What makes a speech or presentation succeed

I was recently approached by a friend to evaluate a speech she had prepared. It was good, well written and full of interesting content. But it wasn't a speech. It was, in effect, a spoken essay.

I told her that the text that's written to be said is different from the text that's written to be read.

An article printed in a magazine or newspaper allows you to read at your own pace, go back and read again the bits you didn't get the first time, memorise the things you want to retain. Listening to a speech is different. You hear it all just once, at the speaker's pace, and there is no instant rewind.

The speaker needs to be aware of this, and make it easy for the listener to get the point. Another consideration is the fact that our concentrations spans are very short, perhaps as little as seven seconds. Every seven seconds our minds switch to something else, so we are not paying attention all the time. (Even as you read this, you have had extraneous thoughts swim into your mind.)

For the speech or presentation to succeed, the speaker should have a purpose: it must be to bring about some change in the thinking, attitude or behaviour of the listener(s). That change can only come about if there is 'buy in' on the part of the listener, which implies some emotional response.

For a speech to achieve its purpose, there needs to be a certain type of structure, the use of repetition, and some oratorical devices. Oratory is about pressing the emotional buttons of the audience, so that they become interested, then excited, and finally enthusiastic about your proposition.

Think of the famous speeches that you remember: JFK, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama, Winston Churchill. Think of the memorable phrases in those speeches, and note the devices - repetition, triads, mini climaxes and so on. These are the powerful elements that help the speaker to reach into the hearts of their hearers.

Public speaking is much more than amplified conversation. It's a craft. It takes skill. It can be taught.

Marching to the sound of a different drum

There's a rash of St George's flags everywhere, even mounted on cars. But at England's (sorry, Ingerlund's) opening game, only about three of the players sang the National Anthem.

When players are chosen for the national team (in any sport), why don't they learn and sing the Anthem? They seem to be marching to the sound of a different drum.

Consider the commentary during and after the match. Experts in the studio said England played well and complimented the team's passing. I saw it differently. I saw the ball repeatedlly kicked into space, where the Americans collected it and mounted another attack. I saw the England players unable to reclaim the ball from the Americans.

I saw the England backs passing the ball aimlessly across the field to each other, especially in the final ten minutes when they should have been trying energetically for another goal. I saw reactive play, rather than planned attacks.

Could it be that the commentators were allowing their partisanship to cloud their judgement? Could it be that the England players are not fully committed to the England cause? Could it be that we need a unifying factor, like the Mandela effect at the Rugby World Cup, to inspire our players to strive valiantly for victory or die in the attempt?

There is some powerful energy floating about, but it needs proper channelling if it is to bring about success on the field of play. I think it is called Leadership.