Tag Archives: Michael Parker

“Teamship”

Sir Clive Woodward, an inspirational and innovative Rugby coach, took on a real challenge in his contentious role as the British Olympic Association Director of Sport. Without treading on toes of some outstanding National Association coaches such as athletic’s Charles Van Commenee, he was charged with adding a competitive edge to what is now known as “Team GB”.

clive-woodward

Linked by sometimes slight British qualification, this team spans competitors in events that are supremely individual, like athletics and swimming, to genuine team sports like hockey, to manufactured ones (under 23 soccer featuring 38 year old Beckham ?) and ones that are overt IOC television ratings eye candy, like Beach Volleyball (female).

beachvolleyball2108_8_gallery__582x400

Undaunted, Woodward has identified that a common factor that can contribute to success is a team ethos, with defined values. To give this more of a sound bite, given that communication is an all important ‘Olympic’ event, he has given this concept a new word, “TEAMSHIP”. The values around which the team ‘can now unite and focus’ are Performance, Pride, Respect, Unity and Responsibility.

ennis

Whether or not Teamship will prevent Jessica Ennis clipping a hurdle, Woodward’s premise is sound. Drawing from his experience not just in sport but in the corporate world, he understands better than most that competitive organisations are typified with a strong culture and team ethos. Teams pitching for such companies tend to win more often!

Leave a reply

How to pitch to women.

Even in an age of equal opportunity the pitch audience, in most sectors, is more likely to be all male or mixed with few that are female only. Whatever the mix, the principles of good pitching are much the same, the first being to do research into your audience! The enterprising Lady Geek , inspired by founder Belindar Palmer, offers five bits of good advice. The last three apply universally.

Five Things Companies Need To Do To Speak To WomenPosted: 27 Oct 2011 02:21 AM PDT

1) Don’t pink it and shrink it

The cardinal sin of marketing towards women is to ‘pink it and shrink it’. The woefully misguided approach goes something like this. Take a perfectly decent product, give it a marshmallow Barbie paint job and miniaturise it so it fits perfectly into tiny female hands. Ta da! Women friendly. We’re bound to love it, right? What makes things even worse is that the tech spec on ‘female orientated’ models often falls short of the ‘male’ counterparts. It’s not the colour of a product that entices us, it’s the sleek design quality.

2) There’s no need to overtly target us

There’s no point trying too hard to push exclusively to women, we’ll see right through it. Take time understanding us like you would on any other demographic, but please don’t over-egg the pudding. Just because we’ve got breasts doesn’t mean we have special needs. We’re different but don’t want to feel we’re that different.

Far too many products are rammed down our throats yelling ‘Look at me! I’m being relevant to women! Here come the girls! It’s patronising, it’s ineffective and often quite alienating. A subtler, more nuanced approach is always far more success commercially.

3) An emotional connection is a big selling point

Studies have proven that women are likely to form more of a lasting emotional attachment to products, and campaigns that make an effort to engage with this often prove to be very successful.

A great recent example is John Lewis’ beautifully executed advert ‘She’s always a woman to me’, which whizzes the viewer at highspeed through seventy years of a woman’s life. The reason this advert works so well is not only that it’s beautifully executed – which it is, heart achingly so– but that it also promotes a strong, enduring attachment to a reliable brand.

4) Too much choice is no choice at all

Many men might be perfectly happy to sift through mountains of information in order to find out whether one little black box is slightly better than another little black box, but most women are overwhelmed by choice. If a product is a hassle to buy then we will cease to care about it.

So having a hundred near-identical products in the market can be a real turnoff: we don’t want choice, we want the right choice. We want to know that a product does what it’s supposed to and is obviously at the top of its field. We don’t have time to find a diamond in the rough.

5) Entertain, don’t educate

Don’t try and use statistics to teach us that we need something. Instead, show us why we need it, how it can benefit our lives preferably in a way that’s entertaining, fun and engaging. I’m much more likely to warm to a product if it’s marketing does not preach, but has surprised me or made me laugh. Top Gear is a great brand that has made cars acessible to men and women by entertaining them.

image by Joana Pereira

Leave a reply

David Cameron and the ‘rule of three’.

The Party Conference season is already a distant memory, overtaken by the fun the media are having with Liam Fox and Adam Werritty. In truth the conferences were not that newsworthy and the speeches from all sides uninspired. Amidst this mediocrity, Cameron, without scaling the heights of his leadership winning “No notes Cameron” speech five years ago, stood apart.

david-cameron-speech

It was not a great speech but it was cleverly constructed. Philip Collins in The Times analysed it making this observation.

“Rule of three; three rules. The first full paragraph of the speech tells the story in miniature. It is already obvious that whatever we think of the content of the argument, there is a structure here on which to hang the material. There are three questions and we shall take them in order. He ends this summary of the speech with the operative word: leadership.”

Here is that first paragraph.

People have a very clear instruction for this Government; “Lead us out of this economic mess.” ” Do it in away that’s fair and right.” “And as you do it, make sure you build something worthwhile for us and our children.” Clear instructions. Clear objectives. And from me a clear understanding that in these difficult times it is leadership we need.

Armed with this clear, signposted, easily communicated ‘three’ structure Cameron could focus on his delivery, giving a performance of command and confidence. Leadership in action. Essential to the winning pitch.

Leave a reply

Pitching for your life.

Any pitch means some degree of pressure but imagine if you were pitching for your life, or 26 years of it!

While the verdict may have been going her way it must have seemed that any outcome was possible in the chaos of the Italian judicial process. Four years ago her appeal failed and she ended up in prison. Amanda Knox knew she had to give the performance of a lifetime and she did.

amanda-knox-31

The speech was remarkable. She probably had help in writing it but the impression conveyed was that it came from her. Short heartfelt sentences were delivered, in Italian, with surprising composure and stillness but combined with powerful downward hand movements that left you in no doubt about the passion behind her words. Even on shaky news footage it was compelling.

It was skillfully constructed with an emotive ‘four years ago’ theme at its heart and repeated frequently. With three main arguments relating to tragedy, passion and relationships it would seem the pitching ‘rule of three’ was in operation! Certainly the orator’s tricolon of three short phrases or sentences used for optimum effect was in evidence.

The transcript in full, with words in bold relating to these points:

“It was said many times that I’m a different person from the way I look. And that people cannot figure out who I am. I’m the same person I was four years ago. I’ve always been the same.”

“The only difference is what I suffered in four years. I lost a friend in the most brutal inexplicable way. My trust, my full trust in the police has been betrayed. I had to face absolutely unjust charges, accusations and I’m paying with my life for something that I did not commit.”

Four years ago I was four years younger, but fundamentally I was younger because I had never suffered before four years ago. Because of four years ago, I didn’t know what tragedy was. It was something I would watch on television. That didn’t belong to me.

I had never faced so much fear and tragedy and suffering. I did not know how to face that. I didn’t know how to live that, deeply. How I felt when we found out that Maddy had been killed, I couldn’t believe it. How that was possible, first of all, then fear, because the person whom I shared my life with, who had the bed next to mine had been killed in our home. And if I would have been home that night, I’d be dead. I would have been killed just like her. The only difference is I was not there. I was with Raffaele, at Raffaele’s place.

I had no one. He was everything to me at that moment. At that very moment at that moment in time I had him.

And another thing was my passion. I had a sense of duty before justice. I had a sense of duty before authorities which I trusted because they were there to find out who the culprit was, there to protect us. I blindly trusted them wholly, completely, absolutely. And when I made myself available up to the point of utter exhaustion those days, I was betrayed starting Nov. 5. I wasn’t, I wasn’t only stressed. I was manipulated.

I am not what they say I am,the violence, the spite of life, the life of someone that was not mine. And I didn’t do what they say I did. I didn’t kill. I didn’t rape. I didn’t steal.I was not there

.I remember the guy that we met in the apartment downstairs, but I didn’t know him even by name. He was just someone around, a face. He was not a person that I had some contact with. So when they say, ‘Oh, you knew him,” I never did what they said that I did. They also say that that’s what happened, but just like this. It’s not like that.

I was untidy. We had a good relationship. We were all available to each other. I shared my life, especially with Meredith. We had a friendship. We were friends. She was concerned for me. She was always kind to me. She cared about me.

Maddy was killed, was murdered and I always wanted justice for her. I’m not escaping truth. I never escaped. I’m not fleeing from justice. I insist on the truth. I insist after four hopeless years. My innocence, our innocence is true. It deserves to be defended and acknowledged.

I want to go home. I want to go back to my life. I don’t want to be punished. I don’t want my future to be taken away from me for something I didn’t do. Because I am innocent. Just like he is innocent. We deserve freedom. We didn’t do anything not to deserve freedom.

I have all the respect for this court, for the care shown during our trial. Thank you.”

Leave a reply

Frost versus Nixon. The ultimate Q&A?

On Saturday BBC2 devoted the evening to the historical encounter. Sir David Frost being interviewed by the ageless Joan Bakewell was followed by 90 minutes of the final interview with Richard Nixon and then came the movie, starring Micheal Sheen. It’s great cinema but not a patch on the absorbing, compelling real thing. Two gladiators pitching body and soul, Frost to re-vitalise his career and Nixon to rescue his reputation.

imagesca64kk3y

Of course, there was no formal pitch just 29 hours of interview, of question and answer. Frost earned his reputation as one of the truly great tv interviewers. Ferociously well prepared, openly and effectively referring to copious notes, he was skilful in posing apparently open questions that encouraged response, patient in staying silent and receptive rather than leaping in to challenge. His highly focussed listening seemed to disarm his opponent.

nixon

Nixon was also ferociously well prepared, relying on memory allied to a formidable lawer’s brain. For someone who had suffered for his lack of telegenic appeal, notably in the Kennedy debate, he handled himself well. Good eye contact and body language, he answered the question as asked and if he did deviate he acknowledged this. The coherence of his replies, as he skirted the very large ditch, was impressive. (Compare the way Murdoch et al skirted their particular ditch! Questions and ‘appropriate’ answers!)

Overall the judgement remains that Frost triumphed while Nixon was defiant but defeated. However, viewed today 30 years later, when the emotional impact of events is distant, the performances seemed more closely matched. Nixon’s famous admission that “I let the American people down” seemed considered rather than a pressured response to forensic questionning.

)

Leave a reply