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?

In any pitch, no matter how apparently mundane, when push comes to shove it is not the clever solution or the carefully crafted argument that wins the day. It is the sense of theatre that captures and makes the emotional connection with the audience.

Fine words are important, yes, but it is the look, the feel and the tone, just as in drama, that make the lasting impact.  Cameron and Clegg understood this in what was a make or break first joint press conference.

” The extraordinary press conference in Downing Streeet’s rose garden could have been directed by Richard Curtis, a light romantic comedy with the male leads played by Hugh Grant and Colin Firth”.(Sunday Times).

It was calculated performance. Calculated to make us feel good, after days and months of uncertainty, about them, the coalition and, for a while anyway, the future. And it worked. They understood that in any pitch the judges, us in this case, are  thinking ‘Do I like these people? Do they like each other?’

What happens in too many pitches is that teams are so concerned about getting the words absolutely right that they concentrate on this at the expense of performance. Their natural likeability is diminished, enthusiasm becomes forced and  confidence falters. 

All pitches call for some level of theatre that allows personality to make an impact and this in turn calls for rehearsal.

Only through rehearsal can you work on the dynamics of the team and see how people ‘come across’  as opposed to simply ‘what are they saying’.

And, rehearsal makes nice people nicer!

And finally a review of ten factors critical to pitch success and who handled them best.

1. Mastery of content

Agree with their policies or not you have to admire the levels of preparation from all three. All were impressively fluent in articulating their policies, responding to anticipated but genuine questions and then entering debate, albeit restricted. A draw.

2.Strong opening

The first, history-making, debate was ‘made’ by Clegg’s powerful opening. With the element of surprise on his side, his ease in front of the camera and his clever opening statement he set out his different positioning and paved the way for his successful performance.

3.Eye contact

It may not be fair but some people, and Clegg is one of them, are naturals in front of the camera so we the viewers ‘got’ the eye contact and this gave him the visceral connection, and thus the levels of preference.

4.Body language.

In the first debates but less so later Clegg’s easier and more open relaxed body language added to his likeability. Brown’s relentless punching for emphasis was not attractive. Cameron’s strong gestures became less aggressive . 

5. Humour.

Best advice is not to tell jokes, unless you are a comedian. Brown isn’t. All three were light on showing even a slight sense of humour. The debates were heavygoing. (The temptation to switch over to Have I Got News For You proved too much at one point)

6. Gaffe avoidance

To the bitter disappointment of the media, and most viewers, there was no Richard Nixon moment, if you discount Alastair Stewart’s rather odd shouting in the first debate. (Dimbleby easily won best moderator). Thankfully, good sport Gordon made up for lack of gaffe with Mrs Duffy.

7. Rebuttals and answers

Clegg’s actual answers to the audience were no better than the others. But he really looked as if he was listening and more consciously used the names, so we believed his answers were better. Cameron was stronger when real debate got going in the final session.

8. Pause power.

All three suffered from trying to squeeze too many words in to beat the clock and to show off their grasp of policy. Generally, Clegg resisted this pressure better and used the pause to great effect. By saying less he communicated more.

9. Likability

Brown not surprisingly speaks out at the way personalities are becoming more important than policies.  Well personality has always been important. What is now different is the importance of the ‘televisual’ personality. Regan had that. So does Schwartzenegger. So like it or not does Clegg.

10.Energy.

In the ‘world’s best selling book’ by Paul Arden is this quote: “ENERGY. It’s 75% of the job. If you haven’t got it be nice”. Clegg may have come across nicer, but Cameron won on the all important energy front. And here is a quote from William Blake.

The second of the debates confirmed they are here to stay and that they have changed forever old-style political campaigning.  Although all three are stomping  the country, wives in hand (Brown and Cameron), speaking in this photogenic ward, or school or factory, the impact of these staged news events is diminished. 

Newspapers are finding it hard to cope with this marginalising of their role. Their forte has been the ‘forensic’ dissection of the prepared speeches, reporting, and embellishing, to  the whim of their editors/publishers. Assessments of debates that we have all seen, and judged already, can make them look stupid. Take these two headlines on Friday morning.

It is not just political bias that is the issue.  It is the nature of these live debates and the way we the viewers are responding to them.  The papers are devoting acres of newsprint to tell us their views on how the candidates did. Who said precisely what on this, that or the other policy. Who said it right. Who said it wrong.

 The trouble is we have already decided who won and we are not deciding on who said what and on the content in isolation.

If we were responding to the words on their own  Cameron could well be winning.  And on radio Brown, who has a reassuring warm tone, could be ahead. (As was Nixon against Kennedy). Unfortunately for both it is Clegg  who “by force of his televisual appeal is making political realignment a genuine possibility.”(Times) 

 However hard they try Cameron and Brown cannot as Clegg does “look directly into the camera and connect viscerally to people’s desires.” (MOS)

Instead, what they both do is talk at rather than talk to the voters. Not so appealing!

Many, including me, tipped Nick Clegg to win the debate. After all, as the ousider with less to lose and the fresher face he had everything going for him. None however anticipated the scale of his victory which was down to performance not policies.

There are many things he got right in front of the cameras  but two in particular stand out and are pointers to all who pitch or interview. 

1.Be charming

All three no doubt can be charming company but only Clegg charmed on air. He resisted the temptation to say too much under pressure of the clock, he did not rush to answer as if in a race, he paused to think, he listened-and was seen to listen- to questioners whose names he remembered.

He, more than his rivals, realised that in this debate viewers would not find it easy to take in, let alone evaluate, the content. So less worried about what to say, he made certain that we liked the way he said it. His relaxed body language and his easy eye contact with the camera/viewer set him apart.

” Nonchalantly hands in his pockets and with his humanity beautifully rehearsed and turned up to the max”. This is how the MoS summed it up.

2. A great opening.

Clegg  made that old adage work for him, ‘You never get a second chance to make a first impression.’   He knew that a strong opening not only gets the audience on side it makes you feel good, boosting your confidence from word go. It worked and put the others on the back foot.

A cleverly worded opener, which he wrote himself, positioned him as if above his squabbling rivals. “Don’t let anyone tell you that the only choice is the old politics.  We can do something different this time.”

From the start his words and his manner, calm, fresh and engaging meant he came across as different and better. Not a bad outcome which must have pleased John Starkey his campaign director. When at Saatchi his mantra for assessing communication was how is it different, how is it better?

 This is the tenth and final lesson for our plucky contestants as they face up to the three-part reality show series starting on Thursday.  It may be stating the obvious but being yourself can easily get lost in the deluge of  ‘debate-prep’,  the  dry-run rehearsals and the  gaggle of Obama consultants.

Imagine absorbing advice from someone who:

“Showed Obama how to look smart without looking smug, how to look compassionate without being condescending, how to shed the appearance of being self-involved and arrogant and how to knit his brows and look as if he was concentrating intently as a  question was asked before changing his facial expression and relaxing the slight frown into a smile as he came up with the answer”.

Then imagine endless rehearsals in front of cameras with, for example Alistair Cambell  playing the part of David Cameron or a Jeremy Hunt, rumoured to be better than the real thing, playing the part of Nick Clegg.

Then imagine the ‘relentless revision’ on argument, counter argument and rebuff all against the research-led concept of not merely having to perform well against your rivals but  having to perform against expectations. Cameron apparently will be judged by a higher standard than his fellow debators.

Then throw in the nerves that will be jangling, even for these well prepared and seasoned tv performers, as they  meet in open combat for the first time and where one slip-up can lead to the fatal thumbs down from the baying viewers.  Now try being yourself.

Yet this is what will count. Not the words but the ease and the naturalness of the body language.  As veteran American broadcaster Jim Lehrer said in the Observer:

 ”A person is a person is a person.  You are who you are and that comes out in debates.”

The dry-run of the also-rans, Ask the Chancellors, took place last week. As anticipated it was dull and dreary. The equivalent of the ‘procurement police’ saw to that with a strictly observed 76-point code, answers time-limited,  and the audience banned from clapping or jeering, not that there was much to provoke either.

AA Gill, in typically ascerbic mode, said that “In the end it was all about the tie.  As much time will have gone in getting the look right as the content.  The look is as important as anything they have to say. They know the voters won’t be able to differentiate between them”.

Our three  PM reality show contenders know this.  They are well aware of the Nixon factor and are preparing accordingly with numerous coaches and advisers focusing in on look, style and tone of performance.

In one guise or another they each have a “saatchi” (see last post) to stiffen up their attitude. They each have wives, all of whom would be more attractive performers in this male-dominated show, to advise on how to make the emotional connection.

Certainly two have called in people who did it for Obama. One gives lessons on “how to sit, how to stand, how to gesture, how to pause”.  Another, helping  intonation, gets his pupil to say a seven word sentence seven times, each time emphasising a different word. Imagine Gordon practising …..

All this effort may seem faintly ridiculous as a way of deciding our future but the fact is most close pitch decisions, political or business, come down to “A sort of gut instinct. A  feeling. It’s not what you say, it’s what you look like saying it”. 

Who will chose the ties? After the negative reactions to Sam’s dressed down Dave and Sarah’s casual Gordie, it will probably be the focus groups.

As the debates draw near, all three of the so-called secret weapons are mounting a full frontal attack. The front cover of Private Eye, in a nice parody of Reader’s Wives, shows all three strutting their stuff, Saucy Sarah, Sexy Sam and The Other One.

Each has raised their game this week. A two pager in ES  magazine eulogising Sarah Brown describes her as ‘ the most formidable Prime Minister’s wife in living memory’. Not to be outdone ‘vampish GlamCam’ sprawls seductively across pages of the MoS, Mail and  Telegraph in a twelve year old fashion shoot conveniently ’discovered’ in an attic.

Even the stylish Myriam Gonzalez, who backs her husband Clegg in a ‘middling sort of way’, has succumbed to appearing on television where she warns of the danger of a candidate’s wife putting together “a sugar-coated image of yourself , in the hope that it brings you votes.”

She makes a good point. But for the candidates there is a bigger danger. They are all making one of the commonest mistakes made in any presentation where the stakes are high. It’s the one where props created to aid communication become crutches that distract.  Often dubbed “vampire visuals”. 

Right now vampires in books, movies and television programmes are enjoying popularity our candidates can only dream of. The same goes for these political vampires.

And we know what vampires do to their mates………

.

As the debates draw ever closer, the Political WAGs are rolling up their sleeves for the SamCam(!) versus Sarah(my hero Gordon) show with only Mrs Clegg having the good grace to spare us more Jordan style intimacy.

Unfortunately for ‘Dave’ and Gordon they have to stand on their own feet  in front of the cameras,  presumably well rehearsed and probably bolstered by their experience of handling the cut and thrust of Prime Minister’s question time. Easy compared to the over-regulated  debate?

Perhaps not. In trying to prove themselves with their grasp of policy and desparate to score points over their rivals in front of the viewing millions they run the risk of being seen to try too hard, being too clever and too rushed.

What can be seen as witty and wounding in Question time will be seen as less than likeable  in this civilised debate. It will also look less than confident.

In any pitch, when adrenaline is high, one of the things that undermines the appearance of confidence is rushing  to get started, to move from one point to the next, to reply to a question.

The solution is simple.                Pause.                  Pause.                   Pause and you will look confident.                Pause             for               thought.

Recent television appearances indicate that Clegg who has naturally easy body language  has the confidence to pause and to look like a leader.  Still my tip for winner in the debates.

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.