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.

The scene for this pitch story is the Eurostar area at St Pancras  at 6.30am, shortly before the departure of the Paris train. Two shops, side by side, have the ideal monopoly pitch for serving passengers with very predictable needs.

The problem, for customers, was that one was really interested in their business and you could tell this at a glance. The other could not give a damn. And you could tell this at a glance. But you needed both.

The Paul coffee shop not only looked inviting, it was. At least six staff behind the counter handled time-pressured customers with energy and friendly enthusiasm as they met responses for this, that or the other cappuccino. The place was buzzing. The customers happy.

WH Smiths looked tired, messy with unopened stacks of magazines, narrow aisles with a long dispirited queue being served by a single cashier seemingly taken by surprise that the customers had a train to catch. The customers’ unhappiness compounded by the non availablity of newspapers.

The pitching point is that before actually experiencing the two you could tell instantly from the visual clues, their “corporate body language”, how they were likely to perform and which one you would like.

Pitch teams with good corporate body language are more attractive to the judges. 

Incidentally, the generally poor corporate body language of WH Smith may help explain why they came 100th in a recent survey of UK retailers. They should revisit their history when, in 1850s, their staff raced along platforms selling books to on-board passengers in the few minutes of a station stop.

It was Gregor Mendel(1822-1884) who first understood the concept of hybrid vigour as the “increased vigour displayed by offspring from different varieties”.  He might not have described the coalition this way but so far one of its key characteristics is energy, arguably more than a single party would have given us.

The cross-fertilsation of talents  in the cabinet in this honeymoon period is proving to be positive, energetic and dynamic. The signals it is sending out are all ‘can-do’ and this right now transcends political differences.

Put another way, they have got the casting right something pitch teams too often get wrong,

The team decision is vital and yet can fall into the trap of selection through convenient availablity, or they deserve a chance, or  or they won last time, or they know the prospect or…Whereas, the only criterion is who are the best team to win the business?

The team will need relevant experience, good people chemistry and pitching ability. All three skills may not reside in any one member but the team must have all three. Sometimes the way to achieve this is to apply the concept of hybrid vigour.

It works in football! Inter Milan won with a Portugese manager and no Italians in their team beating Bayern with a Dutch manager and few Germans. The English yeomen are hoping an Italian manager can invigorate them in the World Cup.

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!

It has been a war of attrition and we still don’t know who will win and when we do, will it have been down to campaign strategies, tv debate performances, personalities or policies? Or will it be down to energy? Who has more of it? Who has managed it better?  Who has made it work for them?

Brown has it. As Tom Bower wrote in the Observer:

“His indomitable energy during the final days of the campaign sabotaged an Old Etonian’s assumption of a graceful drive to the Palace after winning an overall majority”

Cameron also has it but now needs it more than ever. Peter Osborne in the Sunday Times:

“Sleepless, dog-tired and under immense pressure, David Cameron is being forced to compress a series of life-defining decisions into 48 hours. They will determine not only his political future, but the future of the Conservative party and of Britain.”

The reality in numerous competitive pitches is that the winners are those who sustain and manage their energy best. David Cameron supporters will be crossing their fingers that he keeps on flying!

 ’Managing Energy’ is the subject of a Best Practice Guide. (see listing on right).

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!