The recent exhibition on Modern Day Slavery deserved a ”best ever” accolade for three good reasons. The first of these being  that it  was in was the right place.  After all where else would you be, if you want to reach MPs to alert them to slavery in Britain, than the House where the slave trade was abolished in 1807?

However, permissions to this hallowed place are not easily come by and time to build comes a poor second to the demands of division bells. Tradition, winding corridors and impressive staircases combined with stringent security regulations present seemingly unsurmountable barriers. An irresistible “we shall overcome” approach of  the  head of the Human Trafficking Foundation, Anthony Steen, prevailed.

The next positive was the way the exhibition ‘commanded the space’ ( see previous post).  In the vastness of the House of Commons, with its lofty ceilings and the ‘weight’ of history, most exhibitions are  lost, diminished and apologetic. Not this one. An ambitious structure , designed cleverly to work  in the venue of the Upper Waiting Hall stood out and demanded the attention of  MPs, scurrying along endless corridors of power.

 And to cap it all there was a singleminded idea, so often absent from pitches like this.  Capturing the essence of the slavery problem, that it is invisible and secret with slaves fearful of talking,  the theme, “The Hidden Agenda”, was compellingly brought to life.

 Display panels with headlines like “Hide and Seek-for children this is not a game”, text reinfocing the hidden nature with curtains, crates and doors hiding the poignant stories. Together with actors role playing victims, the message  to MPs was unmissable- there are slaves hidden in your constituencies .

The result?  A positive reaction from the many MPs who had the chance to meet a number of former slaves (no longer hidden) and, most importantly, a ringing endorsement from David Cameron. He promised personal support to an initiative aiming to take slavery from hidden to exposed, moving it up the political agenda.

For more on slavery, www.humantraffickingfoundation.org

One of the first things drummed into aspiring actors is the need ‘to command the space’. They learn that this calls for stage craft and it calls for emotional intensity and presence. It is the latter that tends to distinguish the great from the good.

Everything has now been written about Margaret Thatcher. As an orator she does not compare with Obama. She could not work a room like Clinton who made whoever he was talking to feel like the only person who mattered. A skill he can also bring to the public stage. Nor did she have the folksy charm of the great comunicator, Ronald Regan - a special relationship.

 However in her inimitable (but much imitated) way she was a hugely effective communicator. She had a sense of drama and was tuned to the theatre of politics. She, more than any of her rivals, knew how to command the space. Whether the conference platform, the Front bench, a television studio or a walk-about she commanded the audience expectation before she spoke.

 As a supreme professional she worked hard on the craft, playing brilliantly her take on ‘woman in a man’s world’. She fashioned a signature look of suits, blouses, hairstyle and handbag. As journalist Liz Jones wrote: “She proved you didn’t have to dress like a man to be powerful….always feminine, always meticulous about her appearance…said to have invented power-dressing yet her look was always controlled. This was not vanity, it was focus, her attention to her image.”

The same focus embraced advice from the ablest communication experts Gordon Reese, Tim Bell and Maurice Saatchi,  pioneered the photo opportunityof hard hats and boiler suits (plus handbag) and handled  the tough task of modulating her voice. She created the most recognisable political brand since Churchill.

And that’s what powerful brands do. They command the space- on shelves, on table tops and in the high street- and people reach out for them first, confident in what they offer. The truly great brands however are built on more than craft. Take Nike where an attitude, first expressed as”just do it,” has inspired global success.

Margaret Theatcher’s craft played its part, right down to the handbag, her Nike swoosh. But it was, of course, through her personality and presence that she exerted such command.

 ”She conquered the word through the passionate strength of her conviction.”

On March 13th we heard that the little known Cardinal Jorge Begoglio, 76 years old, from Agentina was to be Pope Francis. When he first appeared on that balcony, looking somewhat pensive, we did not know the now familiar ‘back-story’. He takes the bus, cooks for himself and lives in a small flat… He had been given only 70 minutes to prepare to meet the world.

He then made the greatest first impression in history!

The ‘crowds in St Peter’s Square went crazy’. The billions viewing seemingly made their minds up, instantly, that they liked, even loved this man and read in him a new style for the Church, a welcome change in attitude and behavior. All this within a few minutes.

It may have been God given, but it was communication artistry as well.

His so well chosen first words “Brother and Sisters - Buona sera” , so simple, but totally unexpected from a Pope, captivated us and gave him a relaxed start. He smiled naturally and often, non Pope-like. His gestures were also natural and open without ceremony. He used story telling and gentle humour- about his selection: ”And it seems they went almost to the ends of the earth to find him. But we’re here”.

He  paused and took his time,  engaging in a gentle one-on-one conversation not delivering a speech to the watching millions. He ended by wishing us all “Buon pranzo”- Have a good lunch. And smiled again.

As the saying goes, you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression. Pope Francis knew this.

My last post discussed intensity as a quality essential to the approach and preparation of a winning pitch. Charm is the magic ingredient, on the day, which can carry an average pitch and without which you lose however good the pitch.

UKIP is enjoying  success as it emerges as the country’s third most popular party. Some of this success is down to the failings of its rivals but much of it is down to the undeniable charm of leader Nigel Farage.  His charm makes the unpalatable easier to swallow. In G2, Decca Aitkenhead described him as “..charismatic, funny, indefatigably good-natured and essentially cheerful  towards absolutely everyone…”

While Farage, who keeps on smiling in the face of the most hostile interviewer, may be more gifted,  the reality is that most people excercise charm as part and parcel of the working relationships in their daily lives. Except when they pitch.

Being naturally charming takes a back seat as worry -about content/last minute changes/checking the charts/hand-overs/time keeping/looking good/eye contact/gaffs - takes over and charm is reduced to false bonomie, exaggerated enthusiasm and ingratiating niceness.

If you don’t want to use Farage as your role model, check out Thesauraus which gives some 40 alternatives words for ‘charming’. Here are some of them to bring  to your next pitch:

 ”captivating, engaging, enjoyable, attractive, engrossing, charismatic, irresistible, fascinating, winning and likeable”

If they don’t like you they won’t buy you. To be more likeable, rehearse. The more you do so, the more confident you get. The more confident you are the more your naturally charming self takes over.

Intensity as a concept is most commonly associated with the world of physics not that of business. It is however common in sport at the highest levels. In training it can be a quantifiable measure of performance, as say in the percentage of maximum repetitions in a session.  (A little publicised effect of ’doping’ is the added ferocity it lends to training)

In the pitch battle of competition intensity alone can be the winning difference. In tennis, think Djokovic.

In rugby, think of England’s victory over the ‘unbeatable’ All Blacks. This is what Owen Farrell had to say after the match: ”There was an intensity there which we kept ramping up, ramping up. Once you get a feeling like that as a side, it’s hard for the opposition to shake you from it. The whole team was biting for a chance to show what we could do.”

Successful pitching demands intensity. In the preparation and on the day. Few will disagree with this but may argue that, unlike professional rugby players whose only concern is the match itself, they have to manage ‘intensity’ while dealing with clients, operations, the daily demands of business survival.

This is a problem everyone faces. The time to worry is if your competitors bring more intensity to the table. Perhaps lessons can be learnt from Jessica Ennis. Among her myriad talents, intensity is so often what gives her the edge. Year in, year out, she has to bring training  intensity not to one but to seven different disciplines. On the day (two of them) she has to stop, start ,warm up, start again, focus again, for seven fierce pitches!

No wonder Ennis says: “people don’t understand the difficulty and intensity of competition.” (As a one time high hurdler, who found managing intensity in a single discipline more than enough, I can only marvel.)

Most will agree that effective communication is much more than the words alone. While the formula that claims words on their own account for only 8% of the effect - with body language at 55%, expression/tone 35% - is disputed, the general principle holds. Body language matters!

The recent 3 part BBC2 series on The Dark Charisma of Adolf  Hitler was a reminder that  part of his undeniable impact as an orator was his remarkable body language.  The stacccato rhetoric was combined with the savage chopping gestures of a martial arts exponent smashing bricks with bare hands. Powerful visual impact, brutal, effective and ugly.

By way of complete (!) contrast, look at Graham Norton. One of the most popular and talented performers on television, with a  razor sharp wit. But what sets him apart and lifts his audience (and his ratings) is his exuberant body language. He races across stage to greet guests, leaps into the audience or lolls dramatically from his chair.  Exaggerated, engaging and good.

You will find bad body language in evidence in too many pitches and presentations. People whose gestures and expression are lively in everyday conversation assume stilted and restrained behavior. Some of this is down to nerves but much of it is brought on by fear of forgetting the words, the not-so-important words. Content winning out over performance.)

You don’t have to be an Adolf or a Graham, but rehearsing to an audience -one person will do- asking for critique on your body language will help you find your natural, expressive good self!

Tarzan has swung back into action. As the Mail said: “Still bursting with ideas at 79, Michael Heseltine makes many ministers half his age look burnt out by comparison…. If this near-octogenerian has infected them with one ounce of his dynamism, he has done us all a service.”

His Growth report, like the man, is bursting with ideas. Whether you agree with them or not, and whether Cameron can act on any of them or not, is almost secondary to the sheer impact of the energy he brings onto the scene.  Interviewed on Radio 4, it was this sense of energy, rather than any particular remark, that made you feel optimistic that some positive change was in the air.

Right now few politicians are blessed with conspicuous energy. Although more energetic than most, David Cameron’s is being sapped by infighting and incompetence and Obama’s dipped, perhaps disasterously, in the first television debate.

And yet in any pitch, political or business, energy is fundamental to success.

In his remarkable book, It’s Not How Good You Are. It’s How Good You Want To Be, the great Paul Arden wrote: “energy is 75% of the job, if you haven’t got it, be nice”. 

To your audience you are never more interesting than when you start, when you enter the room or stand up, when you first speak. This first impression is often the deciding one and all that follows merely confirms this first instinctive reaction. (Obama overlooked this in the first  television debate as he came on stage looking a loser. He did not recover from it.)

Most of us can readily state that this first impression is formed in as little as 30 seconds and yet will often spend even less time in its preparation.  This is not laziness as most  pitches enjoy ferocious and often frenetic effort from everyone. The fault lies in the misguided determination on the never-ending quest to improve content- at the expense of preparing the vital opening

Before launching into the agenda, your compelling proposition or creative solution, you and your team should ‘take the stage’  with an introduction that creates an impression, an impression that raises anticipation among your audience that they will enjoy meeting you and be positively surprised by what follows.

There is no magic formula to an opening . It’s a quesion of deciding you will make a lasting first impression, allowing time to be imaginative and then rehearsing to check the impression you intend is working. However some clues can be found in a recent TED/ED video-The power of a great introduction. 

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0_u-lourd0

In this Carolyn Mohr discusses the writing of a thesis but many of her suggestions apply to the pitch. The most relevant is the advice to develop your introduction last!  By then you know what you are trying to set up and the first, and last, impression you need.

Two political performers surprised last week, one for the better and one for poorer. Ed Milliband must have read my last post Reading is not communicating. Or perhaps he remembered that David “no notes” Cameron changed his fortunes with the memorable address in Blackpool that won him the Tory leadership.

His 65 minute speech lacked substance and if he really wants to bring “nation” alive he should look at Matin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’.  However deciding to deliver the whole thing from memory, with no notes to hand, was a masterstroke. Not reading freed him up to be himself, to be more natural in his body language and uninhibited, letting his feelings and his passion show. The response has been dramatic. He is, at last, seen as a leader.

By total contrast, President Obama, leader of the most powerful country in the world, was seen as a loser the moment he set foot on the stage to debate with Romney. He seemed unaware that first impressions count looking listless and dejected, clearly wanting to be somewhere else. It got worse as he constantly looked down at his feet rather than confront his opponent.

The other contrast was in the preparation. One  prepared, the other didn’t. Milliband realised he needed to make a different impact and worked at making it happen, not least the impressive memorising of his entire speech, rehearsing several times. Obama must have known that TV debates can be lost on looks  (Nixon/Kennedy!) but was not prepared and his body language  let him down. Apparently, like Nixon, he won the radio audience. Little consolation for a tv debate.

One of the more desultory scenes on our television screens is the typical dabate in Parliament. Rows of empty green leather benches, a few disinterested MPs lounging around, attending from duty not interest. The cut and thrust of lively debate and fierce argument shaping our futures is not evident.

While procedure can be blamed for many of the no-shows, much of the blame lies with the MPs themselves, specifically their lack of any pride in performance. They come fully prepared with their statements, ready for the Speaker’s call to give them their moment in the spotlight, for many the only moment.  Then they produce a sheath of papers and start reading - and losing their audience!

As politicians most will have above average communication skill and yet, in extremis, they fall back on reading their words, forgetting that for the listener this makes them boring and almost impossible to listen-to. It might be ok for radio but across the chamber, or a table come to that, the read presentation is a no-no.

Quite often the politician, or presenter, knows their short 2-3 minute statement by heart and the excuse for the notes is as a ’security blanket’ in case of  nerves . In practice they will read them because they are there!  Dont take the speech with you. if you need brief aide memoire note, structure your speech (’rule of three’, for example) with a few signposts to keep you on track.

And if you absolutely must read,  look up at the start and end of each sentence and only down in the middle. That way you are not apparently ‘dismissing’ your own communication.