Create Your Communications Experience

The Power of Story

At a recent speech the presenter before me started out with a story, followed by another, and another. All linked to points. Brilliant, and so rare in business presentations today. He warmed up the audience, and I was grateful.

"Story" is the S of our SHARP principles, Story is also the primary tool in making your message stick, as in Chip and Dan Heath's great book "Made To Stick." And in the vernacular of Malcolm Gladwell - story makes ANY idea stick, and if you haven't read his great book get ("Blink") 

The Top Ten Reasons stories are useful and powerful:

• They are real
• They are short
• They are interesting
• They are human
• They give third party credibility
• They are easy to tell
• They are memorable
• They are emotionally connecting
• They move people
• They are the principle communication tool since Man began talking

What Others Say

To be a person is to have a story to tell.
  -Isak Dinesen

The story is more important to me than the part.
   -Catherine Deneuve

Of course it's the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story.
   -Margaret Thatcher

A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.
  - Frank Luntz (Communication Specialist in language – also a political consultant)

Eighty percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think. I can change how you think, but how you feel is something deeper and stronger, and it's something that's inside you.
   - Frank Luntz

From Todd Paulsen, here is some of the power of story, and the reason behind it (see the complete article here):

"THE USE OF STORIES IS A POWERFUL TOOL that aids in material retention, but methodologies of inclusion are rarely discussed. The desire to share emotions and effect the emotional states of others drives us to tell and retell stories. A story is a vector that spreads the information and emotion that is contained within it. No classroom or teacher is needed past the initial storytelling. We have been doing this for years in the form of childrens stories.  It has been widely speculated that the story of Hantzel and Gretel (sic) is a cautionary tale used by elders to prevent children from wandering off into the dangers of the European forests alone."

Jesus told stories and parables. He didn’t talk in concepts – he only needed stories, and he riveted peoples attention. Sowing seeds along the path, the rich young ruler, a house built on sand, faith growing like a mustard seed, and dozens more.

Remember, people buy on emotion and justify with fact.

A great resource for getting great at telling stories is Doug Stevenson's Story Theatre - after our "Communicate To Influence" program this is one to take - it pays as a communicator to get serious about storytelling.

Create YOUR communication experience - stories will add mightily.

Leadership Communications - the Fundamental State

A leader grows into the "Fundamental State", according to Robert Quinn, and this is a concept we can apply to President Obama – and any new leader. In Obama's case, we could compare his effectiveness as a campaigner (Normal State) and his effectiveness as a leader now that he is President (Fundamental State). But maybe it's too soon in his leadership, but not too soon in his communications.

For we can apply the concept to speaking and communicating as well. We know that effective leaders are usually great communicators – the confidence of leadership often self-evident in confident behavior. This is generally true of Obama, with exceptions noted below. 

Robert E. Quinn is a University of Michigan professor who introduced the concept of the Fundamental State of Leadership – a heightened perspective, and one that’s inherent in all of us. Quinn's interesting concept appears in the Harvard Business Review, and it is relevant to business and politics…

“In the normal state people tend to stay within their comfort zones and allow external forces to direct their behaviors and decisions. They lose moral influence and often rely on rational argument and the exercise of authority to bring about change…the result is usually unimaginative and incremental – and largely produces what already exists. To elevate the performance of others, we must elevate ourselves into the fundamental state of leadership.”

We’ve all been there in our personal and professional lives – a time of crisis where we rise to the occasion and overcome the challenge. (For example President Bush leading us during 9/11, but not so much before or after.) If we force ourselves into the Fundamental State, rather than waiting for crisis to knock at our door, we'll get better and better. And so too is the case with communications. Quinn says that getting there requires a shift along four dimensions:

So, what does this mean for us as communicators?

1.   Don’t stick with what’s comfortable. Instead of standing in one place behind a lectern during a presentation, move and create energy. Actively pursue speaking engagements that push your comfort zone, where you can practice the behavioral skills of communication.

2.   Master the Natural Self – that special combination of your unique personality, mind, opinions and behaviors. Don’t become someone you’re not. Harnessing the Natural Self while communicating will increase your ability to connect with others, because you’re just being you – confident and relaxed.

3.   Create listener-focused messages. State early and openly the audience’s WIIFM – What’s In It For Me?, action steps and benefits.

4.   Read cues and adjust. Practicing is good, but not if you can’t adapt to external cues. Create an experience that’s specific to your audience – whether it’s one person, or one hundred.

 

Now in President Obama's case, let's hope his Normal State of communications (over dependence on the teleprompter, speaking in what I call 'Obama bursts', many 'ums' and 'ahs' in interview settings) will transform into the Fundamental State, where he can communicate more openly and skillfully, even though in unfamiliar territory.

Open Communication - Now and Forever?

 (UPDATE: See this clip from CNN 6/20/09, 4 days after I wrote the following post. They now call it "the Internet Revolution.")

The Iran protests and Twitter's hand in dramatically showing that an oppressive regime can no longer censor dissent may have changed communications forever.

Ahmadinejad's regime thought they had shut down all social media sites and Iranian ISP's even before the election. But they couldn't do it. With Twitter leading the charge, onsite observers sent hundreds of thousands of instant messages, videos and pictures through Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. The world perhaps watched even more intently because of this dramatic, historic and new communications experience - the perfect storm.

The Open Medium

Could a simple little message distribution system like Twitter have such profound change. I think so, and others like The Nation agree.

Twitter is the first truly open social media that I know of. Count the ways:

• In the news. Iran is not the first example of people flocking to Twitter to get their news immediately and unfiltered. The Miracle on the Hudson was just one of countless breaking news examples. And it was pressure from Twitter on the first day of the protests (last Saturday) that forced CNN to increase their coverage of the riots and discontent. 
• Open relationships. It's no coincidence that Twitter cannot be suppressed, technically as well as behaviorally. The culture of Twitter insists on open, not closed; free not censored; share not take. I personally am amazed at the real relationships I have built through Twitter with people from all walks and seasons of life: @speli (a new friend from the last week, several common interests including Iran), @ChrisSpagnuolo (acquaintance who became close friend), @Ed (an inspiring story, but for another time), @MichaelHyatt (top CEO who has become a friend with great insights/info), and the list goes on... Only because of vulnerability on both sides. Unique. Culturally driven.
• Those who succeed at Twitter are NOT those who Block their Updates. Twitter, and all Social Media, are for those who engage and share with others - insights, information, ideas, links, and actually, their lives. Blocked updates are an antithesis to Twitter - why take the time to join? There are other means of communicating privately - it's not on Twitter.
• Thus many corporations are going to have to change. As I've been advocating social media to high level clients and executives (often white, male and boomers) I've been talking to those experienced in control and hierarchy. I'll never forget the lesson learned several years ago, talking to a potential client (Fortune 100) who wanted us to help his direct reports be trained to write speeches and read them - so he personally could edit them in advance. We disagreed then. We didn't get that job. And it was in a different era, but many are still living in it.
• Philosophy in social media. Both Twitter and Facebook have made some decisions that backfired - and the immediate response from their millions of members changed their policies. Instantly. This is new - it used to take days and weeks to build pressure on media or institutions to change, if they even would change. Now it's instant, and responsive - open listening.

Perhaps communication has changed forever. It will be fascinating, and valuable for reasons beyond politics, to see how the Iran crisis plays out. My guess is that Twitter will go down as integral to the end result.

And more importantly, it may now be impossible for a repressive, censoring regime to succeed in any country. Or any company for that matter. How can you censor when people can connect openly with each other.

I think Twitter has changed the communications game. What do you think?

The Green Light Approach

The Green Light Approach

Most successful people have a 'forward lean.'

In our Communicate To Influence program we draw a parallel to the Ready Position, a posture that comes from all types of athletics, where you are on the balls of your feet. You can't be back on your heels and be "ready" - ready to move fast in tennis, basketball, skiing - any sport. You have to always be fast on your feet to move in any direction.

In speaking, when you are habitually in the Ready Position you are physically and psychologically forward. You WANT to get out there and talk, and convince and influence - you can move!

My friend Ben Sottile has been CEO of several companies, and coined another name for moving forward that I've found very useful. He calls it the Green Light Approach. We all operate under one of the three traffic lights, and he advocates Green.

• Those who are ruled by the red light stop themselves - or never get started.
• Those who always see yellow are very cautious about making a move.
• But those who go for the green light are staunch advocates of their positions and DO move forward. While they certainly slow down if they see yellow - and stop at the red signals - they see life as a green light. Moving forward unless directed otherwise.

Same in communicating. Business would be vital and vibrant if more people had a forward lean and looked at communicating, much like life, as a green light.

The Visual Dominates - Mehrabian Revisited

There's been a lot of unfortunate controversy among communication professionals about Professor Albert Mehrabian's oft quoted research (below). It's good to have discussion though, for his research has altered the communicating landscape and has helped to get people out of the 'curse of knowledge.' Here are my thoughts and personal experience on the issue:

Mehrabian wrote the classic "Silent Messages" in 1981 (2nd Ed). From this book came the research that shows vocal and visual outweigh the verbal when you have a conflicted message. The weight is at the feeling level ('likability'), not at the informational level. His exact numbers were:

• Verbal      7%    (the word, or words, or message)
• Vocal     38%    (the sound of the voice)
• Visual    55%    (what people see)

For extensive background on the research detail and methodology see the links here. Olivia Mitchell did her usual thorough job of research also, although I disagree with her conclusions. And to not make this post too long, let me hit on what I think are the critical points.

1. Mehrabian's research was only on the inconsistent message! When your message and your tone and your look are one, are congruent - Mehrabian is irrelevant. He was measuring what the listener judged more important in 'liking' (and thus trusting, believing, being open to) when there was inconsistency and incongruence between the message and the behavior. This is the critical issue.

2. Many say that Mehrabian's findings mean content is worth 7% of the message and 'body language' is worth 93%. Totally wrong. The research was not at the information level. It was at the feeling level. And it just measured what channel the listener liked (trusted, believed) more than the other. Many bloggers have pointed this out by now - so hopefully at least that misinterpretation should be put to rest.

3. The visual dominates! The most important takeaway is that when there is an inconsistent message, the listener will overwhelmingly judge the visual cues more as to whether they like (trust and believe) the speaker. And realize all this happens at the unconscious level.

Let me amplify:

Dr. Mehrabian Interview
When I interviewed Dr. Mehrabian at his UCLA offices in Los Angeles in May of 1981 on his findings, I learned a lot.

Here is one of his quotes from my June, 1981 newsletter (no blogs in those days):

    "It's true we say that non-verbal is more important than the verbal when it comes to conveying emotions and attitudes. Now I cannot say to you non-verbally that my check book is in my desk drawer at home on the left hand side. That's information.
    "So we have to be very careful to make that distinction. But when we are talking on the emotional level, attempting to be persuasive, getting across information in an important way, here the non-verbal elements of our speech become more important in the impact that we have."

Which leads into one of my favorite findings:

People buy on emotion and justify with fact

In my book "You've Got To Be Believed To Be Heard" I write about the importance of the emotions - the feeling level - in all our communications. It is very powerful, and works at the First Brain (emotional brain, limbic system) level. And as I point out in my book, the eye sensory input is by far the most important nerve pathway to the emotional First Brain (25 times larger than auditory). Not only does the visual dominate, visual cues have a direct pathway to the unconscious brain.

In his book "Blink," Malcolm Gladwell talks about the adaptive unconscious (First Brain), and how important the enormous visual input is in making immediate and unconscious decisions. (In the first 2 seconds a police officer may have to decide to shoot or not - Gladwell calls it Thin Slicing.) We make those same decisions in communicating - in whether to believe someone or not.

So when you meet someone for the first time, the visual will dominate, and likability will be important to your openness to the person. If you don't like someone, you will tend to neither trust nor believe what they say. Likability has been proven to be the most significant factor in electing Presidents, or in any voting for that matter. (See also Tim Sanders book, "The Likeability Factor.") We tend to discount emotionally and unconsciously those we don't like. Doesn't matter how important or true the message is, it will tend to not be heard. Thus Mehrabian's findings are important to point the way to being better communicators.

Overcoming the 'curse of knowledge.'

In Chip Heath's great book "Made To Stick" he talks about how we - our society and all of us as communicators - are caught up in the 'curse of knowledge.' Starting in our academic system we are taught information reigns supreme - if we say the words people will get them. But it just isn't so. It takes more than words.

Mehrabian points the way for overcoming the 'curse of knowledge.' But there are so many other examples and proof points (I could write a book...  well actually, I did.) Suffice to say, when we speak we create a communications experience where people WILL get our message if we are trusted and believed. And enthusiastic and confident. And we connect and engage. If we are congruent with our message. And unfortunately most people communicating in business aren't congruent - when they are nervous, lack confidence, or otherwise sabotage their message with inappropriate vocal and visual cues. Those cues are what will be believed at the feeling, liking and unconscious level. That is what Mehrabian's research shows. And if you want a visual and vocal example, look at these clips from people who are at first nervous and then gain confidence.

The ladder is leaning against the wrong wall.

Much of the criticism of Mehrabian in recent blogs comes from his methodology - he was using still pictures, he combined two different experiments, etc. These interpretations miss the point. I think most statistical research can be faulted in some way - and as Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." But what is the essence of the findings? It is that the visual dominates at the feeling (liking) level, and that is the dominant factor in establishing trust and credibility. Which is critical in getting any message across.

I'll close this post with my personal experience that I think totally verifies Mehrabian. I founded Decker Communications, Inc. 30 years ago this year. We have trained and interacted with well over 100,000 people in 1 and 2 day "Communicate To Influence" programs. I have personally been involved with tens of thousands of our clients in coaching and training.

To my knowledge, there has not been an exception to:

• every participant coming in content-burdened and behaviorally-challenged in some way, exhibiting an inconsistent message.
• every participant gaining confidence and conscious control of behavioral skills - vocal and visual - that allowed them to give a more consistent and powerful message.
• ...and finally, there has not been an exception to any participant who did not agree with the substance of Mehrabian's findings after learning of the research intellectually, and then spending some time observing themselves on video, with feedback and coaching - and seeing how important a congruent message was.

Professor Albert Mehrabian has provided a great service to communicators who learn of, and apply, his work. Let not misinterpretations of that work diminish the importance of Mehrabian.

But PowerPoints are NOT Your Presentation

With all the recent emphasis on the design of your PowerPoints (Keynote for the Mac), it's time to revisit the fact that your visuals are NOT your presentation. You and your Point of View are the centerpiece. I think that the emphasis on PowerPoints (we'll call them PP for brevity) is because 2008 WAS a great year for great design with the publication of Garr Reynolds' book "Presentation Zen" and Nancy Duarte's "slide:ology" (both still best sellers on Amazon.) Make no mistake that having powerful and visual support materials is critical to your impact. But it's still your impact - it's not a PP.

Keep in mind that we're talking here about in-person presentations, not PP 'decks' that are designed to be used as a written report. Also, many major conferences think 'decks' when they ask their speakers to send in their PowerPoints in advance. Why? They are NOT their presentation! (This just happened to me, and I did it because the client IS the client. But it misses the point of the experience.)

Unfortunately we find that in about 95% of the cases for most speakers in business today their PP's are the centerpiece of their message. They create their content around their PP's, rather than figuring out what they want to say, and then using PP's, (and videos, and exercises, and SHARP's, etc.) to SUPPORT their presentation.

When it comes to persuasive impact in our communications, it is not through technology, but only with it. YOU are always the centerpiece of your presentation, and no graphically dazzling slide should ever replace you. Nor Twitter stream for that matter.

With all the advances in technology, we must continuously emphasize the critical importance of human confidence in the delivery as well as in the tools of delivery - the primary tool being yourself. With greater "high tech" we need a corresponding increase in "high touch." Think of using videos - embed them in your PPs. And experiment with a live Twitter stream - this can be distracting in a more formal speech but is great for tech/breakout/collaborative sessions. And remember that with this advanced technology and the many more options available for visual support, your confidence and control as the centerpiece has to be even more skilled.

Think of Steve Jobs and why his presentations are so powerful. (He led our Top Ten Communicators of 2005 list, even before the famous iPhone announcement, and was on the list most years since.) While he uses elegantly simple slides and perfectly timed and executed demos, he remains the center of the presentation. Often, (as at the top of the screen here) he will completely clear the screen (using a black slide - that's the way to do it) to keep the audience's attention on his energy, on his enthusiasm, and on his words. Not the PowerPoint's. (Or Keynote's in this case.)

Remembering that you are the presentation, develop visuals that enhance your point of view. After all, visuals are important:

• "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand."    Cicero
• 55% of likability - critical component of trust - comes through the visual behavior of the speaker Mehrabian
• A 500% average increase in retention occurs when visuals are used in a presentation
• 83% of what we know is learned by seeing and observing

For your own personal and visual impact, see yourself on video. And when you get to support, for great tips on presentation design, check out Garr Reynold's blog Presentation Zen and Nancy Duarte's blog slide:ology.

Always keep in mind that you are your most important visual aid. Train yourself first so that you have a confidence that never quits in the face of new technology. And then add great design.

How to Start Communicating on Twitter

Exploding - the word for Twitter, and Social Media for that matter.

There's a lot of misunderstanding about Twitter, and particularly about getting started, so this post is JUST about that - and will be a little texty. Timely though, since I'm about to speak to a major Association's Management Team on finding "The Melody In Noise," and have found most do not know the Twitter basics - I want to point them here. (If you know the basics, go to this post on the Why and How of Twitter.)
 
Twitter is useful and a good ROI on your time if you don’t overdo it. (I do but you don’t have to…, you could spend a half hour a day and get a lot of value for yourself and your business.)
 
So I encourage it, and here are the beginning steps I’d recommend:
 
1.   Sign up at www.Twitter.com. Use your real name, or as close as you can get.

2.   Begin with a post (affectionately called Tweets), as simple as “I’m starting at Twitter.”

3.   Fill out your profile in the upper right. Use a good close-up picture of yourself, and put in a url (ideally your blog, or your company blog or website), and be interesting and somewhat open in your profile. Twitter is about transparency. People want to quickly ‘get’ who you are if they are going to follow you. I strongly recommend you do NOT check the "Protect my updates" box. Not transparent - and actually, why be on Twitter if you don't want to communicate rapidly, spontaneously and personally. I don't follow blocked updates. Fill in your location - your city is best - I'm not sure why some people put in 'everywhere' or a cell phone location - doesn't tell much.

4.   Follow me @BertDecker and I’ll help you get followers, and be glad to help you along. Give me an @ or DM message (which is a Reply or Direct Message) or email me (see below.)

5.   Write another post, and another. You can start with what you are doing but that’s pretty useless (who cares), so maybe reply to a follower, or ReTweet. Move to give value as soon as you can. But get some posts up.

6.   Then get followers (see below), and from that most will follow you. There are many ways to get followers, but just start by clicking on the ID’s and follow anybody to start. After you get 10 or 20 you’ll get the gist of it and begin to use the apps like www.twannabe.com and others.

7.   Here are some people to start following from Decker Communications and other good people who will probably follow you back:

@KellyDecker @DeckerBen @KhoriWhitaker @Allisoncds @DeckerComm @MatthewNault @Guy_Baker @DruScottDecker @SamDecker @ChrisSpagnuolo @Jeff_Bailey @OliviaMitchell @GuyKawasaki

8.   As soon as you can, get the great application www.TweetDeck.com so you can begin grouping your followers (friends or associates is a better name actually) and really use Twitter for both giving value, gaining value, and expanding your horizons as well as your friendships.

9. Caution! There is a learning curve. Expect it to take a week or so... if you have given value, you will see the value.

10. For further justification and next steps and good tips, now go to: The Why and How of Twitter

And Twitter me @BertDecker , or email me with any questions at Bert@decker.com
 
"The effectiveness of your communication determines the effectiveness of your life.”

Lie To Me - is a lie!

The Fox TV show that is surprisingly popular is based on a lie. Ironically, it is called "Lie To Me."

The primary reason I'm compelled to write this is because the producers use the credibility of communications giant Paul Ekman to promote an untruth - that you can tell whether people are lying. You can't!

I have great respect for Paul Ekman, one of the foremost researchers and experts in facial expression. Heck, I have a signed copy of his book "Unmasking The Face"  that I reference in my book "You've Got To Be Believed To Be Heard," and have read and follow his research. I was surprised that he lent his name to the show as the "expert" because he knows you cannot tell when people are lying.

And that's what the show would have us believe. Lightman, the hero and expert who always walks around with his head cocked to one side peering intently into 'suspects' eyes, will say "You're lying" to someone, and of course they immediately crumble. That's fiction. Or Lightman will glance at someone and say who is angry, hostile, repressed, etc. All Hollywood.

In one segment Lightman sees one of his subjects rub his eye with his middle finger, plays it back magnified to his cohorts and says, "There, see the repressed anger." Then there are three quick cuts of Obama, Bill Clinton and John McCain all shown with their middle fingers rubbing their lips or face as if they are all showing the same emotion. Compelling, but inaccurate.

Here is a promo that shows an interpretation as truth, which is specious at best. Crows feet MIGHT mean a full smile - they might also be wrinkles.

The show is well done, highly produced, and is entertainment if you like that sort of thing. But my concern is that people will give a LOT more credence in reading facial expression and body language with a CERTAINTY than is actually the truth.

You can become expert at discernment, and when trained you can tell when someone is nervous or lacks confidence or is 'shifty' etc. Even untrained you'll have a pretty good feeling - but it can very often be wrong. Video feedback is a marvelous tool for learning more about reading ourselves and others - and that's our business of course. And having been in this business and the film making business for 30 years, I've learned something about real behavior, deception and theatrics. But personally, I cannot tell with a certainty a lie or even a half truth. Neither can Paul Ekman. And neither can Lightman - the actor.

I've been meaning for weeks to write this post, and I have Tivo the show planning to cut clips to show my points, but it's on tonight (Obama couldn't preempt Fox I just found out) so it's timely now. Watch the show if you haven't, and treat it as the fiction that it is. Unfortunately, I continue to watch it with a stomach churning emotion that too many people will treat this fiction as fact.

It's All About Them: How to take "you" out of the message

@kellydecker back here this week, inspired to write another post.

 

“It’s not you…it’s me.”

 

Relationship wise, maybe you’ve been the receiver of that message, or in George Constanza’s case, you invented it. One of my favorite Seinfeld moments below:

 

We’ve ALL actually been there – in fact, in our business communications, we’re guilty of being on the sender side. And it’s one of the single biggest problems with communications.

 

When we present (in a meeting, conference call or formal presentation) we think it is about us, and not about them. It’s not as if we consciously try to focus on me, me, me, but it sure comes off that way. It rears its ugly head in many ways. Maybe you’ve got a start-up, or a new product, or you’re trying to convince your exec team to pursue your initiative. You use those opportunities to prove yourself. In the words of Stuart Smalley, “You’re good enough. You’re smart enough. And gosh darn it, people like you.” So there you are with YOUR agenda in mind, why YOU think it’s great, and what it will do for YOU. And you’ve got a presentation that has nothing to do with listener.

 

A recent HarvardBusiness.org article on framing notes, “Individuals tend to focus on their own particular needs and on matters relating to their specific areas of expertise. In so doing, they may lose sight of the details that matter for the project they are currently working on.” In other words, you’re just too focused on you to worry about them.

 

Last Saturday I failed miserably doing this with my four-year-old. He came into my room to hang out as I was getting ready for a busy day with the kids. (Let me just take a moment to say that I really value my very rare alone time – those 20 minutes in the morning is one of those few calm, zen-like moments that I have all to myself.) I’m therefore none too happy with the intrusion, and say, “I REALLY want to finish getting ready alone right now, please go wait in the family room.” If I’m him, I’m thinking “That’s nice. What’s in it for me?” I shoulda coulda woulda said, “If you wait in the family room, I can get ready much more quickly so that we can go to the park sooner.” Same thing goes for your next pitch.

 

Focus on your listener. Now, really focus. Listeners are the centerpiece of our Decker Grid system – whether it’s 1, 15, 54 or 322 people to whom you’re speaking. Before you come up with the big “So what?” of your message, you should do a careful analysis of your listener. Ask a few questions:

1. Who are they? Why are they here?
2. How do they feel about you or your subject?
3. How will they support or challenge your idea?
4. Are they data or business (initiative) driven?
5. What’s in it for them (not just as a team or corporation, but individually as well)?

Once you’ve answered these questions, come up with the top three adjectives that describe your listener – things like: resistant, open, hostile, skeptical, friendly, budget-conscious, etc. Now you can think about the big picture, and the approach that you’ll use to move that specific listener from information to influence.

 

When it comes to communications, remember, “It’s you, it’s not me.”

 

BTW, Duarte Design does a great audience mapping exercise as part of their work as well – because they get it! It’s mentioned in their blog here.

The Teleprompter Strikes Again - A Tale of Two Leaders

Kelly Decker here - guest blogging today.

I'm a relatively new fan of Shel Holtz's blog, arriving there from somewhere the Twittersphere. Shel is a PR guru and writes extensively on communications and technology. Over the past week, he's been blogging on the Dominos debacle that you've probably seen, or, if you're like me, you heard about it and had no interest in actually watching someone stick cheese up their nose (but, if you're in the mood, you can see it here).

Shel's Wednesday post focused on the public apology by Domino's USA President, Patrick Doyle. He comments on the content of the apology specifically, and that it is unfortunately inconsistent with the facts of how Domino's actually handled the situation, and therefore is inauthentic. But even worse, and the reason for this post, is to point out the behavior that makes it inauthentic. And who is to blame?...The teleprompter.

Bert has blogged about the how the TP can kill a communications experience - and most notably for Obama - read about it here and here. And this is hilariously supported by at least 12 different Twitter profiles of Obama's Teleprompter - go ahead and do a Twitter search for "teleprompter" (my fav is @BOTeleprompter).

Back to Doyle...here's the apology: 

Two BIG problems here:

1. Lack of eye communication. The whole challenge we have as communicators is to engender trust and believability. Our listeners - one or 353,466 in this case (the number of views as of today) - must believe in us for our message to have impact. Eye communication is the #1 behavioral skill because it either makes or breaks our connection with that listener. Doyle should have been looking directly at the camera - addressing his audience to connect with them. Instead, he was talking to someone over in the corner of the room who was just making sure that he stuck to the script.

2. Corporate speak. It's a two-minute speech on which someone likely spent at least one sleepless night, followed by endless reviews by Legal, PR, Marketing, and others. Domino's customers just needed to hear something real - just talk to them.

Now, let's contrast this to another highly publicized corporate apology - this from David Neeleman, past CEO of JetBlue for major service issues in February of 2007. You'll find an almost polar opposite experience - mostly because he's not reading a thing. (Unfortunately this is clearly evidenced by his terrible ums and uhs - btw, please don't model this - it's the only significant hiccup here.) He looks directly at his audience, tells it like it is, and has a fantastic close asking for your trust and business.

So what? You may be sitting there saying, "Good thing I don't use a teleprompter." But these takeaways are applicable to you. Here's what you can do:

1. Mind your multitasking. We're sidetracked more than ever these days, and too often we're tweeting or emailing, or focusing somewhere else than on someone who is standing in our office or cube trying to discuss an issue. Guess what...you're Patrick Doyle. Put down the Blackberry/iPhone/etc., turn toward them and look them in the eye.

2. Be plain-spoken. The higher stakes a meeting or presentation, the more formal our tone, and we (our personalities) get completely lost in the process. Think conversational, and talk that way. You'll be more authentic, and only then will your message (the content you spent so much time on) be heard.