE,

7. GAFFE AVOIDANCE,

 8. HUMOUR

Only one of these relates to policy, the content of their answers!  The others are all functions of the way they perform,  of their attitude and of their personalities-or rather as they come across on screen.

As with any pitch, or interview, it will be a question of:  Do we like them? Have they connected with us emotionally?

 But, unlike ‘any’ pitch, millions will be watching. Unlike ‘any’ pitch they are in direct confrontation with their competitors. A single gaffe can undo years of campaigning!

Ideas on preparation,  rehearsals, candidate characteristics,  the interviewers, classic gaffes are all to come in later posts. Meanwhile reader input to the big pitch countdown is welcome!