As the fight for London between Ken and Boris, and the other chap, reaches its final round, with opinion polls telling us how we will vote, it’s timely to reflect on what will, really, be influencing our decision.

Will Ken get my vote because I admire much of what he has done to make London a better place to live in and that he is clearly a consumate politician when it comes to getting more out of the public purse for London? Or because I met him once , on the underground, where he kindly gave me directions to the right platform?

Will Boris get it because some of his ideas make sense despite his lack of practical experience, or because he gets rid of bendy busses or because he will do more for grass root sport, something I feel strongly about? Or because I warm to his off-the wall sense of humour?

The truth, of course, is that, whilst I like to think my rational self will weigh up the arguments and inform the decision, my instinctive feelings for them as people will play their part. It’s a question of chemistry.

Over the last few years ‘chemistry meetings’ have become an increasingly accepted part of the pitch process. Seemingly an innocuous get together ,with no set agenda, these meetings can be more critical to the decision than a final presentation. They should ,therefore, be given the same level of energy and preparation.

Some ideas on how to do this, Chemistry Lessons, are under Best Practice Guides.

In most pitches, and this is highlighted by what is happening in London, the competitors fall into two , attitudinally, very different groups.  The incumbent who has every thing to lose and the challengers with everything to gain.

In business,  reviews leading to a pitch are either down to a statutory review or, particularly in the service sector, a failure in the relationship. This may be rationalised  on performance grounds, or change of people on either side, but in reality  it will be a  staleness, a loss of energy in the way the two sides get on.

In this scenario the incumbent has a tough task on its hands. In the ad agency world it is estimated that  only 5% retain in the repitch.  So if change is in the air what is the best response?  There are ,I believe,  three main approaches to consider.

The first is to beat the client to the punch, recognise changes are needed and initiate a review/re-eavaluation , non competitive,  perhaps with an impartial intermediary.  The second is to resign the business, declining to repitch, always a tough call  but one which can reduce the emotional and actual impact of a losing situation.  Finally there is the option to fight on , probably with new blood in the established team.

In the early nineties, Saatchi  faced a difficult pitch to retain British Airways, against newly formed M&C Saatchi known to have stong relationship with CEO Sir Colin Marshall. Despite misgivings, massive effort, emotional and physical, went into the pitch. To no avail, Marshall did not bother to turn up  for half of the presentation, the account moved.  The negative impact of the wasted effort was in many respects greater than the loss of the business.

Ken, of course, faces a statutory review, but he is the one with everything to lose, attitudinally the tougher place to be.

For most of us ,taking part in a pitch is stimulating but we manage the energy needed in fits and starts, building to a crescendo in the last day or so.  Burning midnight oil in a macho way ,we finalise proposals(just), edit the proposal (just), rehearse (just or not) and arrive on time (just) to present.

Carried along by adrenaline we get through the pitch, pat ourselves on the back, and collapse into the nearest bar.

Compare this with what must be one of the most ferociously competitive pitches in years, Clinton vs Obama.

Every single day, week in week out, they are in flat out pitch mode.  Live TV debates, interviews, press conferences, platform speeches, receptions, door-stepping, handling hecklers, kissing babies, responding to focus groups or headlines or opinion polls or ‘misspeaks’. All that on top of the daily tactics, dirty or otherwise, to undermine the opposition and the constant pressure to motivate the home team.  WOW.

Obama may be in the lead, and he has the charisma, but he may not have the same astonishing and sustained energy level of the ‘come-back’ kid. Clinton is exuding energy, a highly infectious quality. I would not bet against her just yet.

I like Gordon Brown. I don’t share all his views but trust him  almost because he has none of the theatricallity as a performer of his predecessor. However, given that his presentation style is increasingly under media attack, it was interesting to see how he handled his ‘world stage’ opportunity in the USA last week, the opportunity to impress back home.

The concensus of coverage is that he did okay.  He was up against the Pope which was unfortunate but this did not stop him getting excellent coverage  looking confident and at ease (important) with President Bush and all three of the would-be’s, Clinton, Obama and McCain.

Then came the world leader speech delivered from Boston, home of JFK,  endorsed by the surviving brother, an opportunity to benefit by association. The speech as written, and reported, was not quite in the “ask not what your country can do for you..” league but good nevertheless.

What was much less good was his delivery. The coverage on Newsnight started with  old black and white footage of Kennedy  in full flow, still spine- tingling. Gordon Brown suffered by comparison, fluffing words but worse still reading and looking down for the majority of the time at his script. The act of looking down effectively ‘dismisses’ the audience, and dilutes perception of leadership.

He could so easily have come across more strongly. Years ago I was introduced to an excellent presentation training company, Kingstree, who in a matter of hours could teach you how to deliver  a written speech in a manner that meant  the audience could not tell you had a script.  The result a much more powerful performance.

Time for a company like this to step forward?

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.

In my last post I talked about the popular appeal of ‘Boris’, the single word subject to a swear box fine in government circles.Over the last few days worrying press reports for his supporters suggest Boris,  the splendidly surprising and irreverant, is  behaving like a dull and safe Mr Johnson.

The reason for this is, apparently, the advice he is getting from one Lynton Crosby an expert from Australia, a place not normally associated with subtlety of expression. Here it would seem he is intent on stifling Boris to make sure there are no mistakes, errors or gaffs.  No wonder he is struggling and, worse, in danger of losing the core of his appeal, his unique personal approach.

Anyone experienced in pitching knows that one of the golden rules is to play to your strengths.If Boris listens too closely to Crosby and plays down the ‘Boris’ persona we might start remembering his lack of track record and experience.

As the headline of AA Gill’s perceptive article in the Sunday Times said “Be yourself ,Boris,or you’re bound to lose”.

The press today and yesterday carried the amusing story that cabinet ministers were told they would have to pay  £5 into a ’swear box’ each time they referred to Boris Johnson by his first name alone.

This is not as silly as it first sounds. In marketing we know that powerful brands add value through their  emotional relationship with consumers. “Ken” , the  mature established brand leader will take some dislodging and ,as Ken, has more appeal than Ken Livingston.

However he is up against the refreshing challenger  and the government, rightly,  fears calling him simply “Boris” makes him appear ‘too charismatic and popular’ and ‘too accessible and friendly’.

As the battle for London hots up it will be interesting to see if the opposing ‘knights’ add visual sybols to help their cause. A newt rampant perhaps or haystack backward?

In the world of theatre rehearsal is fundamental to delivering  a great performance.  On first night and every other night. And, of course, the rehearsals are assessed and directed for audience impact by a director, not one of the paticipating actors.

Pitching in business also calls for performance, usually for one ‘first’  night not a run, but success on that one night could transform your business.  Everyone pays lip service to rehearsal being a good thing but in practice most resist it. The stated  excuses are usually predictable:

‘ we are waiting for one last bit of material/information’

‘ so and so is tied up in client meeting’

‘ the document needs some revisions’

‘rehearsals waste my  nervous energy’

‘CEO (avoiding it) says go ahead without him/her’

And so on with the result that if and when it happens one desultory rehearsal takes place late, on the evening before, when everyone is tired and there is no time to  make any significant  changes.

Any other well worn excuses?