Tag Archives: pitchcoach

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

Why Conservatives won the conferences pitch.

The recent party conferences are the last before the election. As such, they are the closest we get to a ‘formal’ pitch for the (our) business and it is interesting to see how good practice contributed to their success!

1. Understanding the key decision criteria.

Decisions tend not to relate to lots of policy content, but to the answers to more emotive issues, well expressed by Polly Toynbee.  “..What kind of people are you and do I like your leader? Do you lift the spirit with hope for a better world?  What’ s the difference between you”?

2. Teamwork.

Labour came across as a loose knit group of individuals with differences less well concealed. The Conservatives, as anticipated, had a dodgy Boris moment but placing him at the start of proceedings lessened its impact. The serried ranks seated behind Cameron, whilst somewhat reminiscent of a Red Square parade, reinforced sense of team.

3. Individual performances.

For Labour only Mandelson stood out. (post dated Sept 30th). Boris was charismatic and entertaining, but it was the newly mature, restrained and ‘sober, honest, unflambuoyant’ performances of Osborne and Cameron which made the telling impact. Brown was same old.

4. Core theme.

Labour didn’t have one, the Conservatives did. “Brown launched a battering  ram of policies, so many that his arguments were obscured.  In contrast Cameron’s case was clear…” (Independent) Most commentators reflected his core message, ” there is such a thing as society but it’s not the same as the state”.

5. Leadership.

This in the  newly friendly Sun, ” The Tory leader’s body language sent out a clear message: ‘I mean business’.  Smiles were rare and he used few hand gestures. He was relaxed throughout and made good eye contact. His body language  supported the serious tone, saying, ‘ I have grown as a leader’. It helped him come across more effectively than Mr Brown did”.

6. Use of visual  aids!

Both parties exploited the wives. Personally, I preferred Mrs Brown’s unabashed flaunting of topend design to the demure M&S numbers of Mrs Cameron (whose own bags retail for around £950). Quentin Letts on Cameron,  “I suppose this was a manipulation of the wife every bit as blatant as Gordon Brown wheeling out Sarah…”

A  final thought.  It is never much fun pitching as the incumbent. The decision is, probably, going against you. To combat this it is no good defending the past. You must promise a better future. You will have to pitch more powerfully than the opponents. You will need to introduce new blood into the team and its leadership!!

Leave a reply

How Osborne pitched to be taken seriously.

Leading into the Conservative conference, George Osborne had an image problem. He was seen as the ‘weakest link’, dismissed as ‘a boy doing a man’s job’.  He is not  yet to Cameron what Brown was to Blair.

So, for him, not only was it vital that he delivered the courageous realism that his party policy called for.  It was even more important that his performance, on this very public platform and this last Conference before the election, transformed perception of him.  After all, it was a single platform speech in Blackpool three years ago, that did it for Cameron.

The consensus is that he succeeded. ..”an indisputable step forward in his development as a political figure”. What worked for him?

osborne1

The content, of course. “Mr Serious gains credibility with painful message” and, ” His honesty in the face of the facts means that he grew in stature”.  All this was reinforced by his repeated mantra, “We are all in this together”!

So, the words were strong, very strong, and he may well have written most of them himself for the autocue!

For me though, what gave him new stature was his delivery.  Not simply the strong, serious, sober  tone most have commented on. This undoubtedly helped the new maturity.

Not commented on but, to my eyes, the most powerful element, was his non-body language.  His stillness, his lack of flambouyant gesture, his resistance to milking applause all signalled the confidence of someone who knows he has arrived.

Leave a reply

How Rio ‘lived their passion’ to win.

So Rio won it and blew the other cities, particularly Chicago away. How did they do it ?

First obstacle was the technical evaluation which let them down four years ago. This time, and with acknowleged advice of Mike Lee of the London bid, they learnt from experience and arrived at Copenhagen as favourites. This was the position of Paris four years ago.

Unlike Paris, they, like London, pitched ‘heart and soul’, brilliantly. They were best on the day, a day when political manoevering takes a back seat since the IOC members vote anonymously.  Based on reports from Copenhagen, these are some of the things Rio did best.

rio_span_600_19

They cemented the personal relationships. In the few days preceding the final, IOC allow direct solicitation of  members. It looks as if President Lula, who had been deeply and personally involved for years, was known by each and every one of them! (Four years ago Blair’s big contribution was meeting separately some 40 members).

Obama’s fleeting visit may have impressed but it would not have wooed .

In his presentation Lula employed the ‘killer visual’!  A map of the world highlighting host cities showed how his continent had been ignored. (30 in Europe, 12 in North America and 5 in Asia).  There were some ‘killer’ words too. “It is time to redress the balance.  It will serve to inspire the 180  million young people on this continent…. You will see for yourselves the passion, energy and creativity of the Brazilian people”.

After the London bid Seb Coe said to me that their historic win was down to them making an “emotional connection”.  That is what did it for Rio. As Jacques Rogges said about their emotional approach and pitch film, ” Live your passion struck a chord with my fellow members”

Leave a reply