It always feels particularly satisfying when a client gets off the ground. Jonathan Shrago, winner of a trip to New York and San Francisco from the SeedCamp where I coached presentations, has set up his site.
For those in London, Advertag are focusing their site first on jobs in the Harrogate area for feedback on SEO (and those looking for jobs).
Their work is wonderful, and they are a very smart team. Keep your eye out for their blog.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Just to Remember: It's Not ALL About Presentation . . .
I write all the time about how important presentation is when persuading because people tend to ignore it in favor of content.
Just for a change, here's some emphasis on content --about Tom's Shoes that Raquel Dobson sent me. It's absolutely worth seeing, entrepreneurs out there (the presentation isn't so bad either, by the way).
Just for a change, here's some emphasis on content --about Tom's Shoes that Raquel Dobson sent me. It's absolutely worth seeing, entrepreneurs out there (the presentation isn't so bad either, by the way).
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Business Presentations: This Time with Feeling
I've just penned a piece about business presentations for a publication that deals with new ideas. Here's the gist:
We need to replace the word "presenting" with "representing". Presenting implies only "introducing". Representing, on the other hand, demands that ideas are embodied in the performance we create. To do this meaningfully, this embodiment must stir up the inspiration, excitement, and other emotional reactions in others that they do in us.
It can easily make the difference between making a sale and losing one.
We treat business presentation skills as though they are a science when in fact they are an art. Again, I think the problem begins with the word "presentation".
Consider comedians. They strike a chord (or don't) because of the way they embody a situation rather than talk about it. Or embody a situation and THEN talk about it.
The humor comes from the emotional reactions that combine to become recognition. The recognition comes from the performance of a conversation with a partner, boss, store manager -- whatever -- which the comedian represents through embodying it onstage. Without it, any commentary would fall flat.
For maximum power, every medium needs to be exploited for its own particular possibilities. Film wouldn't work as dance, and visa versa, except as an exception to a rule or as a stand-in for the other.
Think how much more powerful a business presentation would be if you add all the possibilities of the art of representation. Move people. Inspire them. Make them feel something that moves them to action. It's the only way to do effective business.
We need to replace the word "presenting" with "representing". Presenting implies only "introducing". Representing, on the other hand, demands that ideas are embodied in the performance we create. To do this meaningfully, this embodiment must stir up the inspiration, excitement, and other emotional reactions in others that they do in us.
It can easily make the difference between making a sale and losing one.
We treat business presentation skills as though they are a science when in fact they are an art. Again, I think the problem begins with the word "presentation".
Consider comedians. They strike a chord (or don't) because of the way they embody a situation rather than talk about it. Or embody a situation and THEN talk about it.
The humor comes from the emotional reactions that combine to become recognition. The recognition comes from the performance of a conversation with a partner, boss, store manager -- whatever -- which the comedian represents through embodying it onstage. Without it, any commentary would fall flat.
For maximum power, every medium needs to be exploited for its own particular possibilities. Film wouldn't work as dance, and visa versa, except as an exception to a rule or as a stand-in for the other.
Think how much more powerful a business presentation would be if you add all the possibilities of the art of representation. Move people. Inspire them. Make them feel something that moves them to action. It's the only way to do effective business.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Intimacy: The New (Technical) Frontier
At the Tuttle Club yesterday, I had a rather inspiring conversation with FJ van Wingerde. For those of you who don't know FJ, his thinking is wonderfully, productively disruptive. His comments are also right to the point.
We talked about the mobile industry -- as well as (conversationally) ubiquitous social media (so how could we avoid it, really?). Here's the interesting part.
My feeling has been since the early mid-90s that what technology has to aim for is intimacy. As FJ said, we can call it "personalization", but it's personalization for the purpose of intimacy. FJ also noted that at a large entertainment company, he worked with others on finding ways to make mechanical devices (such as phones) into characters for the sake of creating relationships with users. Second Life does this with avatars. And games like WOW do it with communities.
As a theater person, I think we're missing the performance aspects of the Web and mobile -- after all, every medium should be explored to its unique full potential. Those in advertising talk about "engagement", but is it engagement we're after for its own sake?
OK, the overall goal is roi (usually for businesses) or repeated use (for geeks who just love getting things right). But before we get to the end, let's really break down the the path we're using to get there.
The bottom line is: when it is with the aim of creating intimacy that we go for expanding the possibilities of theatricality, engagement, or any other web-possible activity. That's how you hook consumers. That's how you create a relationship between a mechanical device and a human being.
FJ noted that people probably won't feel comfortable with word "intimacy" in a working environment. He's not wrong -- "intimacy" in work always implies sexuality.
But take the sex out, and remember that the reason people hate spam with their name at the top is the note's inappropriate intimacy. What else can you call it?
Thoughts?
We talked about the mobile industry -- as well as (conversationally) ubiquitous social media (so how could we avoid it, really?). Here's the interesting part.
My feeling has been since the early mid-90s that what technology has to aim for is intimacy. As FJ said, we can call it "personalization", but it's personalization for the purpose of intimacy. FJ also noted that at a large entertainment company, he worked with others on finding ways to make mechanical devices (such as phones) into characters for the sake of creating relationships with users. Second Life does this with avatars. And games like WOW do it with communities.
As a theater person, I think we're missing the performance aspects of the Web and mobile -- after all, every medium should be explored to its unique full potential. Those in advertising talk about "engagement", but is it engagement we're after for its own sake?
OK, the overall goal is roi (usually for businesses) or repeated use (for geeks who just love getting things right). But before we get to the end, let's really break down the the path we're using to get there.
The bottom line is: when it is with the aim of creating intimacy that we go for expanding the possibilities of theatricality, engagement, or any other web-possible activity. That's how you hook consumers. That's how you create a relationship between a mechanical device and a human being.
FJ noted that people probably won't feel comfortable with word "intimacy" in a working environment. He's not wrong -- "intimacy" in work always implies sexuality.
But take the sex out, and remember that the reason people hate spam with their name at the top is the note's inappropriate intimacy. What else can you call it?
Thoughts?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
One more piece published . . . .
You will probably recognise a lot of this material if you follow this blog, but here you go: Enterprise Nation just published my article on presentations.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Article on mSearchGroove: How to Sell Investors
Peggy Saltz has put a small piece of mine on mSearchGroove, a publication dedicated to mobile.
Here's the link to the article on presentation skills.
Let me know if it's anything I haven't said here yet-- happy to elaborate.
Here's the link to the article on presentation skills.
Let me know if it's anything I haven't said here yet-- happy to elaborate.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
A Little Meisner for a Grey Wednesday
Reviewing Sandy Meisner and his performance technique is a pleasure. One of his tenets: the foundation of acting is the reality of doing.
"Acting" here is taking all the walls away from being yourself in front of other people.
OK, it sounds obvious -- and simple. But how many people do you know who are great presenters? Here's a little more that will demonstrate the connection I'm making between professional performers and business people trying hook an audience at a conference.
Meisner says,
" . . in most professions, every practitioner uses the same tools and techniques, while the actor's chief instrument is himself. And since no two persons are alike, no universal rule is applicable to any two actors in exactly the same way." (Sanford Meisner's On Acting)
This is as true when presenting information that you've written as when it's material a playwright has concocted.
What exactly does it mean to be "yourself"? In front of people?
You either do what you're doing (eg explain -- really -- "the reality of doing") or you play AT it. Who cares what the content is? You're genuinely talking TO listeners (or talk AT them). As we all know from sitting through presentations, the second ends up being very dull.
Both are characters purpose-built -- but one is much more effective than another.
I have a nice example of Lloyd Davis in the reality of doing. He plays a great ukulele, too.
"Acting" here is taking all the walls away from being yourself in front of other people.
OK, it sounds obvious -- and simple. But how many people do you know who are great presenters? Here's a little more that will demonstrate the connection I'm making between professional performers and business people trying hook an audience at a conference.
Meisner says,
" . . in most professions, every practitioner uses the same tools and techniques, while the actor's chief instrument is himself. And since no two persons are alike, no universal rule is applicable to any two actors in exactly the same way." (Sanford Meisner's On Acting)
This is as true when presenting information that you've written as when it's material a playwright has concocted.
What exactly does it mean to be "yourself"? In front of people?
You either do what you're doing (eg explain -- really -- "the reality of doing") or you play AT it. Who cares what the content is? You're genuinely talking TO listeners (or talk AT them). As we all know from sitting through presentations, the second ends up being very dull.
Both are characters purpose-built -- but one is much more effective than another.
I have a nice example of Lloyd Davis in the reality of doing. He plays a great ukulele, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
