Invented in 1967 , not by Einstein but another Albert, surname Mchrabian, the long accepted presentation formula of  “7% words: 38% tone: 55% body language” is dead.

A  campaign, ’Why the stickiest idea in presenting is just wrong’, is dominating the presentation blogosphere. Spearheaded by the admirable Olivia Mitchell, www.speakingaboutpresenting.com  it spells out the weaknesses.  Not least is the basis of the thesis, a limited study based on responses to single words such as ‘brute’ or ‘maybe’.

From this flimsy starting point the formula became ‘fact’.

Given that it cannot, when considered in isolation, make sense- words and content clearly are more than a mere 7%-  why has its use been so widespread?  My own non-scientific, non Albertian, view based on rehearsing teams for business pitches offers this explanation.

Once the invitation to pitch is received, the almost inevitable tendency is to focus every bit of effort to developing the words, the content, of the response.  Can the proposal be improved, is the fee expressed well, have we covered off our credentials and so on.

Too often, a feverish  determination to perfect the words, the content, means little if any time is left to consider the pitch performance. Rehearsal is ignored. No time is spent on assessing the likely impact on the audience.

This is where the “formula” can be a shot across the bows to  help a team realise that, no matter how good their words, they will suffer from poor performance. Words just aimed at an audience like bullets of proclamation rather than in, say, a tone of engagement and sharing, will backfire.

Words, however brilliant, expressed with poor body language will undermine any sense of teamwork and, worst of all, signal a lack of confidence.

Perhaps the “formula” should be replaced with this?  Words =good. Words+tone =better. Words+tone+body language =best.

Or, with these brilliant words  from Proverbs ch. 25, v.17:

 ”A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in  pictures of silver”.

When the Commons officials released their version of MP’s expenses, it is doubtful that they realised quite how powerful a visual aid they had created. It’s appearance across acres of newsprint resuscitated what had almost become yesterday’s story.  Almost.

The impact of the heavy black rectangles has been dramatic. They have given new life and drama to the story. They have added emphasis and stimulated fresh interest.

In fact, they have performed the way visual aids in any presentation should, adding to the communication takeout.  Too often so-called visual aids are crutches that only aid the speaker, little more than aide-memoire notes. They do not aid the audience.

Creating powerful visual aids takes thought and imagination. A striking emotional picture, a brutally explicit graph, product samples, a memorable quote or a redactive black rectangle!

Or as it transpired on the day, not. Nevermind, it was a classic Sun headline last week, worthy of the great tradition set by Kelvin McKenzie in the paper’s heyday. It represented something of a fightback by the tabloids, struggling in the wake of the Telegraph whose headlines have dominated for the last three weeks.

For newspapers and magazines, the great eyecatching headline is the point of sale pitch. Some more from the Sun. ‘PORNOCCHIO’. ( Heather Mills)  ‘UP YOUS DELORS’.  ‘PIGS ‘ERE’ (swine fever).  ‘YOU CAN’T QUIT QUICKER THAN A THICK QUICK QUITTER’  ( commended by the Poet Laureate!).

The headline acts to differentiate in a competitive situation. Yet in most pitches and presentation documents, there is little attempt to differentiate through a memorable title, something that will make it stand-out and easier to remember.

Why? Perhaps because so much effort goes into the content, with changes right upto the last minute, that no time is left to create the ’selling’ title. A mistake.

The latest in a seemingly unending series of reality TV programmes is The Speaker on BBC2. The format is unsurprising.  A panel of three pundits chosen, presumably for their wit and expertise. In this case Jo Brand, not particularly funny here, Jerry Stockwell(who?) and John Amachi, very tall.

The contestants are teenagers who deliver the 60 second speeches they have sweated over. There are the obligatory cuts backstage to mums , who clearly know the words better than their offspring, and who suffer every forgotten line.

From a pitchcoach point of view , what was interesting was the way the pundits assessed the speeches.

Even though the contestants had clearly spent considerable effort in crafting and writing the speeches, the judges  made virtually no reference at all to the content,  the subject matter or the cleverness of construction.

They were looking for ‘inspiration’, ‘confidence’ and ‘conviction’.  The better performers were complimented on their ‘energy and passion’, their ‘emotion and warmth’, ’storytelling, light and shade’, ‘presence and manner’ and so on.

In other words, confirming the often repeated here, ‘it’s not what you say, its the way you say it’.

For the record, my tips for success from the second programme, are Kim, who was superb in delivering her Rosa Park speech, and the delightful ‘Geek’.

This post is prompted by what happened to a friend recently.  She wrote a highly entertaining and thought-provoking book only to have it published under a dull and thoughtless title,  the publisher’s thoughtless  decision.  It will not have helped sales.

Anyone who caught Stewart Lee’s  Comedy Vehicle, on BBC2  on Monday, was lucky, it was brilliant, and would have seen him  pour scorn on celebrity authors, and their  titles, in his take on “Books”.

Discussing Russell Brand’s My Booky Wook, Lee’s feeling is that you can either read it and dismiss it as rubbish, or dismiss it as rubbish first, to save yourself the trouble.

He is even more derisive about DJ  Moyles. ‘The sequel to The Gospel According to Chris Moyles is The Difficult Second Book, a title “with a degree of irony and self-awareness largely absent from the text”.  Moyles, he told us, writes that he would like it to be seen as a great toilet book.  “Ah, the vaulting ambition of the writer”.

Compare these junk food titles with with one of utter brilliance.  Gil Holcombe, a divorced mother of three, living on a tiny income, who had not written before, has had her first book published:

How to Feed Your Whole Family a Healthy Balanced Diet with Very Little Money and Hardly Any Time, Even If You Have a Tiny Kitchen, Only Three Saucepans (One with an Ill-Fitting Lid) and no Fancy Gadgets - Unless You Count the Garlic Crusher.

The book has become a publishing phenomenon, selling 30,000 copies  since October!

The majority of business pitches, and the  documents,  make do with the unsurprising: ‘ The  Such and Such Project.  A presentation by the So and So Company.’  Not inspiring and not differentiating.  A creative title will stand out and be remembered.

These thoughts were developed from the Best Practice guide and are now on www.gorkanapr.com

It’s not what you say, it’s the way you say it.

Pitching calls for performance. You’re putting on a show that is scripted to highlight key points, lifting and reinforcing your proposition. People are the heroes not the charts!

The document you submit should contain the detailed answer to the brief and satisfy the rational evaluation. Pitching is about the emotional response.

Be aware of the relative effect of purely verbal (content) versus non-verbal communication. Only 8% is verbal, 92% is tone and body language.

Tell’em…

“Tell’em what you’re going to tell’em. Tell’em. Tell’em what you’ve told’em!”

Listening to a presentation is hard work so you owe it to your audience to make it easy.

This means being highly selective in what you say, not just condensing the document. What must they remember? What are the differentiating elements of your proposal?

To decide, read and re-read the brief. Then review against your insight into the decision takers. Who influences them? How will they judge? What are their issues?

Structuring your content.

Think of the pitch as a play or opera. Start with a surprise opening or overture (“you never get a second chance to make a first impression”) before setting up your theme.

‘Signpost’ the way you will develop this theme under three main sections, or ‘acts’. Then develop each act with three/four supporting strands (scenes) clearly signposted.

Summarise each act before moving to the next, arriving at a your conclusion or proposed action. Finish on emotional, from the heart, no charts, call for the business.

Dramatis personae.

The people on stage are the heroes. Good rehearsal time is your best investment and is never wasted. In first rehearsal check content for clarity. Are signposts working? Are visuals aids not crutches? Are you a team not a sequence?

In the second rehearsal, work on tone and body language. Who sits where? Look for movement, energy and interaction within the team and with the prospect.

In the final rehearsal, aim for more naturalness and ease. Foster a genuine sense of team. You are no longer’ talking at’ but listening and engaging one on one . With confidence!!

Pitch an experience.

At its best staging a pitch is theatre. It calls for an idea that creates an experience, not a predictable presentation sequence. It calls for story-telling not death by PowerPoint.

It calls for a decision early in the process to do something special, leaving time to be imaginative, time to prepare and time to rehearse.

It calls for an emotional connection.

The Best Practice Guide titled Content and Staging covers this subject in more detail together with what I find to be a useful diagram for ‘visualising’ the shape and content of the pitch.

Over the last few days it has been difficult to escape news that Malcom Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point and Blink, is in town to promote his new book, Outliers: The Story of Success.  Amongst the sometimes eulogistic coverage, was a three pager in last Sunday’s Observer Review headlined, “Is this the world’s most influential thinker”?

Whether you believe this or not, he certainly provokes thought and this evening will be talking to an audience at the Lyceum Theatre, where for a day he replaces the less demanding Lion King.  It was in an interview in Time Out, discussing his talk, that the areas of agreement were apparent.

A recurring theme here has been the encouragement  to use storytelling more and powerpoint less.  Discussed in the last post ’ Please tell us a story’  and  in the  Best Practice  Guide, Staging and Content.  This is what the great thinker had to say:

“I won’t be singing” Gladwell confirms, “I will tell a story unadorned. No visual aids.” A firm believer in the axiom  ”Power corrupts, PowerPoint corrupts absolutely,”  Gladwell favours old school narrative tecniques where performance is concerned.

“PowerPoint has destroyed storytelling, so I pledge there will be no PowerPoint.  It’s going to be very nineteenth century………..We’ll try and tell a story with a beginning, a middle and an end.”

Great minds..

We all know the old adage ” a picture is worth a thousand words” and yet when it comes to preparing presentations it’s too often a case of words, words, words with the occasional visual as an afterthought. They  can either take the form of endless points crowded on one chart or an endless number of uninspiring charts with a few ‘bullet’ points.

Both approaches can be pretty soulless. They are sometimes the result of laziness where a narrative document has been condensed into powerpoint format. Or, they act as a security blanket for the nervous or unprepared presenter. Some may read the charts word for word, (with the audience almost certainly reading ahead). Others, even tougher to follow,  go off chart to be ‘interesting’  and lose the audience altogether.

A handful of imaginative visuals, with a few words, can turn dullsville into communication.

Two arresting front covers this week sparked off this observation. The Spectator has a cartoon-style illustration of Boris Johnson careering along on his bike, with passenger  David Cameron hanging on for dear life. The words, scarcely needed, “full speed ahead to number 10″. But who will get there first?

The other is a classic Private Eye. A picture of Cherie Blair, flanked by Richard and Judy, all three with the trademark Cherie grin and the speech bubble “I stabbed Gordon in the book”. Brilliant.

There was a lively skirmish in the battle for London the other night with all three combatants fielding questions , live in front of the TV cameras, with Andrew Neil the tough interragator. A demanding pitch arena for even the most experienced performers. How well did they do?

Rather than listen to what they were saying I turned down the sound and focussed on their body language.Apparently, the way we respond to communication is such that only 8% is purely down to the verbal content the rest of our reponse is formed by the non-verbal, tone and visual.

Brian Paddick looked composed, correct posture, reasoning, every inch the upright police officer. What he did not appear, to me anyway, was passionate.

Ken was interesting. At first glance the familiar fluency with the expected hint of the pugnacious. Not thrown by even the difficult questions. However he seemed less engaged ,somewhat as if going through the motions , someone who has done this so often it no longer challenges.

By contrast Boris had shrugged off ‘Mr Johnson’ (see last post) and was more like his ebullient self. But , it seemed to me with important differences. His hair had been trimmed, sort of, the result being you could see his eyes, which flashed real anger at times. Overall his body language was that of a tougher and more determined Boris who really hungers for the job and has the steel to do it.

Everyday as viewers we can choose to watch any one of around ten or so mainstream news programmes. How do they compete for our custom?

It would be reassuring to think that it is through the quality of the content, depth of coverage and incisivness of the reporting.All of these are important and must be delivered at a reasonable  (rational) level but for most of us do not determine our choice.

Our choice is  largely  our emotional response to the personality of the programme and that in turn is our response to the people fronting the news. Do we connect with the almost parental reassurance of Sir Trevor,the cool elegance of Fiona Bruce., the directness of  Huw Edwards or the intimacy of Natasha Kaplinski?

At Five, clearly, the decison to pay one million pounds for their ‘anchor’ shows their understanding of pitching. It’s the way you say it that matters and the anchor is not just someone who fronts but someone who connects with the audience.