A question of chemistry.

As the fight for London between Ken and Boris, and the other chap, reaches its final round, with opinion polls telling us how we will vote, it’s timely to reflect on what will, really, be influencing our decision.

Will Ken get my vote because I admire much of what he has done to make London a better place to live in and that he is clearly a consumate politician when it comes to getting more out of the public purse for London? Or because I met him once , on the underground, where he kindly gave me directions to the right platform?

Will Boris get it because some of his ideas make sense despite his lack of practical experience, or because he gets rid of bendy busses or because he will do more for grass root sport, something I feel strongly about? Or because I warm to his off-the wall sense of humour?

The truth, of course, is that, whilst I like to think my rational self will weigh up the arguments and inform the decision, my instinctive feelings for them as people will play their part. It’s a question of chemistry.

Over the last few years ‘chemistry meetings’ have become an increasingly accepted part of the pitch process. Seemingly an innocuous get together ,with no set agenda, these meetings can be more critical to the decision than a final presentation. They should ,therefore, be given the same level of energy and preparation.

Some ideas on how to do this, Chemistry Lessons, are under Best Practice Guides.

1 Reply

It can be tough as the incumbent.

In most pitches, and this is highlighted by what is happening in London, the competitors fall into two , attitudinally, very different groups. The incumbent who has every thing to lose and the challengers with everything to gain.

In business, reviews leading to a pitch are either down to a statutory review or, particularly in the service sector, a failure in the relationship. This may be rationalised on performance grounds, or change of people on either side, but in reality it will be a staleness, a loss of energy in the way the two sides get on.

In this scenario the incumbent has a tough task on its hands. In the ad agency world it is estimated that only 5% retain in the repitch. So if change is in the air what is the best response? There are ,I believe, three main approaches to consider.

The first is to beat the client to the punch, recognise changes are needed and initiate a review/re-eavaluation , non competitive, perhaps with an impartial intermediary. The second is to resign the business, declining to repitch, always a tough call but one which can reduce the emotional and actual impact of a losing situation. Finally there is the option to fight on , probably with new blood in the established team.

In the early nineties, Saatchi faced a difficult pitch to retain British Airways, against newly formed M&C Saatchi known to have stong relationship with CEO Sir Colin Marshall. Despite misgivings, massive effort, emotional and physical, went into the pitch. To no avail, Marshall did not bother to turn up for half of the presentation, the account moved. The negative impact of the wasted effort was in many respects greater than the loss of the business.

Ken, of course, faces a statutory review, but he is the one with everything to lose, attitudinally the tougher place to be.

Clinton. A lesson in energy.

For most of us ,taking part in a pitch is stimulating but we manage the energy needed in fits and starts, building to a crescendo in the last day or so. Burning midnight oil in a macho way ,we finalise proposals(just), edit the proposal (just), rehearse (just or not) and arrive on time (just) to present.

Carried along by adrenaline we get through the pitch, pat ourselves on the back, and collapse into the nearest bar.

Compare this with what must be one of the most ferociously competitive pitches in years, Clinton vs Obama.

Every single day, week in week out, they are in flat out pitch mode. Live TV debates, interviews, press conferences, platform speeches, receptions, door-stepping, handling hecklers, kissing babies, responding to focus groups or headlines or opinion polls or ‘misspeaks’. All that on top of the daily tactics, dirty or otherwise, to undermine the opposition and the constant pressure to motivate the home team. WOW.

Obama may be in the lead, and he has the charisma, but he may not have the same astonishing and sustained energy level of the ‘come-back’ kid. Clinton is exuding energy, a highly infectious quality. I would not bet against her just yet.

Pitching on a world stage.

I like Gordon Brown. I don’t share all his views but trust him almost because he has none of the theatricallity as a performer of his predecessor. However, given that his presentation style is increasingly under media attack, it was interesting to see how he handled his ‘world stage’ opportunity in the USA last week, the opportunity to impress back home.

The concensus of coverage is that he did okay. He was up against the Pope which was unfortunate but this did not stop him getting excellent coverage looking confident and at ease (important) with President Bush and all three of the would-be’s, Clinton, Obama and McCain.

Then came the world leader speech delivered from Boston, home of JFK, endorsed by the surviving brother, an opportunity to benefit by association. The speech as written, and reported, was not quite in the “ask not what your country can do for you..” league but good nevertheless.

What was much less good was his delivery. The coverage on Newsnight started with old black and white footage of Kennedy in full flow, still spine- tingling. Gordon Brown suffered by comparison, fluffing words but worse still reading and looking down for the majority of the time at his script. The act of looking down effectively ‘dismisses’ the audience, and dilutes perception of leadership.

He could so easily have come across more strongly. Years ago I was introduced to an excellent presentation training company, Kingstree, who in a matter of hours could teach you how to deliver a written speech in a manner that meant the audience could not tell you had a script. The result a much more powerful performance.

Time for a company like this to step forward?

1 Reply

London, the body language count.

There was a lively skirmish in the battle for London the other night with all three combatants fielding questions , live in front of the TV cameras, with Andrew Neil the tough interragator. A demanding pitch arena for even the most experienced performers. How well did they do?

Rather than listen to what they were saying I turned down the sound and focussed on their body language.Apparently, the way we respond to communication is such that only 8% is purely down to the verbal content the rest of our reponse is formed by the non-verbal, tone and visual.

Brian Paddick looked composed, correct posture, reasoning, every inch the upright police officer. What he did not appear, to me anyway, was passionate.

Ken was interesting. At first glance the familiar fluency with the expected hint of the pugnacious. Not thrown by even the difficult questions. However he seemed less engaged ,somewhat as if going through the motions , someone who has done this so often it no longer challenges.

By contrast Boris had shrugged off ‘Mr Johnson’ (see last post) and was more like his ebullient self. But , it seemed to me with important differences. His hair had been trimmed, sort of, the result being you could see his eyes, which flashed real anger at times. Overall his body language was that of a tougher and more determined Boris who really hungers for the job and has the steel to do it.