London 2012. A triumph of emotion.

PITCHES AND TROUGHS. 100 BEST STORIES.

The battle to host the 2012 Olympics was the pitch of the decade. The general sense of euphoria then felt at London’s win is now somewhat muted as the pitched cost of £2 billion plus is now around £9 million and rising! Nevertheless, it was a brilliant pitch and one that has been written up by many, including an excellent chapter in Jon Steel’s book Perfect Pitch.

From a long list of nine, five candidate cities, New York, Moscow, Madrid , Paris and London, invested many millions developing their technical submissions (the exaggerated equivalent of the pitch document). All five were approved by the scrutineers. Paris was assumed to be ahead at this stage but in reality any one of the five could have won in the live pitch in Singapore. This is where the right to be a “Best 100″ story starts.

How did London win the hearts of the 110 members of the IOC, voting anonomously, average age late sixties?

Shortly after the announcement, I asked Alan Pascoe, a deputy chairman of the Bid team, what was the single factor that, in his opinion, lead to success? His immediate reply ,” we kept on and on asking ourselves the question, from the individual IOC members viewpoint,-What’s in it for me?”

The answer was not about the delivery of a successful Games. It was all about the benefit of the Olympics in terms of its legacy, particularly among the young. It was this insight that determined the winning strategy in a pitch which demonstated that London , and the people running the bid, understood the IOC best.

Many elements during the pitch reinforced this insight. However, the most astonishing dramatisation of the strategy came in the video. The four other cities, using world famous directors, showcased their cities and stadia in all their glory. As you would expect.

The London film did not show the city at all. What it did show was heart rending footage of young children, in different parts of the world, nervously competing and ‘dreaming’ of taking part in the Olympics in London . The final words over ” To make an athlete takes millions of children around the world inspired to choose sport”.

A few months ago at a dinner I asked Seb Coe to sum up the success. His response ” it was all down to the emotional connection”

3 Replies

Pit(ch)fall 6. Playing second fiddle to the charts.

I am not alone in saying beware of ‘death by powerpoint’. It is the seemingly inevitable first port of call for most presentations. It is inexpensive, efficient, easy to create, can be the basis of a leave-behind and, properly used, can aid communication.

For these reasons you find that at rehearsal, assuming one takes place, (mandatory says pitchcoach!) people automatically turn up, powerpoint poised. It’s only at the rehearsal, and not always then, that discussion takes place on what would be the best form of communication to create impact. And, surprise, powerpoint is not always the answer.

Two stories illustrate this. Some years ago, with a high quality powerpoint presentation, I delivered a platform speech at a conference. It seemed to go ok but it was blown away by the next speaker, a famous academic and skilled lecturer. He used a single scruffy acetate on an overhead projector ( remember them?) and mesmerised the audience. It was the way he said it! I felt foolish and lost the powerpoint habit.

Recently, I was involved in a pitch workshop. One excercise called for six teams to take the brief, with 60 minutes to prepare and then deliver a ten minute pitch, using flipcharts or powerpoint. To add challenge, ‘rules’ altered at last second. One team only was told they could not use any of their prepared visuals. It was this team that scored highest on the “communicated best” measure. They had no charts to ‘vampire ‘ them, and talked directly to their audience.

People buy people, not their charts.

Pit(ch(fall 5. Being boring…….

One of the few people to thrive on being boring was, as captured on Spitting Images, snooker’s Steve ‘Interesting’ Davis. A successful pitch consultant, who advises clients on their selection process, warns that their attention span is minimal during presentations. Despite this, one of the commonest errors is to be worthy, dull and boring. Why is this?

Many reasons, of course. There is the natural inclination to show just how much hard, clever work has been done. Or there is the temptation to reproduce everything that has gone into a lengthy tome of a document. Or a feeling of obligation to give everyone involved in the build up a role in the pitch.

All of these fall into the same trap . It’s not what you put into a pitch that matters. It’s what the audience takes out. A pitch is a performance and, however serious the subject, you are putting on a show that should deliver the content in a way that surprises, delights and engages the audience.

Sir Alan Sugar in an interview in the Daily Telgraph, post the Apprentice, commented on Gordon Brown who he seems to like. “His problem is that he is not an actor……..a serious person, who with all due respect is a bit boring, not that eloquent in his presentation skills”

In the same article he went on to say “….what a sad state of affairs that you need a showman to get someone to vote for a party”.

And to lead the successful pitch!

The Apprentice. Pure show biz or pitch theatre?

Last night 8 million, or so, viewers tuned in to the final show, pretty compelling stuff. It is easy to dimiss the programme, and many critics do, as pure show biz with 16 contestants and SIR Alan all showing off, acting out their aggro, trying to win business ASBOS.

This critcism misses the point. What makes it compelling is the very real spirit of gladitorial competition, they all really want to win. We enjoy seeing who loses and how they take it, car crash television.

SIR Alan, like Simon Cowell in his Talent show, plays the Caligula who last night gave thumbs down to Alex the looker, Claire the loud and Helene the sane . Thumbs up went to Lee ,the ‘ liar’. I would have hired Claire.

What lessons can we take into real, as opposed to reality, pitches? The main one, as so often, is the critical need to understand the decision taker, here SIR Alan. What turns him on , what is he getting out of this( and it’s not the opportunity to recruit an employee), what makes him look good? After all, he is the star.

It would seem, and this is tricky to assess given all the direction and editing , that there is reward for listening to the great man and then being seen to have modified, to some extent anyway, behaviour. In any pitch listening to gain insight is key to success!

1 Reply

How Camelot left nothing to chance.

A PITCHES AND TROUGHES ‘100 BEST’ STORY

Until the Olympics bid the highest profile pitch in the UK was that run by the Government Department (OFLOT) for operating the National Lottery. Several mighty consortia entered the fray. Rank, the UK leader in games of chance; Rothshild, bringing financial credibility; Branson, the ‘people’s champion’ and Camelot which, then, included GTECH, world leading lottery experts.

The brief, three hundred pages of it, was formidable. The winner would, in effect, be setting up an entirely new form of gambling to the UK. This was expected to be (and was) played by the majority of the population. An excellent book by Ray Snoddy gives chapter and verse but I am focussing on just two winning aspects.

One. Camelot left nothing to chance.

Led by Tim Holly , an expert in winning defence contracts for Racal, Camelot’s attention to detail and over delivery on every single aspect was astounding. A few examples. Hundreds of recently retired Cadbury Scweppes ( consortium member) sales people personally vetted thousands of potential retailers; three ad campaigns were created and fully researched; a single copy of the submission stacked 3 feet high and, for their interview with OFLOT, Camelot directors held fifteen hours of reheasal.

Two. Camelot understood that “fear of failure” motivated the decision.

Imagine you are the civil servant who makes the award and the world’s biggest online lottery fails on first night, making your Prime Minister look foolish. Camelot, unlike their competitors who only promised success, played to this fear.

One example, that stands out, was the running of a recruitment campaign in newspapers after the tender had been submitted but before the decision! This was not an act of bravado. It was a calculated signal to the decision takers. ‘ We are doing this to have people in place, in time, to guarantee there is no chance of failure’.

Pitchcoach comment: Camelot’s insight into the decision making mindset was key to their winning strategy and was one reason why the popular Branson bid never troubled them.