The TV debate. (4) Lessons from Obama?

It has just been reported that both Cameron and Brown are hiring consultants who helped Obama to help them as they face the TV debates, potentially more vital as the gap narrows. Help!

Their ‘joint’ decisions influenced presumably by the fact that America has done more of it for longer and by the power of ‘brand’ Obama. But are they both right?

state-of-the-union-obama-speaking

Taking Obama first. His truly great performances have been as orator, calling for very different skills to those of the live debate. No one is challenging, the audience is ‘out there’ ready to be captivated by virtuoso performance, two teleprompters his best friends.

Incidentally, Cameron’s own best so far performance was his famous, leadership winning, ‘no notes’ speech at Blackpool. But the debate calls for something different and although Obama won his against McCain, the competition was not up to much. Since then his more intimate television interviews have not impressed.

America and Britain being divided by a common language is another reason to treat with caution the Obama victory-claiming consultants. And we still do not know the format for the debates as all sides seek to negotiate the least risky formula.

gordon-brown-david-camero-001

Given these caveats what should our three reality show contestants be seeking from their learned consultants? Basically, how to be both relaxed and confident enough to be themselves, allowing us the viewers to feel we have met them.

This may well be easier for Nick Clegg. He needs to inject an element of surprise but he comes across naturally and more conversationally than his rivals.

For David Cameron it has become more difficult as his constant exposure has left the impression of someone whose only communication mode is one of ‘finger wagging’ over-emphasis, where charm and the art of conversation come second.

Gordon Brown has survived the bullying barrage and if anything the polls suggest he has benefitted, perhaps because of a glimpse of the real person, however many warts. As ever when he is bad, he is very very bad, but when he is good then the others should look out.

Perhaps he would do better with Piers Morgan as his consultant.

Leave a reply

Tiger burning without fire

Last week saw Tiger Woods making the toughest pitch of his life. Tougher than any pitch onto the 18th green to win a major championship! How did he do?

Opinion, and there was lots of it all around the world, was surprisingly divided with generally the golfing press being more forgiving than the rest.

He undoubtedly achieved objective number one to put Brand Tiger back on the map ensuring that when he does return he will be as popular as ever. After all, as the world’s best golfer his spitting and swearing have not alienated his followers. So why should a little sex?

100219_tiger_apology1

The performance itself was stage managed to the nth degree. He dressed down to provoke sympathy, and read a carefully crafted speech as if coached by Tony Blair. As sports journalist Mat Syed wrote, “It had it all, regrets, tears, apologies, dramatic pauses, stern words about privacy even religion”.

Despite all this, for most it was his tone that betrayed him. Although apparently emotional he never lost control. He lacked ‘any tangible sense of authenticity’. Or, as Kevin Garside put it in the Telegraph, “he spoke with the sincerity of a double glazing salesman”.

Given that he is a perfectionist to whom practice (and presumably rehearsal) is second nature, how did he fail to make any emotional connection with so many viewers? Perhaps it was, that like Blair in the Iraq enquiry, he was not the least bit interested in ‘us’, the public.

Like Blair, the only audience he was there to appease was corporate America. Not fellow golfers, not the media and not us.

Lorraine Kelly in the Sun caught the feelings of many. “Then we have the daddy of them all, the shamed and disgraced Eldrick Woods, (previously known as Tiger), who was badgered into saying sorry for being an arrogant, philandering, smug sleazy git”.

Leave a reply

The TV debate. (3) How to get emotional

Over this past week many tears have been publicly shed. All, no doubt, reflected genuine private grief. But all with political gain in mind.

tears

The belligerent Alastair Campbell shed his over harsh words aimed at Tony Blair, hoping one assumes to dilute criticism at the Iraq enquiry. Jacques Rogge’s tears at the opening ceremony were followed by assigning all blame to the athlete who died and none to the Canadian organisers (who later did make the run safer).

Then, we had an interview with David Cameron getting his tears out just ahead of the week’s main cri de coeur with Gordon Brown talking to Piers Morgan. Genuine expressions of emotion, but in response to questions publicly orchestrated.

As the live TV debate looms, both appreciate that it is not their policies which will determine the viewers’ response. It is their personalities, or rather their public personae that will strike an emotional chord, or not.

brown_cameron_clegg

Of the three contestants Nick Clegg has more natural empathy and nothing to lose so will probably perform best. Cameron is the polished communicator but has never reached the heights of his leadership winning speech in Backpool. He needs to offset his ‘slick salesmen’ image (56% agree) with real warmth.

Brown until now has not attempted to let his more human side interfere with getting his convictions across. In the three way debate, with the benefit of the warm-up with Piers, it will be interesting to see if he lets his emotions show.

If any of them sheds a tear then, as a woman interviewee on the One Show said about men who cry, “…. sweet, it brings out the mothering instincts!”

Leave a reply

Fabio Capello, terminator, communicator…

After days of media frenzy and ecstatic speculation over the affair of John Terry, ‘legend’, and Vanessa Perroncel, serial lover of England footballers, it came as no surprise that Fabio Capello was the man who sorted it, seemingly without difficulty, doing so in a mere 12 minutes.

Why were we not surprised since few of us actually know him or what his views are?

fabio-capello-001

First of all is his iconic body language. Upright, crossed arms, trademark spectacles and a jutting chin, the like of which last seen on Popeye. As one writer put it, “every small phrase of body language, every facial gesture speaks of professional indignation”. Not since Margaret Thatcher has any high profile person radiated such certainty.

Second, is his power of silence, speaking only when absolutely necessary and then with brevity resisting the need to embellish, to justify. In that 12 minutes with Terry, he only spoke for a few of them. Compare this with his garrulous predecessor Maclaren whose only memorable gesture involved sheltering under an umbrella.

tewrryvan-420x0 Interestingly on judgement day both protagonists advised, one by the ubiquitous Max the other by an ex-News of the World editor, tried damage limitation with carefully chosen photographs projecting ‘optimum’ body language. The normally sultry Perroncel shown demure, grieving, the normally snarling Terry heroic and saintly. Sadly, neither learnt that silence can be golden.

Lessons from Capello for interviewees or pitchers? Talking too much, not listening to the question, gabbling are common mistakes. So too is forgetting that the way you sit, stand or move will be sending a signal of confidence, or not.

Leave a reply

The Iraq enquiry. Pitchcoach verdict on Blair.

Last week was an important one for this political X-Factor reality show, where pitching success is all about the Q&A. Setting aside the content, which for the most part held few surprises, how well did the contestants perform? Did they command the stage? Did they engage with their audience?

For all, the panel was the same. Not exactly Spanish Inquisition nor even would-be Simon Cowells. Deliberately low-key, decently British, they lacked cohesion and with over long preambles gave time for considered response, with less chance of the gaffe.

Last week’s main contestants.

The Spin Doctor, Alistair Cambell. An entirely predictable reprise of his bully boy attack dog in ‘lawful’ defence of his master. Past its sell-by date, as the master no longer has power, and the television show, The Thick of it, is so much better than the real thing.

At least he is not a lawyer. In the words of a sixteenth century proverb,”The devil makes his Christmas pies of lawyers’ tongues”.

Lawyer Number One, Sir Michael Wood used all the right words then and he articulated them again in his replies. He had made the legal position clear, “we would not have a leg to stand on”. Regrettably, actions speak louder than words and when ignored he remained silent, remaining in post, rewarded with the gong. Result, largely ignored again.

elizabeth-wilmshurst-001

Lawyer Number Two, and outright X-Factor Winner was Elizabeth Wilmshurst. Having resigned seven years ago as a matter of principle, she might have been expected to use the enquiry as an outlet for her justifiable outrage. Instead she arrived unburdened with supporting files, composed and almost serene such that her carefully chosen words, ‘like a scorpion’s sting,’ ridiculed this “lamentable” affair.

Lawyer Number Three, Jack Straw, but not as Wilmshurst scathingly put it “an international lawyer.” Another predictably reasoned performance, smoother and less interesting now lasered, he managed to sit reasonably on the fence both supporting and distancing himself from Blair. His theme song ‘I am a survivor’.

Lawyer Number Four, Lord Goldsmith was “calm and reassuring like chocolate” and used legalese at its most opaque, sheltering behind his role of looking after ‘my client’, always a good get-out. Except are we not his client? As Quentin Letts put it .. “over-rehearsed tones, his unctuous attempt at modesty, his amazing lack of human sorrow..”

tony-blair-speaks-at-the-iraq-inquiry-pic-pa-wire-image-1-149815808

Lawyer Number Five, ex-PM, Tony Blair had as expected mastered his brief, he certainly mastered the panel and as ever displayed his mastery of the art of public performance. Six long hours of sustained brilliance, the strong body language, expressive with his hands, the practised use of his spectacles, the studied pauses for thought and careful acknowledgment of the questioner.

It was all there, a master class apart from one vital ingredient, something that was once his trademark, the ability to make an emotional connection with his audience. This was a cold performance with no Princess Diana moment.

Why? Simple. We are not his audience, he has no need or wish to engage with us. His audience is corporate America where a righteous Rambo commands top dollar, regrets rather less.

Wherever law ends , Tyranny begins” . John Locke.1690

Leave a reply