7 Public Speaking Social Media Strategies

Is Facebook Public Speaking? How about Twitter, Linked In, and all the other Social Media platforms that exist today?

The logical answer would be 'NO' - it's not verbal, its written, right? What we read doesn't have the same effect on us as what we hear, does it? How many of us would stand in front of an audience and read our statuses (particularly some of the political and religious ones) to a live audience? And I mean ALL of them?

So clearly, it's NOT public speaking. 

Or is it?

When you read a post, don't you hear that person's voice (or what you think that person sounds like, at least)? They aren't, typically, posting fiction or prose. Statuses and updates are almost always written in Active Voice - for a short blurt of an idea to a long, well-considered (or not) commentary on life. Even the jokes and placards of wisdom we share are essentially us sharing our voice with our followers.

When we reply or comment, surely that is nothing less than public speaking, right?

These social media platforms are very public, and who sees what we 'say' is not always as tightly controlled as we think, unless we have kept our friends lists very small, and our privacy settings completely locked down.

We see stories all the time of athletes, politicians, the Donald - saying something that gets them bad press, suspended, fined, or fired at their job, or even arrested. While most of us aren't going to face issues quite this harsh, as speakers, we still need to consider that anything we 'say' will be used to define us by those listening - no matter how well they may or may not know us, or we them.

7 Public Speaking Social Media Strategies

1. Know Your Audience. Just as you would for a speaking engagement, consider who your friends and followers are - and how they will perceive what you say. It isn't just your poker buddies who hear your statements that you're a die-hard Tea Partier or a flaming Liberal, or that you spend your life playing fantasy football - it's potentially EVERYONE you've connected with - including potential employers and meeting planners. 

2. Control Your Audience. Investigate privacy settings. Create smaller broadcast groups within your larger friendship base. Open a second account for just you and your poker buddies. My wife has one facebook account for 'everyone', with an emphasis on people with Neurofibromatosis, which is the cause she promotes, and a smaller account for closer, more personal friends. Don't let 'friends of friends' see your comments, unless you truly don't care who reads what you may subconsciously believe is only being read by your best buddy. Consider blocking people who regularly cause problems in your conversation streams - we're often judged by who we let be our friends, as well as by what we ourselves say.

Be aware of who you're friending or adding to your follow lists. Don't friend just anyone. Maybe you have 50 mutual friends, but how do you know one or two of them didn't just friend this nutball without thinking, and the next 48 trusted the judgment of the first two? Why are you adding people? Plan the audience you're building - are you just collecting baseball cards of your favorite people? Are you trying to connect with a specific audience? Are you stalking your old boyfriends? Its easier to control your audience when you know and own up to your intentions.

3. Think Before You Status. Would you say what you just typed in front of a crowd made up of everyone of your friends? It's easy to blurt something out in the moment in today's day and age, to type a knee-jerk reaction to life that we would never say aloud in a crowded room. Your facebook wall, your twitter account - they're a crowded room. Stop before you Send - consider the ramifications. Are you adding value, to both your reader and yourself? Be authentic, but be careful.

4. Think Before You Comment. When you comment on Facebook, you are speaking not only to that person, but ALL of THEIR friends as well. Is what you have to say pertinent? Does it add value? Or is it just snarky, argumentative, or plain dumb? Oh, our blurts sound good in the moment, but will they stand up to the scrutiny of being permanently posted for all to see - particularly a potentially unknown audience? Consider sending the person a message instead, or just letting that urge to comment pass. Take a cold shower instead.

5. Ask Questions Instead of Making Statements. By asking your audience what they think about something that you have a strong opinion about, you start a discussion while taking the edge off what might be an incendiary situation, and also get a chance to feel out who may be paying attention. When people read a blunt statement, it can come across as judgment. You may be making a sweeping statement to the universe, but it is read by each 'friend' individually, and some folks take things more personally than others.

6. Free Speech Isn't Free. It's your wall, your account, your life. Far be it from me to restrict free speech. But free speech comes at a cost - and it's up to you to decide if you're willing to pay the price of damaged friendships, misunderstandings, and potentially lost business. Angry at your local football team? Post about how stupid their owner is, and your chances of speaking to any part of that business plummets. Can't stand our President? You've just offended 51% of the voting public. Count the costs of your Free Speech.

7. Be True to Yourself - with Intention. In some cases, being opinionated and contrarian is part of who we are as speakers - Larry Winget and Alan Weiss are strong examples of people who make a living by not caring what people think about what they put out there. But they are also intentional about what they put out there. They keep it consistent with their desired audience values - and consciously trim those they offend out of their audience. If you only want to speak on Christian values, or the benefits of socialized healthcare, or the state of the economy, don't dilute your messaging, but be conscious of everything you say, to keep it on track with what you want to communicate.

Before the comments start rolling in - yes, I have violated many, if not all, of these rules over the years. Maybe even in the last week. How else do you think I've come up with them?

Social media is the most powerful communication tool created in the last decade, and potentially the most destructive. Your thoughts, your VOICE, is being broadcast to the largest audiences you'll ever reach. It doesn't discriminate as it spreads your messages to the masses - it's a megaphone in the mall, it's the megascreen in the Times Square of your social circles. Use it well. Do no harm. It IS public speaking - so be aware of what you Speak & Deliver.

Quick & Dirty Views on the Obama/Romney Debate: Round Three

Tonight's third debate between President Obama and Governor Romney had a different feel that the others, to my eyes and ears. Less contentious, overall - perhaps neither that that truly fighting was appropriate during a discussion on foreign policy. Nobody wants someone with an itchy trigger finger.

It had the feel of a job interview more than either of the previous rounds, with the President firmly in place, and Gov. Romney looking for every opening to usurp his position. Interestingly, on much of the foreign policy in place, the two seemed to agree on actions taken in general, which led to some interesting strategy.

Head to Head

Romney - Agree where it makes sense, even to the point of deflating the President's power point of taking out Bin Laden by conceding the point before it could come up.

Obama - Reiterate record, and point out opponents history of not wanting to move heaven and earth to capture Bin Laden. Related a touching story about a 15 year old reaching closure with her father's death, who she last spoke to when she was four, and he called from the World Trade Center.

Romney - Insist that he would be stronger even on current policies, and suggest that the President didn't act fast enough.

Obama - Suggest Romney was 'wrong and reckless' in his approach, implying the Governor didn't have the experience needed to have a finesse approach.

Romney - Painted America, and the president, as weak in the eyes of the world, in terms of foreign policy and strength of alliances, our military, and the economy.

Obama - Insisted we were stronger than ever in the eyes of the world, that Romney didn't understand our military position, and that Romney's economy would strengthen China more than the United States.

Romney - Repeated that 'the world is four years closer to a nuclear Iran' and that while he agreed with sanctions in place, insisted they were not strong enough. Mentioned '10,000 centrifuges spinning Uranium' that didn't exist before.

Obama - Described a weak and crippled Iran, a partnership of countries dedicated to keeping them weak until they backed away from nuclear. Didn't address centrifuges.

Romney - Mentioned the President's 'Apology Tour' quoting the president as saying the U.S. had been dismissive in the past, as well as his seeming indifference to Israel. Stated he would strengthen our relationship with Israel. When asked, confirmed he would stand with Israel were it attacked, but didn't want to address a hypothetical about Israel attacking Iran.

Obama - Called the 'Apology Tour' the biggest whopper of the campaign, and positioned it as a way of building relationships. Recalled his trip to Israel as a candidate as 'not a fundraising event', implying Romney's visit WAS, and that he used his time to tour the country and get in touch with what it's place in history and the present world was. Also stated he would stand with Israel in warfare directed towards them, but didn't address hypothetical.

We'll Talk About the Economy if We Want Too!

Governor Romney was the first to bring up the economy, claiming our weakened financial state showed weakness to the world, and used it as a segue to discuss his five point plan for economic success.

The President responded in kind, again insisting Romney's plans kept changing, weren't fully disclosed, and would create more debt. .

They again disagreed on Romney's stance that auto companies should be allowed to go into managed bankruptcies.

Overall, it was a repeat of the same economic rhetoric we heard in the first two debates. Perhaps it needed to be brought out simply to give them a wider opportunity to disagree, since they essentially agreed on most aspects of foreign policy.

Libya

The attack on our embassy in Libya came up first, but didn't seem to be nearly as fiery as the last debate. Both men said their peace, and it wasn't really brought up, that situation specifically, the rest of the evening.

Governor Romney, instead of going on the attack about what he has termed a failure in Libya, used the opportunity to bring up problems throughout the world, as he continued his attempt to weaken the President's image of a policy-maker. He also offered a multi-step plan to strengthen nations we're bringing democracy to, suggesting many areas are in 'tumult'

Pres. Obama, took a firm stance again as Commander-in-Chief, and reiterated that he would go after those who killed our countrymen. Then he segued into what he perceived as friend-building throughout the world, while saying his opponent was all over the map on his foreign policy, beginning his effort to bring Romney's foreign policy experience into doubt.

China

Both candidates felt China could be a strong partner, but Obama led with 'adversary that can become a partner', while Romney implied China was a potential partner first, and we had enough leverage to bring them in line. Both want China to play on a more even economic field, with Romney making a strong commitment to categorize them as a 'currency manipulator' and work to prevent them from stealing our technology and intellectual property, going into a story about a valve manufacturer discovering identical copies of their product, down to the serial number, sent to be repaired under warranty.

In a quick volley, the President said Romney sent jobs to China, and his economic plan to create tax breaks for companies sending jobs overseas would result in more jobs than ever going overseas, and cited Romney's record of opposing sanctions in a recent legal action against China flooding the U.S. with 'cheap tires'.

Big Hits?

The President had some quotable lines:

- Wrong and reckless
- He also brought up Romney's statement that Russia was our biggest threat, suggesting the 1980's wanted their foreign policy back. (Editor's addendum: In a sweeping attempt to indict his opponent, he stated "you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s")
- Replying to Romney's statement about our weak military, and smallest Navy since 1916: 'we also have fewer horses and bayonets' and suggesting the Navy is different than before, not a game of Battleship.
- While not directly referring to 'Romnesia', a popularized term in the last week, he did say that Romney was 'airbrushing his record'
- When Romney suggested people go to his website to get more insight into his economic plan, Obama rebutted 'We've been to your website, several times, and don't see much'

Romney was also sharp, but seemed determined not to create more soundbytes comparable to 'Big Bird' and 'Binders Full of Women'.

- He had clearly done his homework, bringing up situations around the globe in very specific terms, from Egypt to Libya to North Korea to Mali.
- Pounded into the audiences minds the notion of 'Four years closer to a nuclear Iran' and repeatedly used the term 'tumult' to describe world political situations.
- Highlighted his financial and budget-balancing successes in business, the Olympics and government, insisting he could do it as President.
- Took a strong stance against the president of Syria, insisting he must be ousted.
- Mentioned several times that the President 'attacking me isn't a strategy for the future' - an idea that echoes his VP's comments that a candidate in trouble resorts to attacking his adversary vs. touting his own ideas.

Closing Statements

President Obama had first draw, restating his stances on the economy, education, a strong military, and the theme of nation building at home that would benefit veterans. He again suggested we had two paths, back to failed policies, or 'Forward' to a more prosperous future. His final push was that we would bounce back as a country based on our character, sounding for all the world like someone saying 'trust me, we'll make it work'.

Governor Romney looked more presidential than ever, continuing to imply the President was weak in the eyes of the world - the overall mission, it seemed, of his debate. He stated he would bring strong leadership and create a safe country. As Obama promised in 2008, he declared America could come back by going 'across the aisle', and suggested we were 'broken' but could still be the hope for the world, and carry the torch for a better future.

The Moderator

Bob Shieffer, from CBS News, proved the most able of the three moderators to date. He offered pointed questions, kept the candidates moving, and both candidates seemed to show him more respect than given to either Mr. Lehrer or Ms. Crowley. He stayed calm but firm, and masterfully bridged the candidates from question to question.

So Who Won?

Both shone brightly tonight as speakers. There were fewer instances of talking over one another, though the President tried several times to break in as the Governor seemed determined to make up the minutes he lost in the second debate. The Governor wouldn't let Obama in, and occasionally talked over Bob Shieffer. Pres. Obama also battled for time, and often started going overtime with the words 'let me say this because' and would continue for up to a minute or more.

It was filled with Obama saying 'You said/did this' and Romney saying 'No I didn't' or 'That just wrong'. Each candidate continued to insist their economic plan would work while the others would not - the President on the strength of Romney's lack of specifics and bad math, and Romney on the strength of his experience vs. the weakness of the President's record.

On the strength of foreign policy, I'd give the win to the President. The Governor simply didn't have enough new ideas to add to the discussion. On the strength of the closing, Gov. Romney appeared crisper and more confident than the President. If all America remembers are the final few minutes, the debate goes to Romney.

Whew!

It's certainly been interesting analyzing these debates. Both have improved since their first meeting, as speakers, and as candidates. Will these debates matter? Will the polls matter? It's tough to say. Go out and vote - whether you think it matters or not, you can only be certain it will not matter if you don't.

Click to check out my review of the First Debate, and/or the Second Debate.

Quick & Dirty Views on the Obama/Romney Debate Part Deux

Alrighty then. Tonight's debate was certainly spirited, wasn't it? 

What was different?

The setting was more intimate, with the two men surrounded by undecided voters, and no lectern to hide behind as they both came out to speak directly to their questioners, and, more than once, to each other.

President Obama, no surprise, took the offensive and attacked Governor Romney's policies to a deeper level than ever before.

He took Romney to task on switching positions, saying one thing after doing another, and proposing policies he feels infringes on the rights of women, families, and the middle class.

He was attentive while Romney was speaking, he identified himself repeatedly by his title, as if to remind us of just who he is, and not only rarely backed down to interruptions, but in fact tried to appear as an ally to moderator Candy Crowley, the timers, and the 'folks' with questions to ask.

He also cut his ahs and ums down by 90%, replacing them with pauses, occasional double words/stutters, and lane changes (starting an answer then changing the start).

Overall, a much smoother and confident presentation from our Commander in Chief (another title oft mentioned).

For Governor Romney? Not much was different. Part of that was he didn't need to change his approach much after his successful first debate. He did focus more on Obama's failing, particularly in addressing the question about why a particular voter should vote for 'four more years'. It was his strongest attack of the evening, and he continued to hammer those points home throughout the night.

He was less condescending in the background, but more willing to interrupt the President and the moderator (which, considering how often he interrupted Jim Lehrer, is saying something).

Going Toe to Toe

At 16:20 in the debate, Governor Romney challenged the President on his energy policies. Obama rose, and the two edged toward each other as Romney pushed for an answer. It appeared as if the two were challenging each other for dominance in an almost animal-like manner, both physically and intellectually.

Who came out the winner? I'd say the President, by a half-point, staying relatively cool in the face of a clear attack (Romney was physically facing him, while the President was faced out more to the audience and cameras), whether you agreed with his answer or not.

Timing

Again, there was little to no respect for the timing of the answers, by either candidate, though the President seemed to pay more attention most of the time. He called for Romney to end his answers in the first half, but by the end seemed to simply take longer for himself to even up the airtime.

Dealing With the Moderator

As mentioned above, the President tried to create an ally in Candy Crowley, but in the final third of the debate, he often interrupted and talked over her. Governor Romney wasted little time in interrupting Ms. Crowley, treating her with as much, or as little respect as he did Mr. Lehrer. His intent was, of course, to be able to fully able to voice his views.

His result may not be as strong as they were the first time around - and may be seen as more disrespectful to a female moderator than it would have to another male moderator. Squishy ground here, but middle America still has an affinity for showing respect to women, and with Obama painting him as less than a champion of women's issues, a bit more tact would have served him well.

Answering the Questions

Neither stayed on point for long, taking questions and turning them toward their own talking points. Their approach in doing so was different, with the President either answering quickly before expanding the topic, or taking a circuitous route to an answer with an anecdote, while the Governor often seemed more intent on finishing his thoughts on the last topic before addressing the new one.

Closing Statement

In fact, it was a closing question, and a nice set up at that: What perception of yourself would you like to debunk? (loosely paraphrased)

In his closing answer, Governor Romney accused the Obama campaign as characterizing him as a very different person than who he was,.painting a definitive picture of himself as a man of God, a family man, and a businessman, someone who cared about 100% of the American people. Finally, he attacked again, insisting America doesn't have to 'settle' for the status quo. He looked more authentic in his description than through some of his stories of family life in the past debate, and throughout the campaign.

President Obama had the last word, and worked to debunk the idea that he believes government creates jobs, instead saying he believe in the free enterprise system, self-reliance and risk-takers, but tempered his statements by insisting everyone needs a fair shot, and needs to pay their fair share. He yielded to Romney's statements about himself as a family man and man of faith, but paraded out Romney's 'behind closed doors' dismissal of 47% of Americans as victims who don't take responsibility for themselves. Those victims, he insisted, are students, people on Social Security, the military, and veterans. Quickly, he asked for our vote, and another four years.

So Who Won?

Both sides will claim their man won. Both made strong attacks on the other, both defended with strength, and both were able to be clear about their own beliefs of being a successful president.

I see it as a victory for the President, but not a victory over Romney as much as a victory over his own failed performance in the first debate. I believe he has reassured his support base, and repaired much, if not all, of the damage in the two men's first meeting.

It was also a victory for the Governor, in that he not only stood his ground, but continued to work to emotionally undermine his opponent based on his first four years in office.

Who Was the Best Communicator?

Romney is still the better speaker, despite Obama's improvements. But tonight I believe the President communicated with a passion and confidence that evoked memories of the man who ran in 2008. While Romney was emotionally undermining Obama's record, Obama was emotionally connecting with his constituency.

Conclusion

A. The debate was a push, so the victory really goes to the incumbent.
B. The best communicator, by virtue of emotional connection, is the President

I'm sure many of you will disagree. I'm OK with that. Please do so from at least an arm's length away...

Quick & Dirty Views on the Obama/Romney Debate in Denver

Well, that was fun.

I'm not going to pick the debate apart for politics or policy, or about the fact that Romney's flag pin was slightly larger, but on speaking points alone:

- Romney is clearly the better debater, the better speaker of the two. For all the rhetoric four years ago about how great a speaker President Obama is, he was too tentative tonight, ahhing and uhhing all over the place, giving the impression he was making it up as he went along.

- Romney went on the offensive, and attacked at every juncture, using passive aggressive statements throughout, as well condescending body language and facial expressions while Obama spoke.

- Romney told more stories, shared more anecdotes during each segment. Obama didn't go to a story until about halfway through, and they seemed a bit forced, particularly the tale of his grandmother. Interestingly, many of my friends in Cleveland seemed to think his identification of the Cleveland Clinic as an example of strong healthcare to be laughable, on both sides of the aisle, so to speak.

- Obama was on the defensive all night, only building steam when he talked about Obamacare. He looked, to me, to be a tired, stressed out president who would prefer to be anywhere but there.

- Romney's weakest moments came when talking about cutting programs, including PBS and Big Bird. He cannot afford to speak dismissively of anything, even for the sake of a laugh.

- Two powerful moments for Romney - 1. characterizing Obama as a child, repeating the tax cut as one of his sons would repeat an untruth, hoping we'd hear it enough to believe it, and 2. zapping him with 'You are entitled to your own house and your own plane, but not your own facts' - a line he was no doubt waiting to unleash all evening long.

- Two powerful moments for Obama - 1. calling Romney out for a lack of a detailed plan to reach his objectives for the economy, federal regulations, and healthcare, and 2. comparing Obamacare with Romneycare.

Essentially the night was one of 'Will not! - Will too!' back and forth between our president and the Republican nominee, as they accused each other of fairly egregious practices and potential outcomes.

The final statements of each contrasted sharply, with Obama maintaining a defensive posture, sticking to his guns and saying it will work, and Romney painting a rosier outcome vs. more of the same. The opportunity to have the last word would have worked in either candidates favor, but certainly helped Romney's cause more than it would have for Obama.

Speaking strictly of Speaking - I'd call this one for Romney, easily. President Obama will need to come back in the next two debates with confidence, with strong factual evidence, and a presidential stature. Romney needs to continue with his approach, but find a way to look less condescending when he's not speaking.

A quick note on Jim Lehrer - I thought his work as a debate facilitator tonight was weak-kneed. He let both speakers go overtime repeatedly, allowed both of them to run over him throughout. There is a difference between showing respect for the debaters and respect for the purpose of the debate. Letting them go on and on and vie for speaking power doesn't help the audience.

The big question to me is this: will this debate actually sway you one way or another? Or is this simply a moot diversion of our time and resources?

Acting Techniques for Everyday Life: A Book Review

Yesterday I compared the two disciplines of Acting & Speaking - separating them in spots, joining them in others. I had a couple of comments suggesting that the two feed into each other - or as Michael Erwine succinctly put it "Acting and Speaking inform one another".

I completely agree, and today I'll review a book that isn't about speaking, per se, but, as the title reads: Acting Techniques for Everyday Life, by Jane Marla Robbins.

Logically separated into four parts: Prepare Like an Actor, Nuts and Bolts Techniques, More Tricks of the Trade, and Real-Life Challenges, Robbins covers a lot of ground, with something to readers of most any experience level in acting OR speaking.

She writes from inside her own mind, sharing her thought processes at each step, vs. taking a lecture approach. Her own experience as a professional actress is heavily drawn upon, as she reveals her failures and fears, as well as her successes. It isn't done so much to establish her credibility, rather she reveals it anecdotally where appropriate. She weaves in stories about her coachees as well, explaining their challenges and the work done to overcome them, and occasionally drops a name here or there, discussing the techniques of Dustin Hoffman and Marlon Brando, without ever slipping into 'big shot' mode. If anything, she shows remarkable humility throughout the book, despite her achievements.

Part One: Prepare Like an Actor describes techniques from how to stand - feet under your hips, hands at your sides, watch that sunken chest - to vocal exercises to relaxation techniques you may never have considered as 'speaking preparation'.

While you might think "Oh, of course, I knew THAT", the real question this book answered was WHY we should use certain techniques, and made me re-evaluate whether I actually DID what I knew to do.

Part Two: Nuts and Bolts Techniques includes role-playing, memorization techniques, playing with props and costumes, and even some improv exercises. As I mentioned in yesterday's post (though not necessarily this clearly), speakers should act WITHIN their presentation, just not AS their presentation.

Learning how to create characters on stage is a valuable skill when you create dialogue or tell a story about someone else's experience - this section will invariably help you in your growth process if you actually do the exercises she suggests.

My favorite part of this section is 'The Magic "As If"'. Her accounts of Henry and Pam changing their internal stories about what they were capable of were inspiring, and if you still can't quite overcome your fear to speak, to get a coach, or to go to your local Toastmasters club, this technique is a winner. More experienced speakers likely use "As If" thinking without necessarily knowing why. Robbins again does a great job exploring the why factor, for those who need more concrete reasoning behind their leaps of Faith.

Part Three: More Tricks of the Trade discusses gestures, breathing techniques, the power of music, and  her personal technique of using mental symbols to get into and stay in the right state on stage, called "The Inner Walnut". Again, ideas are presented in detail, with both the why and the how, without overdoing it.

Part Four: Real-Life Challenges is both the most valuable aspect of the book to me, as well as the most self-helpish and occasionally psychologically mystical.

It also specifically addresses public speaking - suggesting our fear often comes from suppressed childhood memories, fear of failure, even a subconscious fear of death for lack of performance. She discusses how to feel 'safe and love' while speaking, as well as keeping the passion for your message alive even if you've presented it a thousand times.

Jane Marla Robbins

Other aspect in Part Four include handling yourself at social gatherings, playing your ideal self, and feeling sexy - not something I'd really concerned myself with as a speaker or an actor. Interesting thoughts, nonetheless.

Acting Techniques for Everyday Life is well-written, easy-to-read, and often one of the most insightful books about speaking, without being about speaking, I have read. When the review copy arrived, I was a bit determined not to like it, but the more I read, the more I warmed up to both the author and the ideas she shared. Her case studies were evenly split between male and female, usually offering one of each for each major concept. She also had small sidebars titled 'If it works for actors, it can work for you' - helping us transfer each idea from the acting world to the real world, or, for our purposes, to the speaking world.

Worth your money, worth your reading time, and...worth exercising and applying Ms. Robbins techniques.

Authors Disclaimer: I received Acting Techniques for Everyday Life as a review copy, with no payment in exchange for a review. All link within the review are non-affiliate links.

Acting vs. Speaking

Have you ever watched a speaker and wondered if he knew you were even in the room?

It can be easy to go into acting mode as a speaker, especially if you've put a lot of work into your presentation. To start, you're on a stage, already separated from your audience. You know what you want to say, how you want to say it (whisper here, yell here), what gestures you want to use, and you don't want to miss a practiced beat.

I've watched many a terrifically constructed speech packed with wit, pathos, action, and a strong calls to action, fall completely flat. They were in full performance mode, but forgot we were in the room - putting up a virtual television screen that separated us from them. Had we watched the speech at home on our wide screen HD with stereo sound, we'd be closer to contentment. What we want from a speaker in person, however, is not just a message, but a connection, a conversation. When presenters go into acting mode, we leave empty, even if we laughed and cried.

Ultimately, this type of speaking is more about the speaker than the audience. 

It may be about the speaker's fear. Going in front of an audience can make you feel like the Emperor with no clothes. Acting can be an emotional robe, protecting you from the audience, while ultimately separating you. Speakers who aren't comfortable with their message, or fear pushback from their audience can put on an act in self-defense. Unfortunately, once you're on, you're on regardless. If you're going to go ahead and speak, commit to the moment, and let nothing stand between you and your audience. Still, I advise wearing a suit.

Acting can come from too much or too little experience. If you aren't familiar with your message, you'll be so wrapped up in getting it right, you won't connect. If you are TOO familiar, you risk going through the motions, perhaps unsure of which audience you're even in front of today. Speaking often is great, but not if you're already mentally out of town when you speak.

It may ALSO be ego. The speaker may be so into themselves that they care more about looking good on stage, more about being remembered as a great speaker than a great communicator. If you're one of those, you're probably not reading this. But it can be easy to slide this way when we first start getting good reviews and loud, perhaps standing, ovations.

My initial training is actually as a stage actor. Beyond a high school speech class and a horrifying oral book report in the 7th grade, I didn't do much public speaking. Ironically, I was taught that GOOD acting meant connecting with the audience. Not in the same way a speaker should, but a connection through an authentic performance. Which means that not only is a speaker who is acting without connection not speaking well, they technically aren't even acting well!

Typical Acting VS. Effective Speaking

- Memorized lines written by others VS. memorized ideas written by the speaker

- Blocking (move stage left) as written VS. movement (step towards the audience to strengthen statement) out of natural intent and authentic emotion

- Dialogue stays on stage VS. dialogue with the audience

- Suspension of disbelief (putting your audience into the moment for the entirety of the performance) VS. temporary transport (taking your audience in and out of a scene, always landing in reality)

- Little to no eye-contact VS. intentional, specific, and continual eye contact

- Appreciation for their performance VS. appreciation for our reception of message

These are generalities, of course. I can already hear my theatre friends shouting exceptions. Stage acting can certainly break the barriers between actor and audience, and some performances can transcend the art form. And yes, there are speakers who speak as George Washington or Winston Churchill - though I would submit that is really just acting, not being a speaker. What's important to understand is that the intent behind effective acting is almost always different than effective speaking. It doesn't lessen either discipline, but clearly separates the two.

I'm not even saying acting in a speech is altogether inappropriate or ineffective - as long as it's the temporary transport mentioned above. It's okay for us to get involved in your stories, as long as they lead us back to our reality.

As speakers, we are not on a three camera soundstage with an audience being told when to laugh. We are not bound to a chiseled-in-stone script. We are not under the thumb of a director. We are free with our message, and bound only by our responsibility to our audience.

It can be scary as our we nakedly share our ideas with actual human beings - with both sides aware of our vulnerability. The reward, however, when we break through the imagined glass screen, and know the audience is in tune with our message, in sync with us as speakers, goes beyond an appreciated performance. It becomes an attitude, a habit, an action - an idea that goes beyond the stage and take corporeal form within the lives of your listeners. 

Save your acting for the community theatre - the speaking stage wants you, not your character, to Speak & Deliver.

Yet Another Post on Originality

I was speaking to a group of professional speakers and aspiring professional speakers Friday night about finding their message. I've said before that finding your message is the first thing you need to do in this business - and its also one of the hardest.

One of the items that came out during the talk was originality - how do we keep from saying what everyone else is saying? Well, I hate to say this true believers, but you probably can't. (I even stole 'true believers' from  Stan Lee). 

Unless we're geniuses who can extrapolate new answers from old data, a la Einstein or Hawking, (whose 'new' ideas are often old ideas not widely circulated) we're likely stuck with repackaging old data. Think about it - how many times has your most recent original thought shown up on a placard on Facebook? Heck, as students of what we talk about, its tough to always separate our own original thoughts from what we've read or heard along the way.

We think what we've been taught to think by people who have been taught to think by generations before them who have been taught to think by others. We're wired to be derivative. And that's OK. The fact that it's been said before may be exactly why it needs to be said again.

We went through the room and brought up concepts that the more experienced speakers already got paid to talk about. The best ones were in niches, but all came down to the basic concept of CHOICE. You choose which action to take, which attitude to feel. The information would change based on the niche, but not the underlying idea.

What are Obama and Romney discussing? Choices. What are fitness gurus preaching? Choices. What are preachers offering? Choices.

If you're not offering choices, you're not speaking as much as teaching - and even then, choices can enter the picture (want to solve it this way, not this way, even if it reaches the same answer - and in higher math, I suppose answers can be fuzzy - but I never made it to higher math, by choice).

Stop worrying about being original - instead focus on being memorable. Add yourself. A cake is a cake is a cake, until you start to decorate it. Add flavor, add fun. Be shocking, be intelligent. Be YOU. If we have not choice but to be derivative, we can still choose to be creatively derivative.

We live in a world that relives the same experiences year after year, century after century, in different packages. Because new people are growing every year - and they all need the same basic messages.

I know what you're thinking readers...you've heard it all before. Now you have a choice to go Speak & Deliver....Anyway.

Excelsior!