I’ve been watching many interesting presentations lately on the internet. Check out the Toastmaster’s world champion of public speaking at this link: http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=UpnGvCMstWg&feature=related and check out the amazing array of presentations from the TED conference here: http://www.ted.com/index.php
As I search for useful models (because I am teaching students about how to give a good presentation), I continue to ask “what makes a good presentation?” and struggle with how to come up with criteria against which to evaluate presentations. Also check out this list of the top 10 presentations of all time. http://www.knowhr.com/blog/2006/08/21/top-10-best-presentations-ever/ [In a particularly insightful moment last week, I decided that the only criteria should be that the presenter makes the audience listen and care—nothing else matters. Oh, and add to that that the presentation style has no obvious distractions that detract from the message getting across clearly.]
I’m thinking all this in the midst of our presidential campaign and all the media discussions about the persuasiveness of Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton (heart vs. head, inspiration vs. information, collaboration vs. competition) and I seem, instead of getting closer to an answer, to be getting farther away from one. That’s because, in the case of each presenter, what I like about each of them is different.
I like Barack Obama’s style because he has charisma (more about that later) and because he talks a lot about collaboration in government (that would be a nice change) and working with people as against to working against them. I don’t like Hillary Clinton’s style as much because it is not as inspirational, though I do respect her experience and her command of the information she presents—she really seems to know her stuff. I have a huge amount of respect for John McCain’s political background and his experience as a prisoner of war. In every case, there seem to be more differences than similarities, differences which relate to the source of the speaker’s credibility–what makes the presenter trustworthy, believable, likable? Aristotle called it ethos. In some cases, it could be their innovative thinking (see Seth Godin at this link) http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/28 or because of their inspirational message (see Rick Warren here) http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/71 or because their personal story makes them more credible (see Randy Pausch here) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8577255250907450469&pr=goog-sl All of these speakers have different messages and styles, but they all have a high level of credibility, the source of which varies from one to another.
So maybe that’s the answer—that the magic ingredient to a powerful presentation is that the speaker has a high level of credibility and that the source of that credibility can be different for each speaker, as long as he or she has it with the audience. If you are really lucky, as Barack Obama seems to be, the primary source of your credibility can be your charisma (see an interesting discussion about charisma in today’s Boston Globe editorial “The Power of Charisma” by H.D.S. Greenway.) http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/11/the_power_of_charisma/ If you are not so lucky (that’s most of the rest of us), you have to rely on other ways to build and gain credibility. If you have a reputation which precedes you, the reputation will go a long way toward building credibility with your audience, though the presentation must reinforce or support the audience’s prior assumptions; in other words you have to deliver on your reputation. If your audience does not know you at all, you have a more difficult task, which means you have to rely other ways to build credibility and you also have to work against an audience’s tendency to make quick judgments (i.e. they don’t like the tone of your voice or the style of your skirt or the color of your hair) by building credibility in the process of giving the presentation. Is that what I am teaching my students, then—the various ways to build credibility in a presentation, by either being somebody important or by saying something important (providing persuasive data or information) or by making the audience feel important (establishing a strong personal rapport with an audience or entertaining the audience with wit or humor)? I’m still not sure . . .
Do people listen to presenters to decide if they like the person? or to decide if their message is persuasive (regardless of how we feel about the person delivering it)? Or does the persuasiveness of a message depend on its source? or do we expect to be entertained? to get some valuable new information? to determine if the presenter thinks like we do? If we’re watching to decide who to vote for in the presidential election, it could be any of the above. Some people vote for candidates simply because they like them. Some people vote for candidates because or their records or their affiliations. It all depends on the person listening. So where does that leave us? Back to audience analysis, to continuing to explore who we are speaking to and what their needs, interests and motivations are and how to build credibility with them. I guess that’s as good a place as any to end for now.
I have been following the presidential election closely and listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton speak. It seems from the beginning Barack Obama has had the same demeanor, not being negative and using his charisma to persuade voters. At the same time Hillary Clinton has stated the facts, informed the votes of her background but she changed her demeanor a few times depending on her ratings and negative feedback on her campaign. Her approach seems cold, heartless and does not let the listeners feel like they could connect with her. Barack on the other hand has pretty much been the same person and not turned his campaign into a negative mudslinging contest , as most politicians do.
My feelings are that we tend to like a speaker we can connect with. If the speaker is passionate about their story and tries to engage the feelings of the audience they could win them over. It is also important that the credibility of the information seem to be valid. In the end if a person has great charisma and is very persuasive they should be able to win over any audience.
Why are we here?…
Is there a G-d?…
What came first, the chicken or the egg?…
…
What makes a good presentation?
…all are questions that should be left to the philosophers of the world.
While many people can readily spit off a list of things that make a poor presentation at a moments notice, it takes even the most educated people some time to put a list together illustrating what makes a good presentation.
The reason for this is likely that there is no specific answer. Surely we can all agree that the clarity of the message, persuasiveness of the speaker, relationship to the audience, and the overall likability of the presenter are all contributors…but we can just as easily agree that there has got to be something more. But what?
The reason the answer cannot be pinpointed is that it can be different in every situation. Using charisma only works if you are naturally a charismatic person. Focusing on the facts only works if you have a secure grasp on the subject matter, and the knowledge of how to make your audience easily understand difficult material.
Anything that works will only work in the right situation…there is not a catch-all map to Good-Presentationville.
That being said, there is a sure way to get started on the right path; know your audience, and know yourself. Answer the question: “Can I tell the audience what they need to hear, in the way they need to hear it?” If the answer is yes, you’ll be able to prepare a good presentation, if it is no, you probably won’t…either talk to another group, or change the subject.
I can’t remember where I read this but the key to a good presentation is to know your P’s — Purpose, People, Point, and Place.
Purpose: Why have you chosen this topic to present?
People: Who is your audience?
Point: What do you want your audience to take away from your presentation?
Place: Where is the presentation taking place? What are the room dynamics?
In my experience, if you know your P’s and you can relay your message with a good story, your presentation will be successful. Good storytellers make great presentations. In concluding your presentation, you want the audience to have taken something away from it. The most effective way of doing this is to relate to your audience.
The question then becomes how believable was the presenter. Anyone can come up with a story but does the audience believe it? This is where the presenter’s credibility comes into play.
Each Presidential candidate has their own presentation style as was discussed above. However, who has enough experience (credentials) to run our nation and who is selling dreams? Whos do we believe and who is just telling a great story?
After watching the ‘last lecture’ by Randy Pausch and my stroke of insight by Jill Bolte, I came to the point where I put all my belief in the “credibility” factor in performing a good presentation. It might be their personal stories which make them credible and their presentations terrific. But the point
is out there, there are tones of other presenters who clearly does not have such tragic stories and can easily attract their audience.
To build your credibility and earn it, actually, you don’t really
need a story. Your data, your research, facts regarding to your presentation, your power and as many of you mentioned, your charisma can be some of the components that proclaim your credibility. Even if your appearance is credible enough, it might help you a lot more than you expect.
“How to evaluate a presentation” question turned out to be a piece of confusion for me after the last lecture. It covers more than the basic criteria everybody knows about. (As Tania mentioned, knowing your P’s and relaying your message with a good story can be the basic criterion for a good presentation). But what if the audience does not like your topic at all or even worse, they do not want to hear about that topic?
Even if we have the criterion and well-organized evaluation sheets in our hands ready to be graded as the presentation flows, as audiences, we are human beings and have totally different mindsets and evaluation criterion to agree fully on a perfect presentation model. So, I can conclude that if a speaker can make a fabulous presentation out of a really boring topic and also attract the audience attention, we can simply say that the presentation is a good presentation which takes us back to the “Is content king…or is it delivery?” post by Dr. Sisco. I believe, the way the speaker delivers the message can fairly form most of the criterion to evaluate a presentation.
I would like to introduce a good website which is about presentation.The website is created by Megan Casey. This website collect a million pages build by people and has been reviewed by the New York Times, Mashable, BoingBoing and sites and papers around the world. The readers can find variety of information from the website. There are many links at the website, so it is easier to find a specific topic and also can present information on topic you care a lot about.
The title of this web page is “Best Presentations Ever”. It presents a lot of presentation skills and discusses it, for example, how to give a great presentation, presentation resources, when good presentation go bad, comment dites-on and so on. Each section presents a lot of information. One of my favors part is “how to make a great presentation.It gave tips from the masters and said that “great presenters are not born, they are prepared.” People can learn really a lot for doing a great presentation in this website.
I watched some videos in this website. The videos are very attractive and interested. One of video is from Seth Godin who talks about marketing at Google in 2006. The presentation was very success and he used sliders to his advantage to persuade his audience that he is right. I really learn a lot for this website.
The persuasiveness of political candidates is the core of their electability. Many candidates I’ve seen (present and past) have little or no ability to think on their own, and even have poor publis speaking abilities (GW). These politicians all have one thing in common however: They know how to persuade people people to vote for them. Republican or Democrat, the mission doesn’t change. Persuasiveness is key in politics. We have a president who persuaded this country into war. The reasoning was even through use of incorrect information! So how did he do it?
A persuasive politician knows what button to push inside people. With Bush Jr, it was fear of terror attacks. With Obama, it’s ridding the White House of “Business as Usual” politics. With McCain, it’s a balance of security and the other usual issues. With Clinton, I’ve yet to be persuaded. She is an extremely intelligent woman, but she seems to have a difficult time keeping a potitive image and really doesn’t possess the charisma it takes to gain credibility and persuade people. She might make the best president ever, but those shortcomings are continuing to cause her problems. Obama, on the other hand, has issues with his former priest that continue to haunt him, very little experience on Capitol Hill, and yet he maintains his high level of charisma and gains the confidence of more voters every day.
What it comes down to seems to be that politicians who can sell themselves get elected regardless of their capabilities. Politics isn’t the only arena where that occurrs either. Learning to sell yourself is a skill worth learning that seems to come with many rewards, and might even make for a good Grad School course offering.