Gotcha feature
Eric Dixon

How to cope with ‘Gotcha’ questions during media interviews

/0 Comments/by
Gotcha

Presenter Noel Edmunds used to hand out ‘Gotcha’ awards

“Gotcha!”

For those of us of a certain age, it was the triumphant cry from Noel Edmonds on primetime Saturday night TV, as he presented yet another fellow celebrity with the award of the same name, after secretly filming them being pranked.

“Caught you,” those two syllables meant, “and what’s more, we’ve got it on film! Ha – more fool you!”

In the world of media training, those same six letters are used to describe interviewer’s questions which are designed to catch the interviewee out – particularly by asking them something to which they already know the answer. The theory is that rather than the journalist revealing the damaging information, it’s more embarrassing for the interviewee if they are forced to reveal it themselves. I know this to be the case: when I was a national BBC radio presenter, I used to do it too.

There was an excellent example of an attempt at the genre with Kay Burley on Sky News last week, when she was interviewing the new Secretary of State for Digital, Michelle Donelan. But as you can see from the clip, it backfires:

 

 

To find out why this was less successful for the interviewer than she hoped, it’s worth analysing the dialogue moment by moment, to examine exactly what happened:

KB: Talk to me about when you were at education; I mean, you weren’t there very long, were you?

MD: Well, I was – I was there for over three years.

No doubt, Donelan knew what was happening here. Back in July she had resigned from her position as Education Secretary after less than two days, in protest over the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s reluctance to resign after the Chris Pincher scandal. But the vagueness of Burley’s phrase “at education” meant she could bring her entire time in office into play (she had been Minister of State for Higher and Further Education, and Lord Commissioner of the Treasury before that).

KB: As the Secretary of State, how long were you there?

MD: Well – as you know the answer already, Kay, it was 36 hours. But I was serving in the cabinet for ten months and before that, a minister in two different roles – so I was there for over three years.

The phrase “as you know the answer already
” is key here. It’s Donelan’s way of indicating to the interviewer that she knows exactly what is going on. She then goes on to succinctly reveal the short amount of time Burley is looking for (“36 hours”), before ending her response by reiterating the length of her entire time in office.

Undeterred, with that attempt over, Burley tries again:

KB: OK – ÂŁ17,000 is what you got, apparently, as a payoff – which you said


MD: And you know the answer to that one as well, Kay, I didn’t take that


KB: OK – you said you were going to give it to a charity


MD: No, I didn’t – I said that if I wasn’t able to reject the money, I would give it to a charity, but I rejected it, as you already know


Notice the repeat of “and you know the answer to that one as well
”. But most impressive in the clip is how calm Donelan remains. She recognises what’s happening and knows she’s on firm ground. Therefore, she can continue to appear relaxed and smiling throughout:

KB: Oh, OK – I didn’t know that


MD: And that’s on the record


KB: I didn’t know that – that’s why I asked you the question. I’m surprised you didn’t give it to a charity, but there you go


Oof – another dig! And at first glance, it seems Burley might have a point; charity is clearly a good thing, therefore giving money to charity must be a good thing to do – perhaps even a better thing to do. However, increasingly sure of herself in this interaction, Donelan gives an appropriate and perfectly-judged answer:

MD: Well, it was taxpayers’ money – so I think it would be wrong for me to take taxpayers’ money, then decide which charity I wanted to give it to. So, I was very clear that if I was able to reject it, I would reject it – and I did.

It’s a highly assured performance from Donelan – and a less successful one from Burley, who The Spectator magazine describes as being “clearly disappointed” by how the interview was going, in an article written shortly afterwards linked here.

Mind you, not every broadcaster is keen on this approach. During last month’s Conservative Party hustings, newscaster Alastair Stewart – formerly with ITN, now with GB News – said: “It is not our style to go in search of ‘gotcha’ moments or high-octane arguments between the candidates
”

Nevertheless, it’s a style which is sometimes used. And if you ever find yourself on the receiving end, here are my three tips to cope:

  • Maintain integrity. Continue being searingly honest – and this means avoiding exaggeration, ambiguity, or saying something which could be misinterpreted, which may later come back to bite you.
  • Keep calm. There’s no need to demonstrate your frustration or anger to the interviewer with the way the conversation is going; indeed, they’d probably like that! So, it’s more effective if you can remain cool and collected – and your authority will rocket as a result.
  • Stay smiling. There’s no better way to exude confidence than putting on a smile. It also indicates that you’re enjoying the experience – and the audience are more likely to remain on your side that way, too!

Dealing with ‘Gotcha’ interviews is just one part of our Media Training sessions, along with explanations of a whole host of tricks and traps that interviewees may fall prey to. You can find more details here.

And not a Noel Edmonds award in sight


 

Images:
Noel Edmonds picture: Montage Communications CC BY-SA 2.0
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Noel_Edmonds_2006.jpg

dealing with presentation nerves
Lindsay Williams

Dealing with Presentation Nerves

/0 Comments/by

ï»żLots of people suffer some presentation nerves. Some suffer terribly. There are dozens of strategies for dealing with the stress of presenting, speaking in public or doing a media interview. Here are mine.

Dealing with Presentation Nerves

Simple steps

  • Rehearse aloud
  • Research your audience as much as possible
  • If it is a media interview, read what the journalist has written or listen/watch the show you are appearing on
  • Arrive early
  • If you are presenting, check the room and the tech

These above are the basic tips for a professional approach to either a presentation or a television or radio interview. However, for some people this will not be enough, so here are some more ‘off-the-wall’ ideas.

Master your mind

  • If you don’t fancy an off the peg solution, you can do this for yourself.  Just get into a relaxed state (first thing in the morning as you wake up is good) and imagine the interview or presentation going really well. Imagine enjoying it and imagine other people afterwards telling you how good you were. This is usually remarkably effective for reducing my nerves. If like me you have done a lot of meditation, it’s relatively easy to get into the zone. Others may find it more difficult. What is the zone? Well if you want to get technical you need theta brain waves, this  should feel like relaxed day dreaming. The idea is that you are programming your unconscious mind to deliver the result you want: a great presentation.
    dealing with presentation nerves
  • Just before the event. You could try the Power Pose. This technique is supposed to have been debunked, but I suspect it depends on the individual. Anyway, you could try it. Go stand in the loo, or somewhere private and adopt the Power Pose (illustrated in this photo by Wonder Woman and Amy Cuddy) for at least a minute. Cuddy gave a Ted Talk on this idea in 2012. The theory is, that while we all accept the mind can influence the body, the opposite is also true. If you stand confidently, you will feel confident.
  • Deep breathing is not recommended. Holding your breath is. Apparently, you don’t want to increase the oxygen in your system if you are stressed, you want to decrease it. There is loads on the internet and written about this. If you want to deep dive read Breath by James Nestor.  If you want to give it a go, try this instructional video.
  • Another physical exercise comes from the work of neuroscientist
    Dr Andrew Huberman. He has two tricks for reducing stress that I use daily. One is look at the horizon. That’s it! just take a few seconds to focus on the horizon. Monitor your body: if it works for you, there will be a palpable physical change.
  • The other is to focus on a fixed point but turn your attention to your peripheral vision. What can you see at the periphery of your vision without moving your gaze. If you alternate between these two mindfulness exercises for just for a couple of minutes, my experience is you can feel your stress melt away. Dr Huberman has a large internet presence to explore but here is a starter video.

Finally, It may also help to understand stress is normal ahead of public speaking. Many people who appear in public regularly continue to suffer from nerves, but they do it anyway. Pay attention to it and you will see it is working to ensure you take the event seriously and do the preparation. Rehearsing aloud is essential.

Images: IStock, Flickr, Unsplash

Leaders Should Show Emotion
Lindsay Williams

Official: Leaders Should Show Emotion (Sparingly)

/0 Comments/by

My 91-year-old mother was not impressed with King Charles III’s first address to the nation last Friday.

‘What was wrong with it?’ I asked

‘Not very kingly.’

‘You mean too emotional?

‘Yes. Sentimental and emotional. That is not his job!’

My mother belongs to a dying generation where a stiff upper lip really meant something. It was the way she was raised. It was what she expected from her Monarch.

But times have changed and now showing you are human, moved and that you care is not just acceptable, it is de rigueur.

The Royal Family we know, learnt this the hard way. Hiding themselves away (with the exception of the then Prince Charles) when Princess Diana died in a car crash in Paris. Their struggle with an absolute requirement to show some emotion – as portrayed in the film The Queen in 2006 – was a turning point. Eventually, they did come out and we could see they were as shocked as the rest of us. The Queen made a television address that, whilst not exactly emotional, showed she was deeply affected. What was widely seen as a crisis for the Monarchy, quickly passed.

Prince Philip appeared never to have accepted the need to show emotion in public. He would likely have agreed with my mother that his son’s television address was much too sentimental. I can’t help speculating that Princess Anne probably thought the same.

King Charles’ broadcast on Friday evening, was calm and controlled but towards the end he was visibly moved. It is what modern Britain expects.

If you are a leader, and something shocking, sad, or threatening happens, you will be called upon to capture the moment and set the way forward. Nowadays, you are best advised to show that you, like others, are affected. But crucially the emotion must appear controlled.

Of course, your short timely speech will have other considerations: You must also remind everyone of what will outlast the death or the crisis, and what the path ahead is. You will want to give the impression that everything is under control.

Getting this balance right is not easy, and although our new King has had 60-plus years to plan for that moment, most leaders find themselves having to pull together a speech in under an hour.

The one I remember from my own career was in a regional BBC newsroom 35 years ago: we came into work expecting to hear good news about the birth of a baby to one of our colleagues. I remember knowing almost instantly that something was wrong, there was a terrible atmosphere. But no one knew what had happened. At 9 am, a relatively new editor (who also had young children) called a building-wide meeting, and we gathered very solemnly. He told us that mother and baby were doing fine but the child had Down’s Syndrome. He said that flowers had been sent in the usual manner. He acknowledged it was a shock but reminded us that the couple were resourceful and given time would adjust and cope fine. He asked us to refrain from talking about it in these first few hours and then made it clear he expected us to get on with the job of getting that day’s bulletins out in the normal way. I remember at the time thinking it was a remarkable mini-speech, portraying firmness and compassion, done without notes, at less than an hour’s notice.

It hit all the marks of showing he himself was affected and cared, but also reminding us it was not a tragedy, giving us guidance on how to behave and telling us to get on with the job.

Here are thoughts from other writers, on the issue of leaders and showing emotion.

Entrepreneur – Why it is Important Critical for Leaders to Show Emotion at Work

Forbes – Great Leaders Never Show Emotion, Until They Need to

 

 

 

Let the women speak feature
Lindsay Williams

Let the Women Speak

/0 Comments/by

We have a new Prime Minister – the third UK female prime minister. Some will love her, others will hate her, but it it’s another step forward for equality of opportunity in the UK.

Let the Women Speak That said, and despite the recent diversity on UK front benches, we are still missing out on hearing the voices of women in public life. So many women of substance, not just here but worldwide, hold back because they are surprisingly under-confident.

I recently trained a 30-something woman, online from Tokyo.

‘Is English your first or second language?’ I asked. I couldn’t tell.

‘It’s my fourth’ she replied. Without giving too much away, this woman is an authority on hydrogen power and also on the challenges of greening the global steel industry. She has a job with a clear purpose, to help ensure the international community tackles the climate crisis.

Why was I training her? Because she was an underconfident speaker! A woman with so much to offer, so many reasons to call herself an expert, nevertheless felt somehow not good enough.

I do not consider myself a card-carrying feminist, but this impressive woman is not alone. I regularly train amazing women who are, nevertheless, self-conscious or underconfident about their ability to communicate publicly.

Over the last 20 years I have run hundreds of media and presentation training sessions with the United Nations and I can remember literally dozens of amazing women, from many countries, that were similarly drop-dead impressive but underconfident about speaking publicly. I remember an extraordinary woman from Djibouti – I can picture her now – who was in a very senior public role and much loved by her colleagues, but who was underconfident about speaking in public. I remember an Indian woman who I predicted could be Prime Minister one day if only she could start to enjoy the limelight. In the Middle East there were an impressive number of capable, educated and informed women, who rarely spoke in meetings.

I could go on. I have found similarly impressive women, from very diverse backgrounds,  in investment banking, legal firms and above all not-for-profit think-tanks; all of whom have so much to say and so much to give, but hold themselves back.

A lot of these women are painfully self-conscious about the way they look. They worry about their hair (up or down? parted left or right?) they touch their faces, they use all sorts of body language that communicates subservience or discomfort. These things can typically be easily tackled with a couple of hours of coaching and a video camera, but it is sad and puzzling that it is necessary.

Of course, there are amazing men similarly afflicted with nerves but with 20 years of corporate training behind me, I can tell you I come across them less often.

I am not alone in noticing this. Dana Rubin, a US speaking coach, is doing a great job on LinkedIn reminding us of impressive women speakers from the past with her Speaking While Female Speech Bank. And I recently came across this article from Mette Johansson, another corporate coach who has a lot of experience in Asia, and who set up an Asian Women’s Speakers Bureau. Both campaign to encourage more women speakers on industry panels.

In the UK there are plenty of impressive women on TikTok telling us how to do our make-up but not nearly enough telling us how to build a fairer more inclusive society, or tackle climate change.

When women reach their potential, everyone benefits. This is now beginning to be understood. By the end of the century, I predict it will be as obvious as the idea that diversity brings better decision making. [If this idea is new to you Melinda Gates’ book The Moment of Lift is an easy-to-read introduction].

Few speakers, women or men, look or sound perfect, certainly not at the start of their career. The UK’s new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, has herself acknowledged presentation is not always her strong point. But she hasn’t let it stop her.

My question is, how can we help more young women feel confident enough to speak out?

Quick-fire questions feature
Eric Dixon

Quick-Fire Questions; Long-Term Consequences

/0 Comments/by

In a series of rapid questions to Liz Truss during the Tory leadership hustings, one was only five words long. And her initial answer was even shorter, even if her supplementary response added some context (1:46:39 in).

Julia Hartley-Brewer: President Macron: friend or foe?

Liz Truss: The jury’s out (applause). But if I become Prime Minister I would judge him on deeds, not words.

 

 

The brevity of the interaction was put into contrast by the acres of newsprint and hours of radio and TV time which followed, in the form of comment and analysis over the Bank Holiday weekend – much of it unfavourable.

From a media training perspective, this Q&A is useful because it illustrates three important points to keep in mind for any future interviews in which you are involved.

  1. You can go off-menu

When an interviewer offers a series of potential responses (in this case, “friend or foe?”), never feel that you are restricted to the options given. Often, the choices you are being offered are unhelpful because they either over-simplify the situation or limit your reply to a binary choice, when a better answer would be more nuanced. Remember – you can always come up with a reply of your own, add extra details, or suggest that the truth is a combination of some or all of the options outlined.

  1. Maintain perspective

Having said that, the answer Truss gave was risky. She may not yet be Prime Minister, but she is Foreign Secretary. So, her response is going to make an impact on the global stage. At a time of conflict in Ukraine, with international involvement, it could be considered tactless and inflammatory to suggest that a close and long-standing ally is anything other than a friend – particularly when the obvious foe is the one attacking a sovereign country. Worse, this is a ‘sizzled’ expression, using a powerful metaphor (there is no actual ‘jury’ debating this issue, of course), which makes her response even more quotable. A better media-trained reply would have been something like:

Julia Hartley-Brewer: President Macron: friend or foe?

Liz Truss: A friend, of course. But like many friendships, they are sometimes difficult and need hard graft to make sure that both parties are working together successfully.

By way of illustration, contrast her comments with Macron’s measured – some would say ‘statesmanlike’ – response, saying that if he were asked the question, he wouldn’t hesitate “for a second”:

The United Kingdom is a friend of France… the United Kingdom is a friendly, strong and allied nation, regardless of its leaders – and sometimes in spite of its leaders – or the little mistakes they may make in grandstanding.

So, if Truss does, as expected, become PM, that first meeting between the two leaders is going to have been made unnecessarily awkward as a result.

Quick-fire questions

  1. Your most important audience may not be in the room

Tempting though it is to ‘play to the gallery’, a televised debate is always about more than the people in the room with you. They may like what you say, and it’s easy to get spurred-on by their apparent support. However, they may or may not reflect the feelings of your wider intended audience – in this case the Conservative Party as a whole (who will be deciding your fate) or the nation (who you hope to serve).

Coping with questions such as these form part of our media training sessions – find out more here.

As we have seen, a small number of words can have a huge impact. And whilst quick-fire questions may appear simple, the consequences of what you say may stay with you for a long time.

What PR People Will Do For You feature
Lindsay Williams

What PR People Will Do For You and Why You Should Listen

/0 Comments/by

As a senior leader, your PR team may feel like another species. You may be slightly suspicious that they do not truly back your enthusiasm for something. You may wonder why they are paid so much.

What PR People Will Do For You

The wider world remains sceptical that PR people do anything useful; they tend to be treated as passengers, and in many but not all cases, disrespected by the journalists they work with. Internally, there is a strong tendency to side-line or ignore PR advice, although this is certainly not always true.

In my view, PR people are much maligned. They are essential to protecting and enhancing the reputation of both individuals and brands.

There are many different tasks that fall under the ‘PR’ banner – some more important in one organisation versus another.

Here are five essential things your PR team will do for you:

First and foremost PR people are the antidote to group think. Internally, for most people, it is extremely difficult to understand how something will play in public. Whether that is a decision to change the formula of a product, make some grand ESG commitments or agree to a profile interview with a mainstream newspaper.

What may sound like a reasonable, logical argument to a business leader, can be ‘taken out of context’ and used to prove the individual is out of touch or a villain, by a clever journalist. Your PR advisor is the person who will always warn you.

Recent examples of people who either did not consult or ignored PR advice:

Stuart Kirk at HSBC – ‘Who cares if Miami is under water in 100 years’ time’

BoE Governor Andrew Bailey – who agreed (rather than said) that people should modify their pay demands to
help fight inflation.

Secondly, good PR people know their journalists. They have extensive knowledge of and often personal or professional relationships with the journalists that you as the interviewee, are likely to meet once in your lifetime. This has a whole host of benefits from being able to predict how a journalist will react based on what they have written before, but also more influence if there is a misspeak that your organisation would prefer did not make it into print. No one can guarantee a damaging quote can be neutralised, but there is a better chance if there is already a relationship in place.

Thirdly, if you want good news to get out there, you will need someone who can work out what will interest either a journalist or journalists in general. A shiny new policy may be an important step-change for you and your organisation, but it’s unlikely a journalist will recognise or care without a clear explanation and some proof points.

What PR People Will Do For You

Fourthly, there is the strategy. Do you speak to one journalist or many and if many in what order? Do you release information under embargo, or drip it into the market? Do you provide an exclusive interview or spend all morning dealing with one journalist after another? Do you do print and web interviews but not broadcast, or trade interviews but not bother to try with mainstream media? Do you have a different set of messages for trade press compared to Bloomberg TV? This is what you pay your PR person to advise on.

Fifth, and perhaps least important, the PR people write the words. They check the facts, find the real numbers and get them signed off. Often, they will write the quotes. In short, they will do all the work that takes a general idea and transitions it into a signed-off press release or executive summary on Twitter.

Good PR people have to be able to ‘speak truth unto power’: good leaders have to recognise that PR is a professional skill that is always worth paying attention to.

I am sure I have missed some other really important things PR people do 
 let me know below or on LinkedIn.

Images from: 123rf.com

Truss v. Sunak Takeaway Lessons
Lindsay Williams

Truss v. Sunak: Takeaway Lessons

/0 Comments/by

Plenty of others are commenting on the political implications and the relative merits of the two candidates for party leader and prime minister in last night’s debate.

As you’d expect, I was watching with a more specialist lens. Before going further, I would say these debates are incredibly difficult for the candidates and a small misspeak could cost them the contest, so the stakes are very high. And actually, I thought both of them did pretty well.

Of the two, I think Sunak came across more polished and mostly more likeable but like others, his excessive interrupting and talking over his rival in the first 15-20 minutes played very badly with me.

By the end, I felt Truss who stayed calm and performed consistently throughout, never-the-less, knew that Sunak had outdone her and very interestingly said ‘I may not be the best presenter but I get things done’. I thought that was a smart thing to say and it stuck with me. Apparently, she has said this several times before so it is not a new line.

In terms of lessons for other presenters in less pressurised environments:

Don’t be rude! Whilst the odd, interruption or forceful disagreement on a particular point (to ensure it doesn’t go unchallenged) will be forgiven, constantly trying to hog the airtime is definitely bad manners and does not show anyone in a good light. Commentators have described it as bullying which is not a good look for a leader.

[There was also a lot of sexist reaction to this on Twitter and later on BBC Five Live with some saying Sunak ‘shouldn’t interrupt a woman’. One Truss supporter described his behaviour  as ‘mansplaining’  – which I gather means being patronising, or man-splaying which is what I heard and I thought was a metaphor for taking too much of the metaphorical space or time. Either way, this is sexist tosh. Is anyone seriously suggesting that a male candidate should treat a female rival with more deference than he would a male contender!]

We often talk about the need for warmth in a presenter. I feel Truss lacks warmth and charm. She is very focussed and last night was very frowny, perhaps genuinely confused by Sunak’s uncharacteristic aggression. I had never thought of it before, but I will now add ‘don’t frown’ to my list of things to say to presenters when reacting to an opposing point of view. You want to indicate that you disagree without, I think, showing internal distress.

I favour a shake of the head and a sad smile of recognition; more of ‘I’ve heard this before and you are still wrong’ than ‘what the hell are you talking about’.

‘Use metaphors and be quotable’ is always on my list of how to be a good public speaker. Sunak had the best soundbites of the night, without a doubt.

He described tax cuts as a ‘short-term sugar rush 
’ and said ‘£40 billion of unfunded tax cuts, that’s ÂŁ40 billion of borrowing’ (what we call a contrasting pair or see-saw phrase for students of The Media Coach) and then likened it to ‘the country’s credit card’. This use of metaphor is much more memorable than just stating the case as Truss did “Under my plans, we would start paying back the debt in three years’ time, so I’m not putting it on the never-never.”

Connecting with your audience is also on everyone’s list of how to be a good presenter. But in this sort of debate which audience is the one to speak to?

Personally, I thought both, but particularly Truss, spent too much time talking about Stoke-on-Trent. Whilst they were the audience in the room and a couple of mentions would be a good idea, no one was under any illusion that this was not the audience that counted. The audience that mattered were Conservative party members in the country. Mis-analysing the audience is a mistake on many levels but crucially in this case it did not sound authentic from either of them.

Providing some personal details is also important if you are seeking to persuade or lead. People need to know where you are coming from. Both shoe-horned in enough of their personal story to satisfy this.  Sunak mentioned more than once helping his mother with the accounts of her pharmacy in Southampton and Truss talked again about her schooling in Leeds.  They both sounded genuine and did this better than many other politicians have done.  Authenticity counts for a lot and is one of the subconscious scorecards that is so difficult to read as a performer.

And talking of subconscious judgements, what I saw was Sunak just a lot more comfortable than Truss. He mostly looked as if he was really enjoying himself, whereas she looked grim. As an audience, it is much more pleasurable if the presenter is having fun. It’s difficult to teach this and is something that really only comes from the experience of public speaking.

Trust is a really big issue in this contest and, of the two, Truss answered questions in a much more straightforward way than Sunak. On several occasions, it was obvious Sunak was sidestepping, whereas Truss was more direct. I have seen Truss dodge many questions in other interviews but last night she made a real effort to be direct, perhaps betting that any obvious obfuscation would have played badly. In our Media Training, we constantly stress you must address the questions of a journalist even if you don’t want to give a full and detailed answer. If you don’t you lose trust.

If you face a challenging public speaking event, consider personal coaching to help you address all considerations and all options for coming across as you would wish. Clients repeatedly tell us, that just a few hours of coaching can make a huge difference.

 

 

 

Eric Dixon

Mind the gap – getting rid of “Ums” and “Ers”

/0 Comments/by

As a voice coach, one of the most frequently asked questions I receive from delegates is how to get rid of their “Ums” and “Ers” when speaking.

They worry that audiences will find them annoying or distracting and that the use of such ‘fillers’ heightens the impression that the speaker is uncertain or nervous – which may be true, but they would prefer not to let it show!

The first thing to say is that in everyday conversation all of us “Um” and “Er” from time to time. They are a standard way of filling in a gap while we think on our feet and these sounds often slip past unnoticed.

However, in a presentation or media interview, using too many of them can get in the way and make a speaker less credible than they would otherwise be.

getting rid of “Ums” and “Ers”

Image licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license

So how can you get rid of them?

Here’s my three-point plan to reducing your dependence on them in the future.

  1. Slow down. If you “Um” or “Er” because you are thinking of what to say next, slowing down can give you that extra time to think while you are speaking, rather than having to pause in order to do so. Obviously, the change in pace should not be too marked, but it’s remarkable how valuable that extra second or two in each sentence can be, to help you formulate how you are going to phrase your next line.
  2. Use short sentences. Most “Ums” and “Ers” occur because the speaker is trying to deal with too much information at once. Making your sentences shorter – perhaps using only a dozen or so words at a time – helps you present what you want to say in bite-size chunks. Usefully, this is also easier for an audience to absorb as well!
  3. Switch off the voice box. Let’s face it: “Ums” and “Ers” are meaningless noises. So actively switching off the voice box (and often just breathing instead) will get rid of them without adversely affecting the content of what you’re saying. Whilst this will take practice, it’s actually easier to do than you might think. Here’s how:
  • Take the word ‘bid’, for example. When we say this word, every single sound is voiced – from the ‘b’, through the ‘i’ (all vowels are voiced anyway), to the ‘d’. If you put your fingers on your voice box, you can feel the vibration it is making throughout its entire length.
  • Contrast this with the word ‘pit’. To say it, you have to switch off the voice box for the first sound, the ‘p’, then switch it back on for the vowel, then off again for the ‘t’. Everything else you do with your breathing, tongue position, lips, mouth cavity is exactly the same as when you voiced the word ‘bid’. Putting your fingers on your voice box this time will demonstrate that the vibration only kicks-in for the vowel sound.
  • My point is that if you are able to switch the voice box off and on within a word, you can certainly do it between words – which is where the “Ums” and “Ers” creep in. Try breathing in the gap instead. Crucially, such pauses between words need be no longer than if they were filled with an “Um” or an “Er”, but you will sound much less hesitant. In fact, this new way of pausing (sometimes accompanied by a breath) can now suggest you are carefully searching for the precise word to use and can actually add to your authority!

I’m surprised that some voice coaches suggest getting rid of “Ums” and “Ers” involves just closing your mouth as you finish each sentence. But as “Ums” and “Ers” often occur in the middle of sentences, it’s not as simple as that. Also, you can still make the sound “Um” with your mouth closed (try it!)  – indeed, the ‘m’ part of the sound actually requires the mouth to be closed, so this doesn’t seem to be much help either. It’s about the voice box, not the lips.

In short, don’t worry too much about “Ums” and “Ers” if they are occasional. But if they are cropping up too often in your presentations or interviews, you need to take action.

To misquote Alexander Pope: to “Er” may be human – but getting rid of “Ers” is divine!

Johnson's resignation
Lindsay Williams

The Short Goodbye

/1 Comment/by

Whatever you think of the political reality, and the extraordinary events that led to more than 50 ministers resigning from his government, Boris Johnson’s resignation statement was well written and – given the circumstances – extremely well delivered.

It was also short and to the point.

For those of us who present or speak in public one of the first things to learn is: less is more. At the end of hours of political chaos – and for the Johnson camp, one body blow after another– it culminated in six minutes of well-chosen words which:

  • Confirmed he was going (eventually), and updated the world on the agreed procedure to find a successor
  • Reminded everyone that under his leadership the Conservative party won the 2019 general election with a very large majority
  • In 72 words summed up the achievements he is proud of: Brexit, vaccine roll-out, exit from lockdown, ‘leading the west’ standing up to Russia
  • Reminding everyone of the levelling up agenda
  • A swipe at colleagues for their ‘herd mentality’
  • Thanking his family, the party, the civil service and emergency services and special mention for the special protection force (with the pointed observation, they are the one unit that never ever leak)
  • And finally ending on an upbeat note about how great the British people are

That is a long list for a short speech. The full transcript is here.

Others have already commented on the lack of apology and the disconnect from reality: the statement had no mention of the partygate scandal, the constant allegations of lying, and so on. It is clear to me that there was a very good reason for that
from Johnson’s point of view there was nothing to be gained from giving the media or history another round of negativity. Had Johnson apologised again or mentioned the handling of the Chris Pincher affair, that would have been the headline. He knew what he was doing.

In writing that short speech Johnson had one goal. No further negative headlines, remind everyone of the positives. Having a clear goal makes the writing much simpler.

Relentless focus are at the core of running anything well, and yet this most fundamental of disciplines is rarely applied to the words we use.

In both presentation and media training, our trainers will ask what people want to achieve in their interviews or in their talks. It is surprising how many of those we coach do not have a clear answer to that question.  Many warn us that they have a tendency to ‘waffle on’, ‘say too much’ or say the same thing ‘several times in several different ways’. But they don’t connect that to the lack of a clearly defined objective.

The skills of journalists put them ahead of the norm on this point. Print journalists count the words they type, and constantly cut words and paragraphs to tighten the writing. They also deliver to very tight deadlines. Broadcasting teaches you to think in seconds. Broadcasters all know the average talking speed when reading a script, is three words per second. If in doubt we time it. Seconds matter in broadcasting.

Economy of words is an undervalued discipline.

 

Image: YouTube

dont like the sound of your own voice feature
Lindsay Williams

Don’t Like the Sound of Your Own Voice: You Are Not Alone.

/0 Comments/by

Why is it that we cringe when we hear a recording of ourselves?

It’s because you normally hear yourself speak from inside your own head. You are used to hearing your voice before it fully escapes your skull. It is only when it is a recording that you hear it as others do.

The good news is that everyone else already knows what you sound like, it’s only you that is taken aback!

Regional accents also take their owners by surprise. ‘I sound so Essex/ Birmingham/ Yorkshire’ is another common reaction we get on playback of role-play presentations or interviews.

I personally love regional accents, provided they are not so strong I can’t understand what is being said. I think the variety and distinctiveness is entirely positive for anyone giving a presentation or a media interview.

There used to be a prejudice against strong regional accents or foreign accents on the BBC, but this was already falling away when I worked there 30 years ago. Now they are positively encouraged.

Neil Nunes was not universally popular when he first appeared as a continuity announcer on Radio 4, but I have always loved hearing his voice. He is now a regular news reader, instantly recognisable with a deep voice and a Jamaican accent.

Don’t Like the Sound of Your Own Voice

Neil Nunes’ unusual voice initially caused controversy when he started on BBC Radio 4, but now he is a regular presenter of the evening news.

In 1994 while at the BBC, I argued and won for the then unknown Adrian Chiles, with his Birmingham accent, to present our new business show Wake up to Money on Radio 5 Live.  I felt his voice was usefully different and gave him authenticity, while giving the show a distinctive personality. (He was also a very hard-working and brilliant presenter.) Adrian was a huge success and almost immediately snapped up by our rivals at Television Centre. Business news is easily thought of as stuffy, and a regional accent freshened it up. It’s a formula followed many times since, notably with Steph McGovern. In this video, Steph herself explains how being northern with a good strong accent has been her unique selling point.

Those speaking a second language also worry about their accent. Again, I think it works in the favour of the speaker, provided the argument is clear.

Most of us are familiar with research that says some regional accents are trusted more than others. This is an issue debated in the world of marketing. The paragraph below comes from the website of an outsourcing consultancy About Match.

In recent years the number of businesses adopting regional accents for their adverts and contact centre services has witnessed a sharp increase. A PH Media Group uncovered a recent 27% rise in UK companies using accents in on-hold (telephone) marketing. Of the total, 37% said they deliberately adopted a particular accent to reinforce their brand’s identity. The survey explored associations people have with certain accents, uncovering that Scottish is perceived as trustworthy and reassuring, while Manchester is seen as industrious and creative.

Yorkshire is an accent perceived as wise and honest – a good reason for Broadband supplier Plusnet to feature a Yorkshireman in their TV campaign. Also, the accent is a nod to the brand’s Yorkshire routes, helping to reinforce its identity.

Another ‘hang up’ about the way your voice sounds may be related to class. Whilst we are not such a class-ridden society as we were, there is still plenty of unconscious and conscious biases related to class as seen in this Reuters report on branding and accents. But the world is changing fast and all of us working today are being told to step aside from those snap judgements. Accept people for what they are and the talents they bring.

I have a strong hunch that often it is an individual’s perception of class bias, rather than the real bias of any audience that causes the most damage.  Don’t let your accent be an excuse to hide your talent.

You can, of course, change the way you sound but it takes time and work. In my book, it is much easier to own the way you speak and use it.

My advice to all presenters or media interviewees is to embrace who you are. Provided any audience clearly understands you, your voice is an asset, as individual as your face. Being distinctive is valuable. Provided you get everything else right – interesting, useful presentation, entertaining, informative interview – the way you talk will just be enjoyed and, if you are lucky, remembered.

The Media Coach team always feels it is a privilege to work with underconfident individuals who have a message to get out there. Sign up for our bespoke Presentation Training or Personal Impact Training and challenge us to transform you from shrinking violet to sunflower.