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.

 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.

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.

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!”

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.

On Thursday evening there was a delightful carol service at the splendidly refurbished St Peters church in Notting Hill Gate. The traditional carol singing, fronted by the excellent Skolia choir, was as expected, a treat. Less expected was the quality of the sermon.

Many years ago, as a supposed advertising expert, I was asked by a senior official in the Church of England to advise on how marketing communication might boost attendance. The project was dropped before it began because the Cof E,  unlike some, is not an evangelising church. It welcomes people in but does not actively seek  them.

However, even in the first analysis, it was clear that one of the reasons for declining congregations was a function of communication. At the end of the 19th century,  the service, with the sermon as its heart, was for most the communication highpoint of the week. There was, apart from theatre for the few, no competition.

Along came cinema and radio and, finally, television. The communication skills inherent to these left those of the average preacher behind. Too often the sermon was seen as something to be endured rather than enjoyed.

Not so for this sermon, in this church.  The vicar knew how to tell a story!

Like most sermons, and I guess this is true for most religions, it was based on a re-telling of stories from scripture.  The bible, after all has been filmed as “the greatest story ever told.” 

But what made this sermon so engaging and so effective was the way the vicar told highly personal stories, stories that made an instant emotional connection to, it seemed to me, everyone from the devout to the occasional worshipper.

The vicar was  also not afraid to have his own telling words compared with those of John Betjaman. The service included the beautiful words, beautifully spoken, of the poem Christmas……..”The sweet and silly Christmas things,   Bath salts and inexpensive scent,  And hideous tie so kindly meant……..”

Thank you St Peters. Happy Christmas.

Last week, on one of many programmes anticipating World Football 2010, one of the wisest of pundits John Motson said that the current England manager, Capello, was the first one to share a characteristic last evidenced by Sir Alf Ramsay, presence.

An interesting choice of word. One dictionary definition, “a quality that makes people notice and admire you even when you are not speaking.”

The Duke of Wellington is reported to have said of Napoleon “…his presence on the field made the difference of 40,000 men.”

It’s a rare quality but here are some who had or have it.

In South Africa last week even though not at the ceremony Nelson Mandela made his presence felt. As did David Beckham  once a presence on the pitch, now more so off it.

Among world leaders JFK  had it, Nixon didn’t. Obama had it during the race for the White House but seems to be losing it. Putin still has it.

Our politicians, ever since Margaret Thatcher and of course before that Churchill,  do not have it, with the possible exception of Boris.

On the cinema screen Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall had it as does Russell Crowe today. On the small screen Jeremy Paxman yes, Jeremy Vine not.

A few in sport. Footballer Drogba, cricketers from the past ‘beefy’ Botham and ‘King’ Viv Richards, in athletics Usain Bolt, in tennis  Boris Becker and Serena Williams but not her sister and in rugby Martin Johnson on the field but not now off it.

Charles Saatchi, of course, has mastered the art of invisible presence..

Since most pitches will not be graced with any of these , the challenge  for any team is to at least make their presence felt!  Pitch a performance and rehearse the hell out of it.

Both are in the news this week and it is hard to think of two people who are more different.

The publication of Palin’s book, Going Rogue, has lead to plenty of comment. A Sunday Times article, ”Beware the fantasy world of Sarah, Warrior Princess”, describes how her image as a woman persecuted makes her a cultural and political icon.

“It is an image of a frontierswoman, capable of anything, fiercely independent, fathomlessly brave, totally unflappable and blessed by faith in God, resisting the evil cynicism and hatred of the eastern elites, ambushed by hostile interviewers, persecuted  by her godless enemies…”

Whilst for many she is bizarre, with her core audience of  fundamentalist Republicans she makes a powerful emotional connection. They really do like her.

David Cameron should take note.  The Observer in its Column section had this headline, “Cameron is losing his likeable qualities.”

Cathy Ashton has never campaigned in the public arena but, like Palin, she understands her electorate.  Not the masses but the  few power brokers, who elected her over a dinner.  A profile in the Observer reveals that she too knows how to be likeable, how to connect emotionally.

“  Cathy spreads calm,  she is oil on troubled waters and liked by eveyone. I have never heard a nasty word said about her.  She is a persuader and a charmer.  She is excellent at building good relations and a good negotiator.  That is the secret of her success”.

So, perhaps her selection is not so surprising after all!

In any pitch, it is likeability and making an emotional connection that so often separate winners from losers.

“More than half of  PR interviewees put off jobs by personality of the interviewers”.

This is the surprising conclusion of a survey carried out by recruiter The Works and featured on www.gorkanapr.co.uk.  Surprising, because in my experience with PR firms their people skills, as you would expect of  ‘relations’  businesses, are good.

The high negative may be a factor of the research sample.  If the majority  failed the interview, then human  nature steps in.  We tend not to like those who don’t like us!  However, given that a ’job interview’ is the less threatening way of describing a ‘job pitch’, here are some reported criticisms that  also relate to  the business pitch.

“75% of interviewers had not read the CV”. True of many pitches!  Junior people may have read your document, procurement certainly will, but senior management often not. Prepare your pitch assuming no-one has read your brilliant proposal.

“Good cop,tough cop routine/uncomfortable questions”.  In the  pitch Q&A, challenging  questioning is legitimate and to be expected.  This is when the prospect can best assess the character and likeability of the people in front of them.  It is usually the least rehearsed element, a  big mistake.

“Showing direspect”.  In a pitch this can be evidenced by the attitude of the decision takers, or at its worst, by some of those due to attend failing to show-up. With the benefit of hindsight, this is a pitch you are not likely to win. The decision has already been taken!