The sun shone most of the time on the Notting Hill carnival today. Not that rain would have dampened the exuberance. Too many performers have anticipated the day, planning that started the day the last one ended, creating ever more exotic costumes, 100 strong steel band rehearsals,floats louder than ever, building to the fever pitch of carnival. 

 It was an experience anticipated by half a million people. They were not let down. It was joyful, surprising, engaging, vibrant, creative and loud.

 Compare with the average business pitch. Formal, predictable, safe.  And yet this audience too will have arrived with a sense of anticipation,  hoping for a performance that if not loud is surprising, engaging, vibrant and creative.

Next time you pitch, add a touch of carnival!

An article in the Daily Mail, marking the anniversary of Churchill’s “never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many  to so few ” speech, posed the question: could any modern politician have made this speech? Or one like it.

The answer is no. Not because there is not in Britain some smouldering orator waiting to ignite but because there is no situaton so desparate or despairing that calls for such a speech. Great orators greatest performances have been in response to a passionately held need to ‘bring a nation with them’, to change their views.

In the second half of the 20th century the few recognised orators include Martin Luther King- “I had a dream”, J.F.Kennedy- “think not what your country can do for you..” ( imitated by Cameron) and, less happily, Enoch Powell and his infamous “rivers of blood”. This century Obama- “Yes We Can” is the only English speaker seen as a true orator. 

The answer is also no because of the medium. Orators need platforms and audiences not the conversational approach of television. David Cameron’s celebrated ‘no notes’ platform speech at the Blackpool conference, whilst not great oratory, did win him the leadership. Churchill’s platform was, of course radio. Not as we know it today but radio as the nation’s lifeline with a captive and spellbound audience hanging on his every word.

The lively Riverside Studios in London’s Hammersmith are hosting this week  The Opera Festival. It is run by tete-a-tete, an organisation that sets out to help groups and individuals grow as artists. New and experimental performances take place on stage in front of a paying audience.   This not a rehearsal but it is a form of product testing.

The audience are more or less coerced into filling in a feedback form before they leave. The possible  overall ratings range from:  (1) =Sorry. didn’t work for me to: (4) =Bloomin marvellous. Then you can chose any three of;

Challenging.      Passionate.      Loved it.      Unengaging.       Unfinished.       Serious.       Original.       Commonplace.         Not my cup of tea.    Confusing.    Ship-shape.    Ship-wreck.

Listening to ‘funny’ amateur  reviewers discussing their feedback over drinks in the bar made you feel a touch concerned for the would be artists but this was an intelligent and brave exercise. Improvements will come, even if egos suffer in the process.

Pitches are performances yet it is surprising how few companies will put themselves through a similar feedback process.  It is called rehearsal. They are the ones who will be “unengaging” at best and “ship-wreck” at worst.   And “sorry it didn’t work for me”!

Athletics is not a team sport.  Success calls for individuals who are self-motivated to a ridiculous degree and totally selfish, to the point of obsession, in pursuing training schedules that will allow them to achieve the ultimate goal of the PB , the personal best.

 Spear-headed  by Jessica Ennis, who combines astonishing athleticism with steely competitiveness, all the British athletes who performed great feats in Barcelona did so as individuals. Team mates can’t help you jump higher. Well, not usually but this time there was another factor at work. It was camaraderie.

In various interviews, carried out in predictable fashion by the BBC, the athletes paid genuine tribute to the happy sense of team and the unusual level of camaraderie. Even ‘bad guy’ Dwain Chambers, who failed by 1/000th of a second to win a medal, was gracious to fellow team members in defeat.

They all felt this camaraderie, fostered by the ‘tough love’ of Head Coach, Charles van Commenee,  boosted individual performance. Compare and contrast with Capello and England’s so called ‘team’ in South Africa!

In any good business developing camaraderie is a given.  Sharing the adrenaline of competitive pitching is a great way of doing it.

Who is the best actor? Someone who knows both of them well says that it is their acting skills, demonstrated in their youth, that set them apart from their political rivals.

Gordon Brown might be cleverer but it was Tony Blair who knew how to  hold an audience, who understood that it was not what you said but the way you said it that that made the emotional connection, that projected likeability. This  won over voters. Brown never seemed to get this and believed his words and conviction were enough. Performance was beneath him.

 David Cameron is a lot better actor than Brown but not as good as Clegg. That is why in that all important first television debate Clegg won the viewer vote  so convincingly. This was a highly staged piece of theatre where acting skills allied to carefully prepared ’spontaneous’ scripts and professionally directed rehearsal played to his strengths.

Both  turned in superb performances in the famous  press conference in the Rose Garden at No 10, described as ‘like a light romantic comedy with male leads played by Hugh Grant and Colin Firth’. (No acid reference to Brokeback Mountain!)  Since then in the world of day-to-day politics and spontaneous interviews Clegg’s relative lack of  political savvy and leadership are  now evident, but it was  performance  that got him there.

In business pitches one of the commonest errors  is that of focusing on content at the expense of performance. Be a Clegg, not a Gordon!

The exaggerated outpourings of national fervour that are the World Cup are captured by the television cameras  through the teams, predictable shots of delirious fans and the ubiquitous managers. Their every facial expression and gesture framed on our screens.  

 For Argentinians, for whom football is a deep part of the national pschye, it must have been some consolation to know that their manager, the almost magical Maradonna, felt the pain as deeply as they did. An Argentinian crying for Argentina.

 Now try sharing a  national sense of grief with this pair. One a cool undemonstrative Swede, the other a hot demonstrative Italian. One already moving on from the unlucky (to have chosen him) Ivory Coast, the other, lucky for him not us, to continue in his post, too expensive to fire.

How much better if we felt the manager cared, really cared, as we do, and that he was motivated more by patriotism  than money.  Whether we fail  next time or, who knows, succeed, it will be so much more satisfying with a Harry Redknapp or a Roy Hodgson.

When the pressure is really on body language is usually an accurate indicator of who is really up for it and who is not.  We saw this last week!

Winners include  David Cameron  and George Osborne. Both have visibly grown into their new roles. Cameron already looks and acts the part on the world stage, exuding confidence. Osborne handled the toughest of budgets, the speech and the interviews, with genuine poise and control. Impressive.

Two relatively unknown tennis players, Iszner and Mahut, handled eleven hours of unbelievable competitive pressure, one with a deliberate high energy demonstration, the other in energy conservation mode.  But both, as the close-ups showed, were  in their own  zones of focused unyielding determination. Unreal!

Compare this with the week’s (very big) losers.

Capello a few short weeka ago looked like a winner. Strong, silent, standing tall with arms folded, a man in command. Since arriving in South Africa he has been a changed man. Angry words, increasingly manic, and mystified, body language. He no longer looked a winner.

Much the same happened to the team. They never looked as if they were thrilled or delighted to be taking part and that was before they went on the pitch. The words spoken were either unpleasant petulance, Terry, or subdued mumbles, Lampard. The only one who looked positive was James once reinstated!

On the pitch you did not need to know the score to tell they were losers.

As Obama removes the bust of Churchill from the Oval office, yet another petulant anti- British gesture, it is interesting to compare the two leaders. Whilst the threat of invading oil slicks is not quite that of invading Germans, the pressure is on.

When we first came to know and admire Obama it was through his power as an orator during the election campaign and at his inauguration. Great words allied to strong storytelling, compelling body language, commanding voice and and mastery of the twin teleprompters allowing him to ‘look’ with confidence from side to side.

Today he is diminished as a comminicator. Caught between oratory and the demands of  the press conference he does not have the easy confidence of a Clinton, his words lack authority and too often rely on the convenient whipping boy, BP/ Britain, to score cheap points. He looks less of a leader.

Churchill only had radio, and no teleprompters.

Spellbinding words and still today spine-tingling delivery.  These are the final speaking notes for that speech and it is fascinating to see that, without the help of media consultants and a bevy of scriptwriters, Churchill knew how to prepare.

The speech went through two drafts, the first dictated to his secretaries, then revised in longhand and  put into blank verse for emphasis and rhythm. Try reading it aloud yourself.  See how the layout of the words brings pitch and pace and pause to your delivery.

You may not be a Churchill but neither is Obama.

As the host country South Africa have worked wonders in presenting their Rainbow Nation to the world. Stunning scenery, brilliant stadiums (all with better grass than Wembley), vivid colours, a joyous vibrant welcome all adding up to a sense of enormous  pride and optimism of a country on the move.

Sadly, and this is true for all host countries, as we get into the sport itself  ’brand’ Africa starts losing out. Our screens are filled with images of the football where the inside of one stadium is much like any other and the ubiquitous pundits much as they are in any Match of the Day. The very ordinary England/USA game could have been anywhere.

This where the vuvuzela comes in! 

 It has been described as sounding like a lovesick elephant and at the opening cremony some 80,000 of them, at 127 decibels, were louder than a jet taking off.  Ear plugs are being sold at stadium entrances, broadcasters have complained but FIFA, in a rare moment of good sense, have not banned them.

As one fan said “it represents our country, its what we’re about”. Or, as Dan McDougall in the Sunday Times put it “this cacophony of sound that has become the symbol of this World Cup”.

When the predictable pundits have finished being predictable and the last controversial football has been kicked,  the  sound of the vuvuzela will long remind us how this World Cup really was different.

Could pitches use sound to greater effect?

 Two stories have dominated front pages over the last few weeks. BP’s attempts to stem the oil and England’s preparation for the World Cup. One is about a disaster that is real. The other about a possible disaster that is not. 

This is the face of the man who is trying to reassure the world, particularly America, that things will be alright. He is not succeeding. Partly, of course, because no-one knows yet what will work. But partly because he simply does not look the part. He does not inspire confidence  and some ill-chosen words have not helped.

This is the face of the man who is trying to reassure us that, despite Rio’s Knee, things will be alright. He is succeeding. Wisely, he  says little so that there are few ill-chosen words. But, as Hugh McIvanney writes in the Sunday Times, “he has an aura of the formidable…” Against our better judgement we are reassured.

Such is the power of body language. Capello is paid some 50% more than Hayward, but now that Inter have dropped out perhaps BP should make him an offer.