The ultimate source of great talks, and ideas worth spreading, is TED.com.
A recent one is a must for anyone interested in pitching and was given in compelling fashion by Nancy Duarte. Check it out!
An article by Christina Patterson in i last week set out to explain why David Cameron, an Etonian, son of a stockbroker, married to an aristocrat, a multi-millionaire who had just spent £30k on his kitchen, should have been clapped and applauded by a group of Asda employees.
“They liked him. But then lots of people like him. So many people like him that the Tories are now more popular than they’ve been for nearly two years.”
Martin Jones of the AAR , who was on the recieving end of over 600 pitches with his clients, concluded that, above all else, they are looking to answer “How much do they want my business?” “Do I like them and can I spend time with them?” “Do they like each other?”
Gallup’s Personality Factor Opinion Poll concludes “in politics the single best determinant of electability is likeablity.”
Nielsen’s Likeability Index, used in assessing advertising, reports that “if we like an ad we can remember it and that liking is a key driver of effectiveness”.
Laurence Green in the Daily Telegraph gave a definition as ” relevant information combined with empathy and entertainment”. He suggested that “if emotion is what drives us we do well to chose likeability”.
Kevin Millicheap, advertising writer, said “Rehearsal makes nice people nicer”
From the early days of their first “just do it” posters Nike have set out to capture the spirit of a winning attitude by association with global sports heroes who win when it matters most, against the toughest competitors, in the cauldron of an Olympic Games or World Championship.
Athletes like Paula Radcliffe don’t just compete. They dedicate their lives to a single goal to the exclusion of everything else. Every daylight hour is focussed on a training regime, a mental and physical preparation towards that single goal that would terrify us. When she says ‘nearly isn’t enough’ most of us would have said enough already!
Can this approach to translate to the pitch? A winning attitude is evident in most successful companies since without it they also can’t compete. It is usually not lacking in pitch teams who launch into the preparation with all guns blazing and a real desire to perform well.
However, unlike Paula, they are not channelling their ‘winning attitude’ to the exclusion of everything else. Why? Because they have day jobs, clients to look after, operations to manage. So while they may be ‘putting everything into the pitch’, they aren’t. ‘Enough’ will be what can be done in the time available after other demands are met.
If Paula, or Mo, were on your team you would not say enough so readily. You would fight for more preparation, more training, more resource, better support and make “nearly isn’t enough” your mantra. After all, it only takes one of your competitors to be doing this and they will win.
The unfortunate Ed Milliband seems to have chosen the wrong career. In politics in the 21st century, with 24/7 screen exposure, ‘style’ puts ‘substance’ in the shade. Journalists are having a field day at his expense. Mary Ann Sieghart: “Even Ed’s friends don’t see him at home in Downing Street ……only 16% of Labour supporters agree that he looks and sounds like a possible Prime Minister.”
Matthew Norman is more explicit, if that is the right word, saying “If politics is like sex, Ed will never find the national G-spot”. He further suggested that voters decided “within 0.03 seconds of his becoming leader…. that they did not want to dive under the blankets with him”
While the G-spot is as elusive in business as elsewhere, the style over, or under, substance issue is live. Every pitch, audience and decision process is different so claiming one more important than the other is foolhardy. An outstanding solution presented indifferently can win against brilliant pitching of a moderate solution, sometimes.
However, typically in practice three or four firms of very similar ability-in the eyes of the potential client who selected them-will be in competition and the chances are that their technical solutions, the substance of their response, will be of very similar quality. Chosing the ‘best’ is not easy.
In these instances style will often be the only differentiator in the eyes-or rather the emotional responses- of those judging. And yet, so often, work continues right upto the last minute with attempts to improve the substance leaving no energy for improving style, the winning ingredient that just might hit the G-spot.
A recent article in the Evening Standard carried the headline: GOOD IDEAS AREN’T ENOUGH- ED NEEDS TO PROJECT POWER.
Journalist Jenni Russell discusses the four major problems he faces only one of which is largely under his control. He cannot do much about the ‘structural impotence’ of the opposition, or the ‘plague of Labour’s legacy’, or Cameron’s success in ‘acting in some ways as Labour would be proud to do’.
The fourth problem which is largely under his control (or is it?) is his style and manner. A problem shared by many pitch teams and those who lead them!
“Voters doubt his capacity to lead. Milliband’s private charm and intellectual curiosity aren’t translating well to the public stage. He isn’t coming across as a man comfortable with having and wielding power. These are essential qualities in a leader.”
In the competitive pitch the clever ideas person who developed the strategy may not be the best to pitch it . Feelings may be bruised when someone with more ‘power’ but less intellect is chosen to present. What matters is the impact on the audience.
If the substitute bench is empty, serious performance rehearsal, not a tired run-through, will help. It is not a miracle cure for a lack of charisma. What it can do is raise every individual performance and that of the team to greater levels of confidence, clarity and persuasion. More power.
A winning combination would be one where David Cameron pitches Ed Milliband’s ideas – as he is doing!