The Times Business Briefing charts are a disaster.
For some months now, the middle pages of The Times attempt to show the financial performance of companies in chart format.
Attempt and fail.
Meaningless graphics and confusing chart types make it hard to understand the information.
The standard line, bar and pie charts have served us well. They bring clarity and simplicity to what would otherwise be indigestible numbers.
Bring in the graphic artists – result obfuscation.
Step forward Florence Nightingale with her graphical analysis of preventable deaths in the Crimea – results understanding.
Come on Times, get it right!
I enjoy Mastermind.
But one thing I never understand. Why film the chair, from all angles, for 1 minute, when no-one is in it? Surely John Humphreys could use the time to ask more questions instead.
Many PowerPoint presentations I see do something similar. Not that they show the Mastermind Chair; instead slides are taken up with pointless graphics. Mostly it’s clip art, or artistic stock photos which do nothing for the message on the slide.
In fact, they are a big distraction.
When I ask presenters why, the chief excuse is ‘It’s to make the material more interesting’.
Really?
If the material on the slide is un-interesting, then it shouldn’t be there. In fact, it’s probably a bullet point slide.
The solution is to find ways to make the slides interesting, ie visual.
Ed Miliband now leads Labour. His is the image of a bright young thing. However, his rhetoric is rooted in the classical old school classical tradition. We can see this in the opening of his leadership speech:
Be in no doubt.
The new generation of Labour is different. Different attitudes, different ideas, different ways of doing politics.
Although he uses the word Different, he uses the traditional list of 3 form. Nothing much different there.
The end of his speech also uses the tried and tested formula of the list of 3 and a call to action:
Let the message go out, a new generation has taken charge of Labour.
Optimistic about our country.
Optimistic about our world.
Optimistic about the power of politics.
We are the optimists and together we will change Britain.
The phrase: Let the message go out is very reminiscent of Martin Luther King’s Let freedom ring .
The phrase does have a nice ring to it (pun intended) and it was repeated at the SNP Conference 2010 – Address by Nicola Sturgeon MSP
Together we can and we will make Scotland better.
So let the message ring out from here to all of Scotland.
Be part of it. Be part of better.
What do we learn from this?
No matter how different or new or controversial you want to be, the tried and tested rhetoric has worked well for 2000+ years, and still works today.
Rhetoric is one of the most effective ways of gaining and keeping attention.
The List of 3 is one of the most effective rhetorical devices.
This year I will practice using the list of 3 anytime, anyplace, anywhere.
Are modern orators as good as the “old classics”? The acid test is how memorable are their speeches?
Everyone remembers the best quotes from Churchill, Kennedy and Luther King. Most of us can even remember the odd line from Thatcher (The lady’s not for turning), Powell (Rivers of blood) or even Blair (Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime).
While we all agree that Obama, Cameron or Milliband are good speakers, can we actually remember any lines from their speeches? Well, maybe Obama’s slogans ‘Yes we can’ or ‘The time for change has come’ are memorable, without a Google search we would struggle to find anything worth emulating in modern political speeches.
Why is this? I believe it’s a question of time. While previous generations of orators had more time to write their own speeches, modern speechwriters are tasked with writing several political speeeches per week. Their only solution is to pile ‘em high and never mind the quality – feel the width.
The second TV debate on Sky News highlighted a real cognitive problem.
The Sky News broadcast displayed a constant ‘ticker tape’ stream of (old) news at the bottom of the screen.
I found it so distracting that I eventually decided to record the BBC2 version at 23:30, which was, thankfully, free of annoying artifacts.
This did however highlight the problem of distracting graphics when someone is talking.
Presenters and speakers often don’t realize just how careful they must be when they talk over video clips, animations or even static graphs.
Eyes are drawn one way, ears another. Result: confusion.
An unexpected phone call got me quite excited.
It was from BBC Radio Berkshire inviting me to Anne Diamond’s show on 16th April.
My role will be to give an expert opinion on the leaders of the 3 main political parties after the televised debate on 15th April.
I have been asked to comment on how Brown, Cameron and Clegg present themselves and their messages.
Themes will be body language, persuasiveness and content.
I’ll have to make sure DVD recorder is working so that I can study them in depth, and that I do my vocal warm-ups before the programme tomorrow.
Somehow I must get in some plugs for my company.
Why must politicians give rambling, evasive and dissembling answers to even the simplest or most innocent question.
Yesterday I was listening to Americana on Radio 4. The subject was US Presidential Campaigns.
Lynn Sweet, Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times, described what happened when a question was put to Joe Biden, the current US Vice President, about whether he could control his impulse to talk ‘forever’.
His answer: “Yes”
So it is possible for politicians to answer succinctly, directly and clearly, even the most loaded question.
Take note, David, Gordon and Nick, you have been warned.
Hands up anyone who thinks rhetoric belonged to the Greeks and Romans but has no place in the modern world?
Wrong! Go and stand in the corner!
Rhetoric is all about using language to persuade.
Who are the great persuaders?
Advertisers and Politicians.
Are they using rhetoric?
Of course. From Obama to Brown, their speeches are crafted full of rhetoric.
But what about Advertisers?
One example of a newspaper ad for the Sunday Times Travel Magazine:
Be Inspired
Be Informed
Be There
And, a headline:
iCame
iQueued
iBought my iPad
Is rhetoric dead? No sir, it’s alive and kicking, and being used to part us from our money and part us from our votes.
Who can fail to be seduced by the iPhone? And now we have the gorgeous iPad. But how many queued up to buy Windows 7? Who thinks that Microsoft is sexy?
Let’s look at Steve Jobs and Bill Gates marketing approach.
Gates is the uber-geek, always extolling Windows multi-tasking, memory mapping, and multiple monitors.
Jobs is the the style guru, stroking the curves, kissing the screen, and focusing on usability.
The success of Apple might be said to be a triumph of style over substance.
But let’s look again.
Years ago, Apple products were renowned for their good looks but poor performance and reliability. Rather like American cars of the 1960′s – all chrome and glass, beautiful to look at but totally unsuited driving.
Apple’s current success is due to 3 things: excellent underlying technology, wonderful styling, and Steve Jobs’ consummate communications capability.
What do we learns from this?
If we want to be successful in selling and pitching our ideas and products we need to decide which camp to follow: The uber-geek or the style guru?
The latter is definitely preferable for high impact presentations. So, what must we do to succeed?
1. Get our proposition or product technically right
2. Work out the benefits
3. Present the message with aplomb
Is this style over substance? Only in the sense that the substance must underly the style.