Gordon Brown. Better heard than seen? Discuss.

Gordon Brown has survived a hellish week riding on the sympathy wave following The Sun’s brutal and misjudged attack over that letter. One interview during the week showed him at his best. It was on radio.

In this television age, when would-be politicians are assessed on camera before getting the candidacy, Brown is not a natural. When looks count – his clumsy body language (think Despatch box), jaw movement, fatigued expression – he has little going for him. You almost feel sorry.

POLL Brown 182845

His voice, however, even when under pressure, remains strong, reassuring, warm even, and authorative. More like a confident leader. If there was a choice he would surely opt for the up-coming TV debate with Cameron to be on radio only.

He will no doubt be aware of the outcome of the first ever televised Presidential debate, in 1960, when Nixon confronted Kennedy. A Gallup poll among viewers revealed that Kennedy came out on top. However, in the same poll among those who only heard the debate on radio Nixon was preferred.

Brown does not look as shifty as Nixon but nor does the camera favour him as it does Cameron.

In business pitches the importance of voice and tone is often overlooked. Changing one’s voice is seen as too tough (although Margaret Thatcher did it to good effect). What will help, and can be rehearsed, is change of ‘pitch and pace’, with deliberate pauses …….. to punctuate and command attention.

Try it , pause………and sound more confident!

Leave a reply

Pitch leaders must demonstrate leadership!

The subject of leadership has been in the news a lot recently.

A few weeks ago we heard from Chelsea manager Ancelotti about “a word in Italy: trascinatore”. It means the player that pulls the group together. John Terry is a trascinatore at Chelsea, as is Drogba and as is Capello for England.

Churchill was a trascinatore! In his just published biography, Churchill As Warlord, Max Hastings says, “the Dunkirk spirit was not spontaneous. It was created by the rhetoric and bearing of one man, displaying powers that will define political leadership for the rest of time”.

New boys on the block like Obama and Cameron have a long way to go.

In the world of pitching the role of ‘pitch leader’ is often too readily assigned. It goes to the person who is most experienced, who knows the client, who is most senior or, sometimes, most available. Not, as it should, to he or she is who is demonstrably a leader, a trascinatore.

In practice, most groups will not have the luxury of ‘leadership’ choice. They go with the people they have, perhaps competent managers but not natural leaders. However, it is through practice that leadership can be demonstrated -for at least the duration of the pitch!

How? The clues are supplied by Churchill, “the rhetoric and the bearing”.

Whilst no one can emulate the great man, through frequent rehearsal, of both words and manner, they can move from competent manager to dynamic, inspiring leader. As Olivia Mitchell of www.speakingaboutpresenting.com says “the difference between good and great is rehearsal”.

And a leader ‘being great’ will raise perception, and evaluation, of the entire pitch.

Leave a reply

Do looks matter? Let’s discuss.

Two articles this weekend discussed looks in politics and entertainment. Catherine Bennett in the Observer asked, “What it is with male politicians and their obsession with looks? Couldn’t they work rather than work out?”

She cites Blair’s scrupulously maintained tan, balanced diet and faultless body mass index, jogger Sarkozy’s spartan regime and poseur-in-chief Berlosconi with hair transplants and cosmetic work. All examples of an “age of image-obsessed personality politics….but no one expects a senior economist- Mervyn King, for instance -to jog like Boris”.

AA Gill writes that “almost every medium for entertainment or edification is myopically lookist, sizeist and pulchritudinist… even opera singers can’t be fat anymore”. He then contrasts this with the success of Andrew Marr, “who has a face for radio and a voice for mime”. He succeeds with a punchy delivery and because he is “bright and perceptive and just a touch iconoclastic”.

Marr is not a bad role model for business. Energy, exuberance, excitement and passion will outperform any beauty formula!

Leave a reply

Nick Griffin needed coaching!

Amongst the journalistic feeding frenzy following Question Time, this reported comment from a supporter on the BNP website, perhaps not surprisingly, caught my eye.

“Maybe some coaching could of been done so that Mr Griffin could of answered any question articulately”.

What might such coaching have achieved?

For starters, he would have been better prepared. Whilst few could have anticipated the extent to which ratings hungry BBC would stage a lynching, he should have anticipated and prepared for hostile questions.

pg-16-griffin-pa_242136s

Setting aside the bizarre to unacceptable nature of his replies, just by rehearsing them he would have come across more persuasively, almost likeable. A considered pause before rushing in (fool-like?), a calmer more measured tone and a more relaxed, comfortable posture. All would have signalled confidence.

Fortunately for him most of his fellow panellist-opponents performed equally badly. Jack Straw assumed the ranting role with an over prepared, over-the-top polemic, Chris Hune made no impression and clever Bonnie Greer was too clever. The only natural, and therefore persuasive, one was Sayeeda Warsi.

Fortunate too, because it upped the sympathy vote, that the normally urbane Dimbleby chose the role of attack dog, leading his savage pack, the carefully selected audience.

Great viewing figures for the BBC but Griffin would have got more out of it with a little coaching. I am not volunteering.

Leave a reply

chemistry-matters1

As the political parties start their final jockeying for favour, leading up to the election, team selection (as it is for Capello) becomes critical. It will not be enough to have well qualified individuals in the line-ups. What will matter is their chemistry.

Do we like them? Do they like each other? Are they an attractive interesting team? Basic gut instinct can overule our political sensibility, particularly when real differences are few. As they usually are in the business pitch.

elements1

Many many pitches, across all sorts of business areas, end up with a team of three to six people, presenting to a similiar number, for around 45 minutes. However heavy the documented proposal, however intense the build-up, these few minutes are often what determine the result.

Fast, instinctive reaction to the team, and how they come across in those precious minutes, lead decisions. Casting is critical to positive chemistry. They have asked to ‘meet the team’, but what do you do if you have someone who, on paper, is by far the best qualified but who comes across poorly in meetings?

The tough decision must be faced. Who will win the business on the day?

desired-reaction

Any response will be emotional. Chemistry will matter and, generally is more positive where the team is made -up of interesting, different and contrasting personalities.

Ten years ago Blair, Prescott and Brown were such a team. Today neither Cameron’s Notting Hill Gate set nor the brothers Milliband or the Balls couple, for Labour, offer such contrast.

experiment-first1

In reality, most companies will not have a cast of hundreds to choose from. What they can, and, if they want to win, must do is work on the chemistry of the team they have got. Use rehearsals to improve performances and confidence. Have an objective rehearsor as you try out different approaches to create interest, surprise, engagement and interaction.

The result can be spontaneous combustion on the day!

Leave a reply