OnSpeechwriting

European Commission Speech: A Showcase in Structure, Language

I was talking with a friend about the state of international speeches the other day and he said that, in his opinion, most international speeches are missing some of the same attributes of those given in the U.S.: quotes, anecdotes, statistics. Those little things that often give a speech life. The speeches for the most part, he said, were workmanlike and without embellishments.

So I went looking for some examples. Almost immediately I ran across one that fit that mold. What surprised me, though, was that it was also a great example of structure and language, a model of how to write a perfectly good problem-solution speech even if you don't use some of the stylistic add-ons so common in the U.S.

The speech is from José Manuel Durão Barroso, president of the European Commission and was given in Prague on March 2. The European Commission is "the executive brance of the European Union.  The body is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union," according to Wikipedia.org. The speech was given to celebrate and highlight the successes in the five years since the EC membership was englarged.

Barroso begins with what seems a typical "thank you." But five paragraphs later, he's still at it, thanking those in the audience. My initial thought was that he stayed at that part just a bit too long. And then at the last minute, he explains his reasoning.

"I feel it is important today to highlight these facts up-front and clearly," he says. "Particularly as the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis work their way through our societies to devastating effect.

"If we are to continue to realise the full potential of the European Union during these difficult times, a basic condition must be respected: that coherence and solidarity are not pushed to one side. On the contrary, they should be reinforced."

And a thesis is born: the importance of member states to avoid nationalistic measures that will undermine all the good work the EC has accomplished.

This is a nice bit of style. Pump the audience up, congratulate them on their work and then explain why they need to keep it up. But he's not finished. In fact, he's just getting started showing the structural components of a good problem-solution speech.

First, Barroso defines the problem. Then he presents the alternative solutions to the problems. These are straw man descriptions that he can quickly - but effectively - knock down. Then he provides his solution and reinforces it with a nice emotional reminder that the enlargement of the EC coincided with the 20-year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall.

So in a sense, this is a workmanlike speech so far. What sets this speech apart is his language, a refreshing mix of evocative wording and sentence variation that helps the audience stay engaged.

After mentioning the amount of money being spent to shore up lagging economies, for example, he says: "These are large sums of money, showing the EU is serious about solidarity. And the Commission will always be on the side of those who want to make solidarity a reality for our citizens."

No one can argue with that.

And later he gives us this nice line: "As businesses fail, and job losses mount, the siren voices of economic nationalism are making themselves heard again, as if we have learned nothing from the 1930s." Followed by a quick one-two punch: "But there is one small problem for those hoping economic nationalism will protect them: it won't."

In all, this speech is a success. Great language. Great sentence variation. Great, classic structure. It may not have quotes and anecdotes and jokes, but at this rate, who cares. It gets the job done.

'Real Leaders' is the Real Deal for Leaders

The book title says it all: Real Leaders Don't Do Powerpoint. Published just this month, the new book will quickly makes its mark among the best leadership communication books. But don't let the title fool you: this is more than a book about PowerPoint. By author and speech coach Chris Witt, it's a total book about what leaders need to do to sell themselves and their ideas.

First, though, about PowerPoint and why Chris Witt rightly doesn't trust it to do the job for real leaders. "In the first place," he writes, "it is best suited for presenting information, not influencing or inspiring an audience."  And there in a nutshell is the entire argument.

Real leaders, Witt says, should only give three speeches:

• To identify - tell audiences who they are or who they can become
• To influence - shape the way audiences think and feel
• To inspire - make audiences want to act

Unfortunately, PowerPoint is only good for one thing: presenting information. He's right. Anyone in the organization can present information. It's the most basic type of speech. Yes, sometimes leaders do have to do these. In front of special audiences like financial analysts who thrive on detailed slides of graphs and charts.

But that part of a leader's job is limited. They should aspire to more, an argument Witt makes convincingly for both the leader and leader-to-be.

"Remember," Witt writes, "audiences don't want leaders to speak like everyone else. They hold leaders to a higher standard, demanding more of them."

But as I said, that's a small part of the book. Don't think this is a 200 treatise against PowerPoint. It's also a primer on how to construct and deliver a speech.

Witt covers everything from audience analysis to the importance of storytelling and from why structure is critical to how to handle the inevitable question and answer period.

Consider it a good addition to your bookshelf.

Sorensen: Still Packing a Punch

Ted Sorensen still packs a punch. That much was evident when he spoke to 300+ speechwriters at Ragan’s Speechwriter’s Conference in Washington on Feb. 13.

The 81-year-old former speechwriter and counselor to President Kennedy – though nearly blind and a bit shaky on his feet – wowed the audience with a brilliant combination of wit and advice.

For a wonderful story on it, see Fraser Seitel’s take that was published on Ragan’s website. Seitel was the emcee for the day and captured very well the mood and the words. I won’t try to repeat that here.

What interested me is Sorensen’s speechwriting advice from the podium versus what he gives in his recent book, Counselor. His advice from the podium – as Seitel noted – was to focus on a few lines:

The outline; the headline; the frontline; the sidelines; and the bottom line.

He went on further to encourage the writers in the audience to ensure they imbued each speech with: clarity, charity, brevity, and levity. Again, see Seitel's story for additional.

His book offers slightly different – though arguable more useful – rules. His six rules:

• Less is almost always better than more. “Make it as simple and direct as the Ten Commandments.”
• Choose each word as a precision tool. “Care and prudence” are his catchwords here.
• Organize the text to simplify, clarify, emphasize. He adds a cautionary note about speeches written by committees: “Many people can contribute suggestions and corrections, but only one can truly write it.”
• Use variety and literary devices to reinforce memorability, not confuse or distract. The bottom line is that style matters and the careful speechwriter knows that the ear is made for music.
• Employ elevated but not grandiose language. JFK’s speeches, Sorensen writes, “were dignified but in the vernacular, never so esoteric that they could not be easily and quickly comprehended by the average listener.”
• Substantive ideas are the most important part of any speech. “A great speech is great because of the strong ideas conveyed, the principles, the values, the decisions.”
  
  

The devil is in the details. Read the book. Or at least read the chapter on speechwriting if you want a veteran’s look back on how successful speeches are made.

Fletcher Dean Wins Sorensen Recognition

OK. I didn't take the gold but it was still pretty cool to be among the winners of the inaugural Theodore C. Sorensen Speechwriting Awards. 

The awards were sponsored by Ragan Communications and presented by Sorenson - speechwriter and counselor for President John F. Kennedy - and long-time PR guru Fraser Seitel during the 2009 Speechwriters Conference in Washington, DC. 

Laure Vincent, who writes for MasterCard Worldwide, won the top prize. Chris Baker of Public Broadcasting Service was the first runner-up. Here's the Ragan story.

Seitel gave a great roundup story about Sorensen's speech before the awards ceremony.

If you want to hear Sorensen's remarks and Q/A session, go to Ian Griffin's nifty blog where he has video.

Fletcher Dean wins Cicero Speechwriting Award Grand Prize plus two Gold Medals

The Cicero Speechwriting Awards were released this week and I'm honored that one of my speeches won the coveted Grand Prize recognizing the best speech of 2008. The same speech - Working Toward a (New) Industrial Policy - also won the gold prize for the best the Public Policy category as well the gold prize for the best speech in the Manufacturing and Production category.

The Cicero Speechwriting Awards are sponsored by Vital Speeches of the Day and The Executive Speaker—the leading publications in the speechwriting field—to  celebrate the talent so crucial in helping the great leaders in the public and private sectors achieve prominence.

See the full speech and other winners here.

The Best Books on Speechwriting

This is a topic that comes up more frequently than you might expect. There are a myriad of books on speechwriting out there. Some bad. Some good. Some just excellent.

Here's my quick list of books that I've used over the years. This isn't a definitive list, of course. Just the ones that come to mind first:

For technical advice, check out Joan Detz's books - such as How to Write and Give a Speech - or Alan Perlman's Writing Great Speeches or Writing Effective Speeches by Henry Ehrlich. Ehrlich's book covers all kinds of speeches and events (plus he's a nice guy). All great technical tomes.

The introduction in William Safire's Lend Me Your Ears has a great primer on what good speechwriting plus it has a great collection of speeches, each with a foreword by Safire. Very interesting reading and the best collection of speeches out there. (Some others give only excerpts so beware.)

Ted Sorenson's Counselor also has a chapter on speechwriting with some great advice. His observations will ring true to anyone who's ever been charged with writing for others.

Finally, there is a book called The Executive's Lifetime Library of Model Speeches for Every Situation by Roger Shelby and Robert A. Cooke. It's a bit more expensive but it covers nearly every situation and is great for when you might be pressed for time and a your brain has taken a temporary vacation.

Oh, and Selected Speeches of Ronald Reagan is a great collection as is "I Gotta Tell You": Speeches of Lee Iacocca by Lee A. Iacocca and Matthew W. Seeger.

There are other books out there. But these are tops for me and the ones that have been very handy to me over the years.

A Great Speech? Or a Flop?

How do you gauge the success of a speech? Amount of applause? Number of quotes that made it into the media? A formal pre/post analysis of audience attitudes and knowledge?

The question of success is one that haunts every speechwriter because success itself is, in many cases, so un-quantifiable. Only at the most basic level – Informing – can you really begin to quantify the success of a speech. You could, for instance, give a speech on monetary policy and do a pre-speech/post-speech survey to see if audience knowledge increased.

But most speeches, I would submit, aim higher. Most speakers want to do more than merely Inform. They want to Change Attitudes and, ultimately, Elicit Action. And those require more than a simple speech, no matter how good it is. It requires a long, well-designed communications strategy that builds, step by step, a path toward the goal.

So what are we left with when we want to judge an individual speech? Technique? Structure? Ability to communicate a logical answer to the talk’s main supposition or argument?

It’s not an idle question. Consider the speech on Jan. 28 from China’s Premier Wen Jiabao. He delivered it at the opening session of World Economic Form in Davos.

By my standards, this is not simply a good speech. On a scale of 10, I’d give it a 7.5-8. High praise, in other words. At the very beginning of this speech on the world’s economic crisis, the premier states his primary message: “It is … our responsibility to send to the world a message of confidence, courage and hope.”

His outline from here is essentially:

• Causes of the Crisis
• Impact on China
• China's Reponse
• Why China is Confident of its Economy
• Five Ways World Leaders Can Encourage Confidence

Although I wish he would have telegraphed this outline earlier, the audience can follow this speech pretty well as it is. It’s not a complex structure; in fact, it’s quite logical.

Likewise, the five proposals he offers are well considered. They are respectful and reaffirm, as he says, China’s “abiding commitment to peaceful, open and cooperative development.”

He ends with a nice line, too: "The harsh winter will be gone and spring is around the corner. Let us strengthen confidence and work closely together to bring about a new round of world economic growth.”

Again, a nice speech by my standards. My primary quibble is that he didn’t state what I feel is obvious concerning the economy: that confidence won’t return until jobs return. But I can’t judge this ultimate success of this speech. And neither can you. Why? Because neither of us know the premier’s intent.

It could have been a major success. Or it could have flopped. Maybe a 10 – just as easily a 0. What makes this so difficult to judge is the way this speech was reported in the media. I couldn’t find a single major story – outside China! - that gave any serious consideration to the premier’s five proposals. A few reported on China’s homegrown confidence. But those were the outliers. Here is the how the mainstream media played it:

• Hindu (India): China blanes low savings, high spending for global downturn.
• The Telegraph (UK): Russia and China blame West for economic crisis.
• The New York Times (US): Russia and China Blame Capitalists.
• Reuters (Intl): Russia and China blame crisis on debt binge.

I’m of the belief that nothing was in the speech by accident. This “blame the West” portion of the speech was inserted with intent. The Chinese make no accidental remarks in formal talks.

What we don’t know – and the reason we must reserve judgment on the speech itself – is whether China intended for this idea to dominate the headlines … or if they misjudged the way the media would report it.

Regardless, there is a lesson here for speechwriters. And that is this: your primary argument is sacrosanct. Inserting off-topic material can ruin an otherwise nicely crafted talk and kill your key message points. Unless, of course, the off-topic material is key message. That’s a bold course of action and not one for the faint of heart. But as China proves, it can be done.

This pudding has no theme

Good news for speechwriters in Canada. There’s at least one politician there in need of your services. I say that because I just read the Speech From the Throne given by Herménégilde Chiasson, Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick this past November.
 
It clocks in at about 54 minutes that is, by my reckoning, about 30 minutes too long. Way too much fluff and not enough “get-to-the-business-at-hand.” In fact, I had a bit of trouble finding what the “get-to-the-business-at-hand” stuff was.

Consider the opening two pages which talks about the people who have died in the past year including a New Brunswick man who was remembered as a “strong advocate” of the potato industry and a young Vancouver Canucks defensive man. Not to take away from the recognition or the memory of those who died, but I might suggest the sentiments are misplaced at the beginning here.

(As an aside, if you have to do perfunctory comments about who died, who got married, or who’s serving overseas, let someone else do it in a separate talk. That way you’re not diluting your own message. Yes, it is important to have a message and stick with it!)

Placing this material at the beginning weakens the plot here. In fact, there is no plot which is a real problem for the audience. As anyone who has followed my postings here before know, I’m a strong advocate for making your speech audience centric. That is, one the audience can follow and take meaning from. If they can’t follow the talk, if they don’t know where you’re going, they’ll have a difficult time putting meaning to the talk. Unfortunately, that’s what happened here.

I kept reading this talk waiting for a moment when the speaker would say something like: What I’d like to talk about today is ….” Yes, it’s a bit cliché but oh so refreshing compared to what we have which is a mish-mash of statements on a variety of topics.

Winston Churchill once implored a server to “Take away that pudding – it has no theme.” That’s the way this speech is. No theme. No over-arching point. No structure. And did I mention it was too long? Take it away and bring it back when it’s fully developed into a concise, rhetorical device.

Calm Words in a Volatile Time

Banks are in turmoil. Investors are worried. Main Street Americans are concerned about their financial deposits. The Federal Government steps in with bold action. The President goes to the microphone to ease anxieties.

2008? Try 1933 when an earlier banking crisis also threatened to destabilize the American economy. The circumstances are eerily similar to today’s problems. And in some ways, the solutions are similar, too: Heavy government intervention and calming words from the only person who can deliver them effectively: the President.

In contrast to recent events, however, the President 75 years ago was fresh on the job. Franklin D. Roosevelt took office on  March 4, inheriting an expansive economic quagmire from President Hoover. Many of the banks around the country had closed and others were falling every day as confidence waned.

 The day after his inauguration, Roosevelt issued a Presidential Proclamation closing the banks. On March 12, he addressed the American people for the first time about the problems.

That speech is notable – and instructional – for three important reasons.

First, it was the first of 30-plus Fireside Chats from one of our greatest Presidential communicators. By itself, it began a remarkable rhetorical journey for a man who understood the power of words to change behaviors and motivate people.

Second, the speech had an immediate and significant impact both on the banking crisis and Roosevelt’s eventual success. Bolstered by his rational and reassuring words, Americans gained new confidence in the banking system, giving regulators time to strengthen the entire system. By the time the banks reopened, they were stronger and poised for growth. With this resounding success behind him, Roosevelt had the mandate to embark on his “First 100 Days” agenda.

Third, it’s a great example of crisis communications and the power of words to calm nerves in anxious times. Coming in at just 1,800 words, I call this “The Little Speech That Could.”

How did Roosevelt do it? By beginning with the premise that this one talk had to do it all. Most speeches are a success if they can accomplish any one of four things: Inform, Reinforce Shared Values, Change Attitudes, or Elicit Action. And I advise speakers in normal times to avoid over-reaching by trying to do too much in one speech.

But these weren’t normal times. Roosevelt knew he had to take the unusual step of jumping across the communication void and move the American people from scared ignorance to positive action in one speech. It was an incredible leap.

Roosevelt’s first task was actually two jobs in one. He not only had to Inform the American people why the banking crisis was occurring but also tell them how the Federal government was solving the problem. He does this with amazingly simple language: “I want to tell you what has been done in the last few days, why it was done, and what the next steps are going to be.”

His next task was to let listeners know these actions were taken with their general welfare in mind. He needs to let them know he shares their values. How? By telling them legislation was “patriotically passed” by the Congress and that both parties showed “a devotion to public welfare.” Simple – and effective – reinforcing language showing the actions would protect the banks and Americans' assets.

He then had to change their attitudes by mitigating the climate of unfounded fear contributing to the crisis. “It needs no prophet to tell you that when the people find that they can get their money -- that they can get it when they want it for all legitimate purposes -- the phantom of fear will soon be laid. People will again be glad to have their money where it will be safely taken care of and where they can use it conveniently at any time. I can assure you that it is safer to keep your money in a reopened bank than under the mattress.”

Finally, he issued a call to action and asked directly for their help. Again, simple language rules the day. “You people must have faith; you must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses. Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the machinery to restore our financial system; it is up to you to support and make it work.”

What can speechwriters learn from this pivotal speech?

• Begin at the beginning and inform everyone about what has happened.
• Appeal to an audience's sense of shared values.
• Reassure them that action is being taken.
• Use simple language for greater effectiveness.
• Don’t be afraid to appeal to an audience’s sense of public good to help with the solution.

One reason the initial rescue plan in the U.S. House failed was no one stepped forward - like Roosevelt did - to do the first and most basic task of informing the electorate of what was happening and why. For such an important piece of legislation, the country could have used the modern equivalent of a Fireside Chat - perhaps a prime-time address to the American people - to lay the groundwork for action.

Roosevelt understood that what his audience needed first and foremost was information. He met their needs first before asking for their support. A great example of leadership communication.

A good beginning, then ....

My intent was to write glowingly about the opening of a speech I ran across recently by Jim Rogers, the Chairman and CEO of Duke Energy. I really enjoy the way Rogers began this talk. (Here's a video version, by the way.)

“I am going to start by sharing with you three numbers. Three. Twelve. Forty-one. These numbers drive my  passion for addressing the climate issue. These numbers are why I am here today. Three – We are the third-largest emitter of CO₂ of all the companies in the United States.

“Twelve – Of all the companies in the world, we rank No. 12 in our emissions of CO₂. Forty-one - Of the 192 countries in the United Nations, we would rank 41st in our emissions of CO₂. These are not numbers to be proud of or numbers to brag about, but it should tell you, as CEO of Duke Energy, why I am committed to addressing this issue – because I think it is critical for us to do that.”

That’s a nice, intriguing opening. No preamble. No poor attempt at humor. It sets the tone immediately.

Alas. What begins with promise unwinds into structural mess. This is unfortunate, by the way, because Rogers has been a visionary in the energy field for a number of years and his messages deserve to be heard.

Ironically, the fall from promise to painful oratory has all to do with the use of numbers, the same artifice that so intrigued me in the beginning.

Here’s a secret about successful speeches: a speech’s success is directly proportional to the ability of the audience to hear and understand it. Simple, right?

If the audience doesn’t hear the talk – and understand it – you might as well be speaking jibberish. That means a successful speech must have a logic to it the audience can follow.

I’m not necessarily talking about the logic of the argument within the speech. Certainly that has to be present. No, what I’m mostly talking about is the logic of the speech’s structure. Does it make sense? Can the audience follow it? Can an audience member anticipate where the speaker is going and mentally take the trip as well?

That’s where this speech falls apart. Great information but so ill-packaged that the listener may get lost going from beginning to end. There is no over-arching theme or structure that the audience is familiar with … no ribbon of thought to connect Point A with Point B and Point C.

Instead, we have a hodge-podge of pieces. Here’s the speech progression:

• We start with the above-mentioned numbers opening. So far so good.
• Rogers then talks about the three solutions he wants to speak on. OK, I can buy that. It's a common structure and that, by itself, makes it a good structure because the audience can anticipate it.
  
• On page two, however, he talks about three big trends. 
• Half a page later, he talks about the four ways he’s judged in his job (without, by the way, signaling that he’s judged in four ways.)
• A few paragraphs later we’re given the three company objectives.
• This is followed by a couple of pages of company examples that are capped by the phrase “the fourth and last thing I will report to you …” (I should mention here that the “last thing” he will report is 10 pages from the end.)
• A few pages later he begins a discussion about the political climate by giving the listener a “global perspective first,” followed by a second point, which is followed by “another point,” followed by the phrase “lastly, I would say…” (We’re still four pages from the end. HINT: Never say “finally,” “lastly,” or “in conclusion” until you’re ready to wrap it up. Those words send distinct signals to the audience.)
• Three pages from the end we get the “In concluding …” setup which is followed a page and a half later by “I want to close …” phrase.

All of these numbers and phrases are sign-posts for the listeners. They’re auditory clues about the structure of the speech and, as such, should help them perform a very difficult task – listening – with much more ease.

Instead, they’re used here as artificial sign-posts that make the speech clumsy and complicate the audience’s listening experience. Which is a pity because Rogers truly is a leader in the energy field and has taken a contrarian's position that serves him and Duke well. A speaker's job is to not only deliver the content, however, but deliver it in a way the audience can hear and understand.

In conclusion (yes, I really am stopping now), how we say it is just as important as what we say. Good speakers will give the audience not only content but a structure they can follow.

Biden's Speech: Built on "You"

There’s a curious distinction in the most recent speech I posted about below (from McCain) and Sen. Joe Biden’s speech when he was announced as Barack Obama’s running mate: their respective use of the words “you” and “I.” It’s difficult to make any broad generalizations about the candidates from just two talks, but tracking the way the two candidates use these words differently will be illuminating as the election heats up.

And looking at them here – with these two speeches – gives us an interesting (albeit brief) glimpse about personalities and the way these two men approach their audiences.

I was taught – several years ago – a fundamental lesson about speechwriting that I still try to use today: Talk more about the audience and less about yourself. One of the ways you do that is by making sure you literally use the word “you” in your talk a lot more than you use the word "I." Whenever I teach speechwriting, I ask students to go back and see how many “yous” they put into their speech. If there’s not one every paragraph or so, they should rewrite.

Why? Three reasons. One, the exercise ensures the speaker/writer is focused on the audience. Forcing yourself to write the word “you” also forces you to think about what your audience wants and needs to hear, what their interests are, what the touchpoints are.

Second, it’s so much warmer than always talking about yourself with the word “I.” You know this instinctively. Some people are always lacing their language with “I did this” and “I did that.” Most politicians, I would guess, do this quite a bit. They do, after all, have to explain themselves and their votes on a regular basis.

The third reason for introducing a lot of “you's” into your speech is to keep the audience’s attention. Here’s an example of that. Remember in school that one teacher who just loved to call on students, by name, and ask them questions about what they were supposed to have read the night before? We all had one. They were hated people because they forced you to pay attention. (Can you believe teachers would stoop that low as to expect us to pay attention?) Which student would, after all, want to daydream and be caught off guard – and embarrassed – when the teacher called their name?

Audiences are similar. If you talk to them – and lace your language with the word “you” – they are apt to pay more attention. Which of these phrases are warmer and more appealing?
•    I want to speak briefly about the issues …
•    I want you to know …

The second one is because it’s more audience-centric. The first is from McCain’s speech; the second from Biden’s. In fact, doing a quick analysis of McCain’s speech versus Biden’s is extremely revealing. What a contrast in styles!

McCain’s talk referenced below is 1,118 words long, a short speech by most measures. He uses the word “you” 11 times, or once every 101 words.

By contrast, Biden used the word “you” a whopping 69 times or once every 24 words for his 1,667-word talk. He outpaced McCain by 4X on the "you" factor.

Let’s look the word “I.” McCain referenced himself with the word “I” 28 times, or once every 39 words. Biden used the “I” word 27 times, or once every 61 words.

Now, there’s more that goes into how an audience will react to a speech besides the “you/I” ratio. But it is one measure I use to evaluate a speech. Chalk this one up to Biden. We’ll see if McCain’s speechwriting crew tries to make him warmer and more audience-centric in the days ahead and whether the notoriously loquacious Biden can maintain his warmth.

McCain - A Rhetorical Lesson (in the negative)

First, a disclaimer. This isn't about politics. This is about speaking powerfully and getting your messages heard and understood. So if you're a McCain supporter, don't take this personally.

McCain's recent speech in Lima, Ohio is a great example of rhetorical devices used with less effect than we might like. It's a short speech - which is good. And it does have some nice phrasing in it. In fact, probably more than you would think if you heard this delivered. But it could be shorter and better and get his messages across even more powerfully.

First, the good. The opening paragraph - with its staccato phrasing and declarative sentences - is right on. "I have been called a maverick. Sometimes it is meant as a compliment and sometimes it is meant as a criticism. But what it really means is I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party. I don't work for a president. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you and for the country we love."

Nice, hard punching. I like it because audiences will appreciate the rhythm and cadence. "I don't work ... I don't work ... I don't work." That kind of drum beat is almost hypnotic.

The next paragraph continues that rhythm but then tails away at the end. The steady beat becomes one long roll that fails to deliver the knock-out punch that paragraph deserves. Some crisp editing would have helped here.

But that's not the most grievous editing problem. No, that comes in the following paragraphs and, I would bet, is where the audiences' mind began to wander.

McCain sets it up nicely with a short "Senator Obama says he's going to change Washington." In boxing terms, that's a quick jab to the gut. You can feel it. But where's the followup punch? The big blow to the head? It's missing.

Instead, we get five long sentences of air jabs. The next paragraph is even worse. Again, we get the gut-jabbing setup punch: "Senator Obama says he will only raise taxes on the rich." But it's followed by 10 - count them 10 - sentences about how Obama doesn't do what he says he will. Worse yet, mixed into that section is a "here's what I would do" couple of sentences.

Then it's back to the gut jab again. Followed, yet another time, by a series of air jabs: long sentences that are too detailed to keep the audience's attention and too messy to make any kind of rhetorical impact.

How much better this would be if McCain had continued the rhythm he established early on. "Senator Obama says this. But he did that ... Senator Obama promises X ... but he did Y in the Senate .... Senator Obama says he's working for you. But he voted for this bill."

Those would be jabs to the gut followed by uppercuts to the jaw. Instead, the knock-out punches never come.

The Bottom Line: A little crisp editing would help this talk tremendously by helping the audience follow along. Establishing a rhytym the audience can follow is important. It keeps them focused, keeps their eyes on you (where they belong) and allows them to feel good about what they're hearing because they can anticipate where the speaker is going. 

Canadian Speech Does the Job

It's not often I get to see speeches from across the border in Canada. But this one popped up and I'm glad it did. What an interesting speech this is. Full of detail. Skimpy on classical rhetorical devices. Long. And effective? Probably, but not for the traditional reasons.

The speech is from The Honourable Iona Campagnolo, the Lt. Governor of British Columbia to open the third session of the 38th Parliament. It does, in many ways, follow a traditional course. After opening with a tribute to those who passed away over the past year, she gives the audience the traditional "here's what I'm going to say" nugget. Five items that the government will focus on.

And she follows that with a straight-forward attack on each of those five items by setting it up with the nice set of declarative statements: "At the heart of the government's agenda lies this simple question: What can we do today to secure the future for our children and grandchildren."

She immediately launches into what has become a mandatory statement in politics today: the bipartisanship statement. Instead of letting it sit out there by itself, though, she includes it in a very effective triple: "This is a time for partnership not partisanship, for boldness not trepidation, for action not procrastination."

And then the five issues. And, oh boy, did she cover them. In detail. Lots of stats and figures in here. Some nice  statements, too, that could easily be picked up by media. And here is the strength of this speech. It seems, in some ways, to be written more for posterity than for immediate consumption which typically goes against the grain of good speechwriting.

Point in case, it's long. Somewhere around 7,000 words or about an hour long. Lots of sore bums and fidgety people after that, I'm guessing. And, as mentioned, the speech is a bit skimpy on the traditional rhetorical devices that engage audiences: sentence variation, rewriting stats and figures,alliteration, word plays, rhythmic triads, etc. There are some rhetorical questions. A few short sentences. But on the whole, the speech seems to fall into a sing-song pattern with a traditional subject-verb-object sentence structure.

For the audience, this might have been difficult. But (and here's why I'm not quick to say it was ineffective) it did a very nice job of laying out the issues and what the government's position is on them. And it did an excellent job of providing material that could be quoted wholesale by the media. That is no small task when you're also trying to write for the ear. 

You'll have to ask the politicos from BC whether the speech covered all the things it should have. And here is one -- and now a second -- critique from that standpoint. But it did cover the things it did very well. And that's good enough.

Bush Speech Fails to Warm

OK. So I'm a stickler when it comes to the virtues of warming up an audience. Some don't. Some speakers launch right in by telling stories or relating funny anecdotes. I've done it myself.

BUT … and this is the key … I've only done that when the audience members already had a mostly favorable view of me. I didn't have to warm them up.

Compare that to the jarring beginning of President Bush's wooden address to the nation on Jan. 10. Already down in the polls – I mean, way down in the polls – with an electorate that thinks his strategy in Iraq has failed and that has no confidence in him as a leader – he starts off his "new way forward" speech in the most impersonal way possible.

 "THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror -- and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror. "

Um. OK. That's kind of like trying to get a woman who you've stood up twice before at the wedding chapel to go through the whole shebang again by saying: "Tonight, thousands of couples are engaged to be married for a life of wedded bliss. The marriage I have outlined for us will change your life forever."

Maybe it will and maybe it won't. First, you'll have to get her to the chapel. President Bush, in many ways, was still standing on the front stoop, trying to plead his case twenty minutes after he started to a potential partner that never even opened the door.

And why would Americans open the door for him? He gave them no reasons to listen from the very beginning. The newscasters on CNN pointed out ahead of the speech that President Bush was giving this speech from the White House library in hopes of giving it a warmer feel. Too bad the words didn't match the setting.

Instead of the wooden recitation of the obvious that he did present, how about instead trying to curry a little favor with the American people by acknowledging up front that he knows they're concerned? That he knows American men and women are in harms way? That he realizes many American worry that the wheels have come off the freedom express and the whole thing is careening toward a deep chasm?

Acknowledging the audience's concerns is a good way to get from arms-folded stoicism to ears-opened engagement. Unfortunately, at the end of his 20 wooden minutes of prime time rhetoric (apologies to Aristotle), the bride was no closer to walking down the aisle than before.

Speechwriting 2.0 Episode 2

Download Speechwriting_2.0-2.mp3

Annan Delivers Model Farewell Speech

If you ever need to make an argument that not all powerful speeches are long, dull, dry affairs, take Kofi Annan's speech at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library for your main support.

   

UN Photo/Mark Garten

What an amazing amount of POP! the outgoing Secretary-General of the UN put into one small tidy package. The speech ran no more than 25 minutes and delivered a straight-forward punch at what he ultimately sees as the near-sighted (perhaps blind?) approach the U.S. is taking in foreign
affairs.

"You Americans did so much, in the last century, to build an effective multilateral system, with the United Nations at its heart," Annan said. "Do you need it less today, and does it need you less, than 60 years ago? Surely not."

In less than 3,000 words, he outlined five lessons he's learned during his two terms as Secretary-General. Five lessons which lead him to the question above: Does the U.S. need the UN less than it did when President Harry Truman was in office?

The speech is also an excellent example of creating what I call "active listening" among the audience. He tells the audience in advance he has five points to make and then makes them, one by one, in a very direct fashion. Neither lesson is wordy, indicating to the audience that the speech won't take long. He inserts good quotes and research. He uses a good mix of rhetorical devices to enliven the language. And he leaves then with a hope and a prayer.

A great speech. And one, I might add, that should be mandatory reading for our high school students today.

Speechwriting 2.0 Episode 1

Download Speechwriting_2.0-1.mp3

New Podcast for Speechwriters Announced

Fletcher Dean is announcing a new podcast to give writers and speakers some of the tools they'll need to make their speeches and presentations great.

Speechwriting 2.0 will be available here and be available as a download from iTunes.

Why a podcast? As I explain in the podcast itself, what better way to talk about talking than through an audio format? Listeners can actually hear what I'm explaining and I'll be able to include audio clips from famous speeches as examples.

This first podcast has two major themes:

• Explaining the genesis of Speechwriting 2.0
• Exploring the elemental question of speechwriting: Whose Speech Is It?

Like it? Don't like it? Have suggestions on ways to make it better and more relevant? Talk to me and let me hear it. My hope is that this podcast -- along with this site -- will help foster a greater sense of cohesiveness among those of us who write speeches. Maybe that's too tall an order. Maybe it will just be a place where writers get some good tips and ideas. Either way, I hope you enjoy.

My Services

My goal is to simple: to help you communicate. Whether you're a speechwriter, a leader searching for tips on public speaking or just someone interested in the art and craft of persuasively speaking in front of others, this blog is here to help you.

I write for a Fortune 50 public company in the U.S. and my speeches have been reprinted in such prestigious journals as Vital Speeches of the Day, quoted by national magazines and newspapers, and cited by The Speechwriter’s Newsletter as among the Top 10 Speeches of the Year.