| |
Archive for the ‘Speechwriters’ Category
Thursday, September 9th, 2010
It’s an old saw on the golf course: “Your worst day golfing is better than your best day working.”
For me that’s never been true. My worst days golfing are bad, because I feel like I’m wasting my time, and my best days working are fantastic, because I feel at one with the universe.
But how many truly magical days have I spent working? In my experience, such days happen about once per decade.
It’s November 1995, and I’m lying on the sofa in Larry Ragan’s office at 3:00 a.m., trying to grab a few hours sleep before the graphic designer comes in to lay out the memorial issue I’ve been working on in the days since he died. I’m using all the skills my mentor taught me in order to honor him. As I try to sleep through the coffee buzz, I think of the line in a James Taylor song, “No one can tell me that I’m doing wrong today.”
On a wintry day in 2002, I’m riding in a rusty GMC Jimmy with a struggling stand-up comic I’m profiling for the Chicago Tribune’s Sunday Magazine. We’re headed for a two-night gig at a Holiday Inn in Eau Clair, Wis. I’m inhaling the fumes from his Nicorette gum, asking him how he prepares beef stroganoff on a hot plate, and thinking to myself that my competition is exactly no one, because I’m the only asshole in the world who thinks this is heaven.
In spring of this year, I’m holding my first “speechwriting jam session” at a speechwriters conference in Phoenix. I’m playing great speeches and watching the eyes of the writers in the audience fill, as my own eyes fill, as I remember my dead writer dad, who agreed with all of us that communication and love are the same thing.
What was your best moment at work? Communicate it to us here, and now.
 If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Tags: best days working, communication and love, Speechwriting, writing
Posted in Speechwriters | No Comments »
Monday, August 30th, 2010
Slamming together Vital Speeches of the Day this morning, I wasn’t sure whether I had or hadn’t inserted a George Allen speech into the final document, so I searched for “Allen.” Allen was there—but what the search also turned up in the month’s dozen speeches, 42 uses of the term chALLENges.
The entire document is 40,000 words, so I did the math and found that “challenges” makes up almost one percent of the words in these speeches.
A wicked smirk pulling on my cheek, I did a similar search for “opportunities.” Nineteen. So about 1.5% of the words in the best speeches in the world are either “challenge” or “opportunity.”
As for why so many challenges and relatively fewer opportunties? Hey, these are tough times indeed.
But I wonder if I didn’t just stumble into a new measure of overall well-being. Mulling over a monthly Vital Speeches Leadership Confidence Index ….
Today the Dow Jones was is up 100 points on higher-than-expected Leadership Confidence Index figures. Vital Speeches of the Day reports that this month in speeches delivered by public- and private-sector leaders, “challenges” outpaced “opportunities” by only 15 percent, the lowest number since Vital Speeches started keeping records, in 2010 ….
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Tags: "challenges", "opportunties", Vital Speeches, Vital Speeches Leadership Confidence Index
Posted in Speechwriters | No Comments »
Wednesday, August 18th, 2010
I once saw a business book promising all the collected wisdom “from Aristotle to Zig Ziglar.”
Presentation coach Olivia Mitchell tries to do it in a single blog post titled, “Are you ready for the third era in presenting?”
Bet you didn’t even know you’d missed the second one.
Yep.
According to the New Zealand-based Mitchell, there was the “era of the orator,” whose “heyday” she identifies as “From ancient times to the 1990s.” (This several-thousand-year era she characterizes as one where the speaker, hopelessly self-involved, pays attention to one’s “words … vocal variety … and body language.”)
The era of the orator gave way to “the era of the slide” during the 1990s, which is being overtaken—slide era, we hardly knew ye!—by “the era of the audience,” faceless no longer and demanding “a more participatory role in presentations, just as they do as citizens and consumers.”
Never again will audiences sit still “passively listening to a monologue”; they’ve been empowered by “the development of participatory democracy, consumer activism, mass content creation, the backchannel and the advent of Generation Y.”
And Mitchell’s prediction of how speeches will change to adapt to this fundamental change in human nature, and thus human communication?
Speeches will be shorter.
“Guy Vaynerchuck spoke for 10 minutes in front of an audience of 1,000s at SXSW 2010 and then opened up his keynote presentation to questions.”
I bet 1,000s of people were disappointed. They didn’t come to a conference to watch the keynote speaker field questions from a dozen randomly selected showboaters in the crowd. Sounds to me like Vaynerchuck didn’t have much to say.
One of the beautiful things about oral communication is that it resists technological intervention. Mitchell’s “slide era,” while it’s an occasional improvement to speechmaking, is also a frequent detriment. That’s because the nature and social purpose of this game is and always will be the same:
One member of society screwing up the courage to stand naked before other members of the society and share what he or she believes is true. The act is significant for the same reason it always has been because the audience has the speaker outnumbered and can accept or reject the speech before, during or after its delivery.
The era of the audience is as old as the era of the orator, because there ain’t never been, ain’t never going to be, one without the other.
“Are you ready for the third era in presenting?”
Olivia, we were born ready.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Tags: "era of the audience", "era of the orator" "era of the side", "third era in presenting", Olivia Mitchell, Speaking About Presenting
Posted in Professional Speaking, Speechwriters | 11 Comments »
Wednesday, August 11th, 2010
A time-wasting video for most of the 3.5 million viewers, but required viewing for specialists in oral communication (that’s us). An actress introduces herself in 21 accents; what’s interesting and instructive to people charged with capturing the voices of others, are the choices she makes in varying not only how she sounds, but the words she uses as well.
Tags: 21 Accents, Amy Walker
Posted in Speechwriters | No Comments »
Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010
Leafing through the Sunday Trinidad Express—you don’t get it delivered?—I came across a pretty funny piece on “How not to write a speech.”
It’s a savage critique of a “vast, baggy speech” given by the Trinidad & Tobago Minister of People. Columnist Judy Raymond writes, in part:
Dr Glenn Ramadharsingh … wasn’t trying to uncover facts; he may even have been attempting to do the opposite, though it was impossible to tell.
Dr Ramadharsingh cited studies that revealed the unsurprising fact that old people worried about their health and finances. …
Sometimes he remembered his actual topic, but that didn’t necessarily help. …
The sad thing was that huge amounts of work had gone into this speech.
There was a laboured, tired metaphor about the ship of state going off course (”askewed,” as Dr Ramadharsingh put it) that went on for paragraphs. … (Note to Dr Ramadharsingh: you don’t pronounce the “w” in “sword,” and “obsequious” has an “e” in the middle.)
As if that weren’t enough, the wordy minister quoted Wendell Mottley, Alice in Wonderland, Oscar Wilde—the last writer an MP should quote; Parliament is no place for irony. He massacred an irrelevant quotation from Charlotte Bronte (the “blendness” and “spurrence” of youth?). He dragged in someone called Alphonse Karr, who turned out to have written, “The more things change, the more they are the same” (which Dr Ramadharsingh rashly attempted in French).
Until he can hire a competent speechwriter, there are a few useful rules that Dr Ramadharsingh can salvage from Friday’s wreckage.
If you must use big words—in fact, any words—make sure you know how to pronounce them (”Damocles” comes to mind). If you have to look up suitable quotations to put into your speech: don’t. And you can save yourself a lot of work by remembering that … brevity is the soul of wit.
Speechwriters, what was the worst speech you ever heard or read?
I’d like to hear it, read it or just hear about it.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Tags: Dr Glenn Ramadharsingh, Judy Raymond, Trinidad Express, worst speech
Posted in Speechwriters | 3 Comments »
Thursday, July 15th, 2010
“Who cares about writing skills?” is the intentionally provocative question asked by prominent U.K. employee communication consultant Liam FitzPatrick, in a recent post on his blog, “Internal communication—it’s not rocket science.”
I braced for the intentionally provocative answer. Fitzpatrick began:
Years ago I went for a job interview at a well-known PR agency and was rather taken aback to be asked to do a writing test. I never got the job and never got any feedback so I’ll leave it to my loyal readers to judge if my writing would have let me down or [whether] I can blame it on my dreadful interview technique.
I took him up on it.
But it is something that has puzzled me over the years. Does a competent communicator have to be a good writer or are there other attributes that are more important?
That last sentence isn’t only clunky; it posits a dodgy opposition. That is, it could be true (and in fact it is true!) that one must be a good writer to be a competent communicator and that there are other attributes that are more important. (Or equally important, in any case: Off the top of my head, emotional intelligence, curiosity, affability, drive, etc.)
To be honest I don’t think being a good writer matters—I’ve met plenty of great comms people who couldn’t write to save their lives and I know a few fantastic writers who I’d never trust to give communications advice.
Generally, when a good writer makes a claim as bold as this—you’ve met “plenty” of great communicators who couldn’t write a lick—he or she backs it up with an example or three. “For instance, there was the media relations maven who couldn’t write a press release, but who was so charming she’d just call up reporters and dictate the stories right to them! And who can forget the speechwriter who couldn’t get anything down on paper for the CEO, but he could pump the old boy so full of enthusiastic blarney that the message didn’t matter! And then there was the communication VP whose communication advice was so good that not only did she not have to write well, she didn’t have to speak! Just a clever wink and a twinkle of the eye was usually sufficient!”
And that was one of the findings that came out when Sue Dewhurst and I conducted our skills research a few years ago. Simply put, many senior communicators see writing as a technical or craft skill that can be bought in as it is needed.
“Bought in”—a telling Freudian typo, perhaps. First, shouldn’t management prefer to hire communicators who don’t have to order out for good writing? Second, writing is often needed at a moment’s notice. (See, I needed it just now!) Who has time to call Tony Morrison and brief her on the context of an urgent communication need?
Other abilities are much more important when it comes to planning messaging or gathering feedback for senior leaders.
These “other abilities,” he doesn’t specify.
Clearly writing involves certain skills that are invaluable for a communicator. Empathy with your audience, simplifying complex ideas and finding ways to make a dull subject engaging are certainly useful. …
But I’m not sure I’d appoint a director of comms on the basis of their ability to win a Pulitzer prize.
Don’t worry, Liam; Pulitzer candidates won’t be lining up at your door.
I’m not suggesting that a communicator should be allowed to get away with bad writing.
Wait. You just said that you’ve known many great comms people who couldn’t write to save their lives. Another hallmark of good writers is intellectual integrity, Liam.
All I’m saying is that it doesn’t make sense to prioritise writing over any other skill—if a single skill is all that matters why shouldn’t it be film-making, web design or spamming twitter?
Such a slovenly argument, it doesn’t deserve a response.
Take a look at some of the skills models that exist and make your own mind up!
After you’ve blurted out six or seven unsupported absurdities, this is your coupe de grace? You then tell your readers to “take a look at some of the skills models that exist” and make up our own minds?
Methinks, Liam, that your motive with this flabby blog post, can only be one of two: 1. A bad attempt to start a debate. 2. An indirect claim to communication greatness, by a mediocre writer.
Say it ain’t so. And prove it—in writing!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Tags: communication skills, Liam FitzPatrick, writing
Posted in Speechwriters | No Comments »
Tuesday, July 13th, 2010
For publication in Vital Speeches International, we were considering a speech by East Timor Secretary General Dr. Mari Alkatiri, until we reached the end:
Note: this is a translation of a transcript of an unwritten speech delivered in Tetum. Some meaning and nuances may have been lost in translation. Readers should bear this in mind whilst reading it.
I suppose I quibble when I suggest the disclaimer should have appeared at the beginning.
Come to think of it, I wish more of the speeches I read had disclaimers at the beginning.
Warning: This speech has been picked over by more middle managers than the salad bar at the employee cafeteria.
Note: This speaker makes her living making noisy arguments just plausible enough to get attention. She knows what he’s saying is bogus. You should too.
The following series of platitudes and bromides may cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading.
Readers: A free subscription to Vital Speeches International to the reader who comes up with the funniest (or most apt) disclaimer for a speech.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Tags: speech disclaimers
Posted in Professional Speaking, Speechwriters | 2 Comments »
Thursday, June 10th, 2010
In my talks to speechwriters and other communicators who support leaders, I tell them there are basically two kinds of clients in any give c-suite: clients who value communication and clients who don’t. “You want to work only with clients who do,” I tell them, assuring them good clients are out there.
It’s an oversimplification of course. So I thought I’d flesh it out a little; maybe you can help. (Pardon my use of the universal “she”; it’s payback time.)
A good communication client thinks she got ahead in the world by making persuasive arguments.
A bad client thinks she got ahead by avoiding saying the stupid thing.
A good client doesn’t try to be perfect, but has faith that people will get the right impression from an amalgam of a million honest words and a thousand well-intended actions.
A bad client knows that her actions speak loudly, but doesn’t know what her actions say. Meanwhile, she worries that one false word in one speech will ruin her reputation forever.
A good client worries about the thrust of the message, lets others handle the details. “Tell me where you want me?”
A bad client deflates the thrust of the message by focusing on a thousand details. “You want me to do what?”
A good client is tough: “You can do better.”
A bad client is tough: “It still isn’t right.”
A good client is experienced enough to know a sharp communicator when he or she sees one.
A bad client assumes all communicators are weak-minded space cadets, and unfortunately manages to gather plenty of evidence for her point of view.
A good client knows communication is hard, and acknowledges it.
A bad client knows communication is hard, and pretends it’s easy.
A good client remembers what she wanted to know when she was a middle manager.
A bad client wonders, “If I were an employee, what would I want to hear?”
A good client assumes that her audience knows most of what she knows, and struggles to figure how she can use her unique vantage point to offer them a useful perspective.
A bad client assumes her audience doesn’t know half of what she knows, and struggles to figure out what she can say that they will be able to grasp.
A good client wants to share ideas.
A bad client wants to make impressions.
If you have a bad client, look for a good client—either inside the organization or outside. And if you have a good client, serve her well and help her win.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Tags: bad clients, communication clients, good clients, speakers, speechwriting clients
Posted in Speechwriters | No Comments »
Wednesday, June 9th, 2010
I think of myself as an aficionado, but I’m sure I’m just an amateur. Or maybe I’m just a cynic.
But when I read in the description of a speechwriting position that the successful candidate “will be required to nurture relationships with highly analytical and engaged leaders,” my interpretation is that the speechwriter “will have to deal with egomaniacal, alpha-male micromanagers.”
Am I right about that, my friends?
Readers, what euphemistic position-description red flags do you watch out for?
Talk to me.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Tags: code words, euphemisms, position descriptions, speechwriting jobs
Posted in Speechwriters | 1 Comment »
Tuesday, June 1st, 2010
Annelies Breedveld writes speeches for the Dutch ministry of Defense. Usually she writes in Dutch, occasionally she gets to write in English, for American audiences. While she’s less sure of herself writing in English, she loves it, because “you get to use the Bible and use words like ‘hallowed ground.’ The Dutch don’t like that language as much.”
Corresponding with her to publish one of a speech in Vital Speeches International, I asked her why the Dutch don’t go for lofty language. Her answer contains a number of lessons for American speechwriters:
Holland is a Calvinistic country. The most used proverb in Holland is: Act normal, that’s crazy enough. In our protestant country, showing appreciation for earthly pleasures is considered to be superficial, attitudinizing and arrogant.
You see this in different aspects of Dutch life.
It’s considered cheap to flaunt your riches. In the Golden Age where the Dutch travelled the world through the VOC, rich gentlemen did not build palaces but ‘moderate’ houses at the Amsterdam canals. Inside, lots of expensive paintings. Outside, moderate and nothing to see.
One can also see this in cultural life. E.g. Paul Verhoeven went to America to shoot films because in Holland nobody shared his grand vision and they all thought he was way too arrogant and self-assured. “Who does he think he is…” It’s a bit like the famous crab story: if one climbs out of the bucket, the others try to pull it back.
This also reflects on the perception of national pride. Until recently, our soldiers were not accepted as much as heroes as in the USA. There has been a positive change in public appreciation of our soldiers since our efforts in Afghanistan. So I can at least work with that increased recognition. But still, nationalism or patriotism is something the Dutch in general just don’t like.
And it’s maybe for the better: As a small country we do have the 9th economy of the world, only because we have such an open economy. You cannot afford to be too arrogant and dominant if you have to work with so many different countries to earn your living.
(There are only two exceptions to this rule of being moderate:
When our Dutch soccerteam plays: almost everybody goes crazy. They dress up in Orange—the colour of our Royal House—and act most extraordinary. The same goes for the Elfstedentocht—the Elevencitytour. Only in very harsh winters, this skating tour in the northern part of Holland takes place and the whole country gets hysterical.)
What this means for my speeches is that—except for praising the soccer team and our skaters—you cannot use lofty language.
Everybody would think your speaker has gone mad or is—indeed—sentimental, emotional and has lost his ability to judge things normally. They would be disturbed, wouldn’t take him/her seriously and wouldn’t hear the message.
When you write for an American public, you can go all-out.
Americans seem to love notions on success, patriotism, the flag, being brave and making sacrifices for big ideals as were written down in your Constitution.
As a speechwriter, it’s of course great to be able to use this whole new language-instrumentarium that normally lies rusting away in the cupboard …
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!
Tags: Annelies Breedveld, Dutch, Dutch communication, English, global communication, rhetorial styles
Posted in Speechwriters | 1 Comment »
|
| |
