Pink delivers a masterful speech which demonstrates many strong speech techniques, including:

• A powerful opening, which establishes a framework utilized throughout;
• Building of ethos and logos;
• Well-timed use of humor;
• Employing contrast and the rule of three;
• Powerful conclusion; and
• Superb delivery.

The strength of this speech isn’t surprising at all, given Pink’s former role as chief speechwriter for Al Gore.

This is the latest in a series of speech critiques here on Six Minutes.

I encourage you to:

1. Watch the video;
2. Read the analysis in this speech critique; and
3. Share your thoughts on this presentation in the comment section.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Opening – Superb and Yet Flawed

The opening of the speech is very strong. The first words of the speech — “I need to make a confession…” — create mystery and draw the audience in immediately. The humor woven into this opening invoked strong laughter from the audience, but may not have been the best choice. (see below)

The other noteworthy element of the opening is the way that Pink frames his speech as not a story, but a case [1:34 -- these are references to speech times which you can use to view specific parts of the speech]:

“I don’t want to tell you a story. I want to make a case. I want to make a hard-headed, evidence-based, dare I say lawyerly case for rethinking how we run our businesses.”

This is speechwriting genius. In just a few sentences, Pink establishes the framework around his topic. Given that his audience is likely to be skeptical (because his primary message goes against conventional business wisdom), he assures them that what he’s about to say is not a fictional story, but a solid case — a clear, truthful, logical argument.

He specifically refers to the audience as “Ladies and gentlement of the jury…” [1:51] to cement this framework. Later in the speech, he twice references this framework.

• “Let me marshall the evidence, because I’m not telling a story. I’m making a case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury…” [9:05]
• “I rest my case.” [18:28 - the final words of the speech]

But, there’s a small flaw…

In most circumstances, self-deprecating humor is a wonderful speechwriting tool. You get the audience laughing, and you risk offending nobody, because the humor is about you.

However, the self-deprecating humor in this speech pokes fun at the very thing on which Pink has hinged his argument — on his ability to demonstrate a solid, legal case. He playfully (and perhaps modestly?) points out his poor law school performance, and the fact that he’s never worked as a lawyer. This has the effect of undermining his credibility. The skeptical audience member might argue that is he isn’t a smart lawyer, maybe he can’t put together a strong case, and if he can’t put together a strong case, then perhaps the case being presented in this speech is weak.

The lesson? When using self-deprecating humor, don’t poke fun at your expertise in a way which weakens your credibility.

Build Logos and Ethos

Aside from the self-deprecating humor, this speech is very strong in both logos (logical argument) and ethos (credibility of the speaker).

A few ways in which Pink builds strong logos include:

• “This is not a feeling… [joke] … This is not a philosophy… [joke] This is a fact… [joke]” [8:33]
  This passage was one of the most emphatic in the entire speech, and it strikes at the heart of the audience opposition.
• “Some of you may look at this and say ‘Hm. Sounds nice, but it’s utopian.’ But I say ‘nope’. I have proof.” [16:02]
  Again, Pink directly addresses the opposing point of view, and then proceeds to offer tangible, real evidence to support his claim.
• The speech is littered with references to both academic research as well as case studies taken from contemporary businesses. He specifies institutions, names, and quotations. In doing so, Pink makes it clear that his central argument is not just a theory; it is grounded in reality.

A few ways in which Pink successfully raises his ethos include:

• Through the speech, Pink cites academic research at globally recognized institutions, including Princeton [3:08], MIT [9:10], Carnegie Mellon, the University of Chicago, the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, and the London School of Economics (“alma mater of 11 Nobel Laureates in Economics”) [10:48]. As the named institutions all have high ethos, referencing them in this way adds credibility by association to Pink.
• “I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human motivation.” [5:07] This particular line was delivered in an understated way, but I think it boosts his credibility considerably.

Make it personal (and flattering)

About half-way through the speech, Pink makes the first explicit connection between his topic and the audience in the room. He says:

• “Think about your own work… everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the candle problem” [7:49]

This flatters his audience, because it implies that they are all engaged in truly difficult and challenging work. (i.e. they don’t have careers doing mechanical tasks) More importantly, it makes his speech message more personal. From that moment on, every time Pink references “the candle problem”, each member of the audience hears “my problem”. Having your audience personalize your message is one powerful way to persuade them.

Use Humor

This was not a “fluff” speech by any definition. On the contrary, it is packed with thought-provoking ideas. Yet, Pink wisely injects humor throughout the presentation:

• “I need to make a confession. I did something I regret… in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school.” [0:38]
• “I graduated in the part of my law school class that made the top 90% possible.” [1:00]
• “I never practiced law a day in my life. I pretty much wasn’t allowed to.” [1:14]
• “Now this makes no sense, right. I’m an American. I believe in free markets. That’s not how it’s supposed to work…” (into the reality show joke which didn’t get much laughter) [4:00]
• Fade-in effect on slide (also with color) to add “For Dummies” to “The Candle Problem” [6:30]
• “This is not a feeling. I’m a lawyer, I don’t believe in feelings.  This is not a philosophy. I’m an American, I don’t believe in philosophy. This is a fact. Or as we say in my home town of Washington, D.C. — a true fact.” [8:33]
• “Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy going on here?” [10:38]
• “London School of Economics. Training ground for great economic thinkers, like George Soros, Friedrich Hayek, and Mick Jagger.” [11:10]
• Atlassian joke [13:45]
• “Fedex days” joke [14:30]

The speech is about 18 minutes long, and includes 10 (mostly successful) attempts at humor.  The timing of the humor is also noteworthy: 0:38, 1:00, 1:14, 4:00, 6:30, 8:33, 10:38, 11:10, 13:45, 14:30. Pink mixes humor every two minutes or so, with a little more in the first 90 seconds (to build a connection with the audience), and then none for the last three and a half minutes (to focus on a powerful closing argument). This humor strategy is worthy of emulation in your speeches!

Employ the Rule of Three

This speech is packed with rhetorical devices, the most frequent of which is the use of triads. Pink employs the rule of three in a variety of ways, including both humor and his most serious statements. A few examples include:

• “(1) This is not a feeling… [joke] … (2) This is not a philosophy… [joke] (3) This is a fact… [joke]” [8:33]
• “Too many organizations are making their decisions… based on assumptions that are (1) outdated, (2) unexamined, and (3) rooted more in folklore than in science.” [11:45]
• (1) Autonomy, (2) Mastery, and (3) Purpose [12:40]
• “(1) How they do it, (2) when they do it, (3) where they do it…” [15:40]
• “… noone gets paid (1) a cent, (2) or a euro, (3) or a yen…” [16:33]
• “If we repair this mismatch between what science knows and what business does…
  If we bring our notions of motivation into the 21st century…
  If we get past this lazy, dangerous ideology of carrots and sticks…
  we can strengthen our businesses,
  we can solve a lot of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe, maybe,
  we can change the world. ” [18:02 -- concluding argument]

Use Contrast

The most memorable catch phrase in this speech was introduced with a slide, and spoken three times, at 5:18, 11:35, 17:28, and 18:02. This phrase is cleverly crafted, and is far better than an awkward alternative such as: “Present-day business practices are ignoring the knowledge by scientific research.”

Other uses of contrasting terms include:

• “This is one of the most robust findings in social science [pause]… and also one of the most ignored.” [5:00]
• “That’s actually fine for many types of 20th century tasks. But for 21st century tasks…” [5:40]
• “Routine, rule-based, left-brained kind of work” [7:25] versus “Right-brained, creative, conceptual.. ” [7:45]
• “… productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down” [15:53]
• “This is the titanic battle between these two approaches. This is the Ali-Frasier of motivation.” “intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators… autonomy, mastery, and purpose versus carrots and sticks” [17:05] — Pink amplifies the contrast between these approaches by invoking a comparison to the historic boxing match.

Make Your Conclusion a Concise Call to Action

Pink signals his conclusion with the words ”Let me wrap up” [17:23] followed a lengthy pause of four seconds. This pause is very effective in helping the audience get ready for the words which follow.

Pink then restates his signature phrase (“There’s a mismatch between what science knows and what business does…”) and adds “… and here’s what science knows.” He then follows this with three concise findings. Summarizing your arguments like this helps to aid understanding and memorability.

He concludes with an energetic call-to-action (using back-to-back triads) and a reference to his legal case framework (“I rest my case.”) I love the way that this bookends the speech.

Add Energy with Your Gestures and Vocal Variety

The majority of this review has been devoted to speechwriting techniques, but a full review of Pink’s delivery techniques could easily fill another article.

Although he could reduce the finger-wagging, his use of gestures and body language throughout the speech are superb. He matches his movements and gestures to the large venue. His energy and enthusiasm come through strong when viewing this speech.

As just one example, consider the three frames below, where Pink is indicating the low, medium, and high rewards. If this were a typical, boring PowerPoint presentation, a bar chart could have been used. On the contrary, Pink demonstrates that the most important visual is the speaker!

Similarly, the vocal variety demonstrated by Pink is worthy of emulation. His use of emphasis, pauses, and varied pace and volume are all well done. Not only does this help to convey his enthusiasm and convictions, but it aids understanding and adds drama throughout.

More About the Science of Motivation

After watching this speech, I’m eager to learn more about the science of motivation. I’m going to be checking out two books written by Dan Pink:

• Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
• A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future

Both are highly rated on amazon. I’m curious to hear if you have read these books and, if so, what are your impressions?

Your Thoughts?

What did you think of this speech? What are the best aspects of this speech? How could this speech have been made even better?

Please share your thought in the comments.

Similar Articles You May Like... Video Critique: J.A. Gamache (Toastmasters, 2007) Speech Critique: Jacqueline Novogratz (TED 2009) 5 Presentation Lessons from Randy Pausch in The Last Lecture How to Speak: 7 Speaking Tips from Patrick Henry Winston Speech Critique: Steve Jobs (Stanford, 2005) Video Critique: Al Gore (TED, 2006)

Have a Question? Contact me anytime, or find me on Twitter: @6minutes

Andrew Dlugan is the editor and founder of Six Minutes. He teaches courses, leads seminars, coaches speakers, and strives to avoid Suicide by PowerPoint. He is an award-winning public speaker and speech evaluator. Andrew is a father and husband who resides in British Columbia, Canada.

It is a touching performance. Even though I have seen it numerous times – I use it as part of one of the courses that I teach on public speaking – I never tire of it. Although there is room for improvement, the positive aspects of Gilbert’s talk make it moving and memorable.

This is the latest in a series of speech critiques here on Six Minutes.

I encourage you to:

1. Watch the video;
2. Read the analysis in this speech critique; and
3. Share your thoughts on this presentation in the comment section.

Click here to view the embedded video.

There is a lot that can we learn about public speaking from Gilbert’s talk. For the purposes of this post, I have chosen three things that I liked and three areas where I see room for improvement.

First the positives:

She speaks with sincere passion.

Garr Reynolds, the author of Presentation Zen, has said that if he only had one tip to give to speakers, it would be to be passionate about the topic and let that enthusiasm come out.

“The biggest item that separates mediocre presenters from world class ones is the ability to connect with an audience in an honest and exciting way. Don’t hold back. Be confident. And let your passion for your topic come out for all to see.”

Gilbert is certainly passionate. It is easy to see that she truly cares about the subject matter and that she wants the audience to understand what she is saying and why. Her passion builds to a crescendo as her talk progresses. Note, for example, her description of the moonlight dances in North Africa (15:53) and her encouragement to the audience to “do your job” (18:27).

For me, the passion with which Gilbert speaks is the biggest strength of her talk. It more than compensates for any shortcomings. When you show your emotions like Gilbert did, it’s true that you are taking a risk. You are going out on a limb. But that’s where the best fruit is.

She tells stories.

Stories help us connect with our audiences in a way that all the charts, graphs, statistics and bullet points in the world will never be able to do. They help to make our messages resonate in people’s minds long after the telling.

Gilbert uses the power of stories to great effect. Going through the transcript of her talk, I found five personal stories from her life and five stories about other people. The stories reinforce her points in a powerful way.

Psychologists who have studied the power of storytelling have concluded that people are hardwired for stories. It is perhaps the oldest method of communication. So be sure to incorporate stories in your presentations. You have stories too, and telling them will bring your presentation to life in a way that bullet points never can.

She engages the audience.

As Gilbert’s speech progresses, it seems less like a speech and more like a conversation that she is having with a close friend over a cup of coffee. She engages the audience throughout and that makes her very easy to listen to.

Gilbert does not put on airs. Her voice is natural. She smiles. She makes good eye contact with the audience. She laces her talk with humor at appropriate points. All of these things help to “shrink the distance” between Gilbert and her audience. They make her likable and being liked is very important for a speaker. (Just ask anyone who has ever spoken to a hostile audience.)

Now the areas for improvement:

She needs to slow down and pause more often.

Gilbert makes many important points and backs them up with wonderful stories and anecdotes. However, she often runs her ideas together quickly. Furthermore, often when she comes to a point where it would be good to pause, she fills the space with words like “you know”, “right?” and “OK”. These “filler words” eat away at the fabric of our speeches and make them weaker.

Pausing serves us well in many ways:

1. It allows our audiences to absorb and digest what we have said.
2. It can be used to signal that something important is about to come, and thus focus our audience’s attention.
3. It helps rid us of the bad habit of feeling compelled to fill the silence with awkward filler words.
4. It makes us look thoughtful, confident, and credible.

Pauses need only last a second or two, but the effect can be profound. It’s been said that music is what happens between the notes. I believe that a great speech happens between the words, during those moments when the audience internalizes our words. Always remember to pause.

Her hand gestures were frequently distracting.

It’s obvious that, especially at the beginning of her talk, Gilbert was nervous. (Who wouldn’t be at least a bit nervous speaking at TED?) But the nervous energy was frequently released through the wringing and grinding of her hands (see, for example, at 0:30 and 1:05 to 1:25). This is a shame because at other times she used her hands quite effectively to emphasize her points (see, for example, 6:26 to 7:26, 10:20 to 11:03 and 15:59 to 16:40).

Effective gestures can enhance the impact of your message, but they have to be used properly and in moderation. Think of adding gestures to your presentation the way in which a world class chef would add spices to a fine meal: judiciously, to enhance the flavor of the food, but not to overpower it.

Practice getting comfortable with leaving your hands at your side from time to time when you do not need them. That way, when you do gesture, the gestures will be more effective.

She could have related the message to the audience more than she did.

I love the message that Gilbert conveys – that we should do our work as best we can, even if the recognition and acclaim do not come, because it is the doing that is important. I feel, however, that she could have done a bit more to relate it to the audience. Indeed, in the entire speech, which lasted almost 20 minutes, I counted relatively few times when she expressly mentioned the audience:

• 2:20: “Is it logical that anybody should be expected to be afraid of the work that they feel they were put on this earth to do?”
• 12:12: “And I would imagine that a lot of you have too.”
• 14:35: “I fell into one of those pits of despair that we all fall into when we’re working on something that’s not coming.”
• 15:50: “And I know you know what I’m talking about.”
• 18:31: “Just do your job.”

Don’t get me wrong. I do not question for one moment the sincerity behind Gilbert’s message. I am simply saying that it would have been nice to hear her talk more about the audience and the challenges that the people there might be facing. Also, it would have been nice for her to state that her message about creativity applies to people beyond the fine arts, because I do believe that her words have meaning for us all.

Never forget that a speech is, first and foremost, for the audience and about the audience. Why should the audience care? That is the question that we as speakers must always ask ourselves.

So there you have it. Some thoughts on a great speech by Elizabeth Gilbert.

Your Thoughts?

What did you think of this speech? What are Elizabeth’s strengths? How could this speech have been made better?

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Similar Articles You May Like... Video Critique: Majora Carter – Greening the Ghetto (TED 2006) Speech Critique: Dan Pink (TED 2009) Speech Critique: Jacqueline Novogratz (TED 2009) Six Simple Techniques for Presenting Data: Hans Rosling (TED, 2006) Video Critique: J.A. Gamache (Toastmasters, 2007) Speech Critique: Steve Jobs (Stanford, 2005)

Have a Question? Contact me anytime, or find me on Twitter: @6minutes

John Zimmer is a Canadian now living in Geneva, Switzerland. A lawyer by training, he has spoken extensively before courts, tribunals, business conferences, bodies of the United Nations, and more. He lectures on public speaking and presentation skills at the University of Lausanne and elsewhere. John is a four-time European champion of Toastmasters International public speaking contests. His writes regularly about public speaking and presentation matters on his blog.

In this speech, Novogratz demonstrates several strong speech techniques, including:

• A direct opening which immediately captures interest and provokes curiosity;
• Contrast as a rhetorical device;
• Relating to the audience;
• Complementary visuals; and
• Masterful delivery.

This is the latest in a series of speech critiques here on Six Minutes.

I encourage you to:

1. Watch the video;
2. Read the analysis in this speech critique; and
3. Share your thoughts on this presentation in the comment section.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Speech Opening

Novogratz opens her speech with the following:

I’ve, um, been working on issues of poverty for more than 20 years, and so it’s ironic that the problem that and the question that I most grapple with is how you actually define poverty. What does it mean?

Overall, this is a strong opening which quickly establishes the direction for the speech.

• It establishes her as an authority on poverty (her ethos!)
• It creates surprise. How can this expert not know how to define poverty?
• By asking the question “What does it mean?”, Novogratz also sparks curiosity. The audience is now engaged, and they are trying to answer the question along with her.
• There is no wasted time. She jumps straight in.

Unfortunately, she also does what I often do — utter an “um” or a similar filler word in the opening sentence. I suspect this indicates a bit of nervousness (because that’s what I think causes my similar behavior).

Contrasts

I love the way Novogratz uses contrast.

In this first example [1:15]:

And when we were walking through the narrow alleys, it was literally impossible not to step in the raw sewage and the garbage alongside the little homes. But at the same time it was also impossible not to see the human vitality, the aspiration and the ambition of the people who live there.

Novogratz repeats the words “impossible not to” to emphasize the contrast between “the raw sewage and the garbage” and “the human vitality, the aspiration, and the ambition“. This is wonderfully done, enhanced with photographs to make the words real. Additionally, note the use of the rule of three in the latter sentence.

Later in the speech [6:00]:

I thought I wanted a husband, but what I really wanted was a family that was loving. And I fiercely love my children, and they love me back.” She said, “I thought that I wanted to be a doctor, but what I really wanted to be was somebody who served and healed and cured.

Here, she provides successive sentences with a contrast between the original dream, and the reality which provides happiness to Jane.

This passage is particularly powerful because it circles back to follow up on Jane’s two dreams which were introduced earlier in the speech [at 2:20]. This technique — to introduce a concept early in a speech, and then refer back to it much later — is a powerful one that you can emulate in your speeches.

Giving Meaning to Numbers

Early in the speech [approximately at 0:50], Novogratz describes the Mathare Valley. As part of this description, she wisely decides to provide context by giving the dimensions of the slum. She says:

Now, Mathare Valley is … about three miles out of Nairobi, and it’s a mile long and about two-tenths of a mile wide, where over half a million people live crammed in these little tin shacks …

This is good, but it could have been better. How long is “a mile wide and about two-tenths of a mile wide”? Do you have a real-world sense of this?

I think it would be better to frame this in a way that more people relate to when grappling with the size of this neighborhood. When I think neighborhoods, I immediately think city blocks. So, perhaps this would be better:

“… and it’s eight blocks long and two blocks wide, where over half a million people live…”

Relating to the Audience

Several times during the speech, Novogratz deliberately relates her speech back to her audience.

Early in the speech [1:55], she says:

It was also the day after the inauguration, and I was reminded how Mathare is still connected to the globe. And I would see kids on the street corners, and they’d say “Obama, he’s our brother!” And I’d say “Well, Obama’s my brother, so that makes you my brother too.”

This short anecdote highlights the real connection between the people of Kenya and her TED audience (mostly American).

Later [3:35], Novogratz describes Jane’s economic activity:

And that turned into what she does now, which is to go into the secondhand clothing markets, and for about three dollars and 25 cents she buys an old ball gown. Some of them might be ones you gave. And she re-purposes them with frills and ribbons, and makes these frothy confections that she sells to women for their daughter’s sweet 16 or first Holy Communion — those milestones in a life that people want to celebrate all along the economic spectrum.

Why does she give the detail about the purpose of these dresses? Is it important that the dresses are for “their daughter’s sweet 16 or first Holy Communion”? Yes! These tiny details help the audience to relate to the Kenyan women, because they can easily picture a young woman wearing a special dress on her 16th birthday. Indeed, many in the audience have worn such a dress.

Finally, in the conclusion to the speech [6:40], she says:

And in the middle of this economic crisis, where so many of us are inclined to pull in with fear, I think we’re well suited to take a cue from Jane and reach out, recognizing that being poor doesn’t mean being ordinary. [...] We owe it to the Janes of the world. And just as important, we owe it to ourselves.

This is a fantastic conclusion.

• This speech was delivered in February 2009, when the economic crisis was surely on the minds of many in the audience.
• Novogratz recognizes the strong emotion many were feeling at that time (fear), and hinges her argument on it.
• She uses contrast wonderfully again (“inclined to pull in” versus “reach out”).
• She concludes with an inspirational call-to-action which appeals to the audience’s self-interest: “we owe it to ourselves”.

Complementary Visuals

Imagine this speech without the photographs.

Though this speech is strong with the words alone, it is much more effective with the complementary visuals. Without the visuals, Jane is a character in a story. With the visuals, Jane is real.

To truly appreciate the impact of the photographs, try to imagine this speech being delivered with bullet-point text slides.

Eye Contact

Novogratz delivers her speech without a script or cue cards of any kind. This allows her to connect more directly with the audience.

She frequently looks down, usually as she recalls precise details of a story. I thought this added to her authenticity. As she gazed down, I imagined that she was “seeing” the scenes before her.

More often, Novogratz looks directly at the audience with passion in her eyes.

It is worth noting that the speech opening and closing are both delivered while looking intently at the audience. This provides maximum impact, and suggests that these lines were rehearsed several times until they were memorized. This, like many other traits demonstrated by Novogratz, is something we should all emulate.

Your Thoughts?

What did you think of this speech? What are Jacqueline’s strengths? How could this speech have been made better?

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Similar Articles You May Like... Speech Critique: Dan Pink (TED 2009) Speech Critique: Elizabeth Gilbert @ TED (Author of Eat, Pray, Love) Video Critique: Majora Carter – Greening the Ghetto (TED 2006) Six Simple Techniques for Presenting Data: Hans Rosling (TED, 2006) Video Critique: Al Gore (TED, 2006) How can you inspire your audience? Ask 10-year-old Dalton Sherman.

Have a Question? Contact me anytime, or find me on Twitter: @6minutes

Andrew Dlugan is the editor and founder of Six Minutes. He teaches courses, leads seminars, coaches speakers, and strives to avoid Suicide by PowerPoint. He is an award-winning public speaker and speech evaluator. Andrew is a father and husband who resides in British Columbia, Canada.

As a speaker, one major milestone you face is your first highly public speech. Most of you won’t have to give that first talk at a TED conference as I did. However, if you do, it helps to remember that the things which make TED talks great can make all talks great.

TED speakers are asked to do six things in their talk:

1. Distill your life’s work or experience into a 3, 6, 9 or 18 minute talk
2. Be authentic/vulnerable
3. Convey one strong idea
4. Tell a story that hasn’t been told before
5. Tell and not sell
6. Absolutely and positively stick to the time limit

Do those things and you too can give “the talk of your life.”

How I Came to Speak at TED

In 2006 I was living in a Chevy van with my Rottweiler and cat in a Wal-Mart shopping lot in Denver, Colorado. A “grand adventure” had gone awry and left me more homeless than free spirit. My father had recently died. I’d quit a good paying job to escape the stress and grief of his death and recent life changes, and dug my hole of depression deeper. I had become invisible, one of the 3.5 million working homeless in America.

Yet three years later the lowest point of my life was suddenly fodder for a TED talk. I’d just won an all-expenses-paid trip to TED Global 2009, courtesy of Daniel Pink, best-selling author, former speech writer for Al Gore and a professional speaker himself. As an attendee, I was eligible to compete for a chance to talk at TED.

Coincidently, TED Global 2009’s theme was “The essence of things not seen.” It summed up my year of being invisible as a homeless woman. But now that year or more of being invisible to society had the potential to educate and inspire society.

All I had to do was give the “talk of my life.”

How to Write the Talk of Your Life in Six Minutes

Easy? Not really. Not only was I not a speaker, I’d never given a formal, prepared talk to a large group before. This would not only be the first professional speech of my life, it would be about the most emotional and trying year of my life.  I had less than two months to prepare. It was a challenge.

I turned to a variety of sources, including Six Minutes, for help. Here’s what I learned:

1. Distill Your Life’s Work or Experience into a 3, 6, 9 or 18 minute talk

Any of us could fill books with the story of our lives. But how do you narrow your focus and distill a life to mere minutes? Determine your message – is it to educate? Motivate? Persuade? Entertain? Or inspire? I wanted to do all those things.

I had lived in my van for a year with a dog and house cat while working a full-time job.  I was dealing with heat, depression, hassles from police and security guards whose job it was to make sure I didn’t sleep in my van on their property. There was the day-to-day struggle to eat, sleep, work, shower and survive on the streets. There was the struggle to remain true to the vision I had of being a free spirit on an adventure while fighting clinical depression. As I prepared for the talk, I was living in an apartment, and couldn’t decide what part of the van-dwelling experience I wanted to convey.

2. Be Authentic

I kept asking myself, what was my message? Where did I focus? It wasn’t easy to decide. I finally climbed back into my van, closed my eyes and asked myself, “What will the audience want to know? What would I want to know if I heard a similar story?” Simple. I’d want to know how I escaped. What got me out of the van and homelessness and back into an apartment? That was the message, the quality, the focus. From there it just got easier.

3. Convey one strong idea

The theme for TED Global was, “The essence of things not seen.” My talk was about being one of the invisible working homeless – the essence of things not seen. But it was also about the essence of things – like perspectives and judgments, that influence our lives. In this context, my message was clear: “People are not where they live, where they sleep, what they are doing at any given moment. People are their dreams and visions.”

Tip: Take time to focus each idea you want to express, then pick the most compelling, the strongest idea.

4. Tell a story that hasn’t been told before

As a journalist I had an advantage. I’m a professional storyteller. Yet I still had to find a new story, a story about being homeless that hadn’t been told before. So I told my story. It’s easy to hide behind talking about other people in similar situations, with similar issues, but the powerful story, the one people want to hear, is your story.

Once I believed that, I could start looking at how my experience, my journey through homelessness, while the same on many levels, was also new and untold in many other ways. I also noticed that with many stories about the homeless, it’s easy to resort to playing on the audience’s heart strings and going for the pity pull. I didn’t want that. I wanted my audience to be with me emotionally, but to identify with me, not to feel sorry for me. I wanted to come across as authentic, not as a victim.

To do that I focused on the facts, not on the trauma of the pain or the emotion. Own the situation, don’t blame the situation.  Tell the story and let the reader or listener make their own choice about the outcome.

5. Tell and not sell

One of the strongest “rules” that TED organizers establish is to not “sell” anything, or use your time to pitch your book, organization, or business. It’s great advice.

Tell the audience something, don’t sell them something. They want solutions. If you can provide that, the rest will come. I had nothing to sell, so abiding by that rule was easy! If you have a great message, a fabulous idea, or an amazing story or product – people will want to buy. You don’t have to sell them. Focus on being remarkable, not profitable.

6. Stick to the time limit

TED organizers don’t budge on this one. I watched several people interrupted when they breached their time limit. The same holds true for any venue where you talk. Even if you go over your limit, the audience is watching the clock. Their timers will go off and you’ll lose them if you talk too long. Set your own limit and keep it.

Practical Speaking Tips

I also learned numerous practical speaking lessons along the way. In terms of preparation and practice, here’s my advice to you:

• Memorize your talk where possible and refer back to notes or prompters
• Get 8-hours sleep after practicing. This helps your brain commit, process, and store the speech, allowing you to remember what you’ve crammed for.
• Give the speech to a small audience the day before
• Give the speech to yourself an hour before your actual speech
• Practice in the venue where you’ll be talking – get on the stage if possible beforehand.

Learn From the Best You Can Access

I also got fantastic advice from some of the best speakers at TED.

From Jacqueline Novogratz, CEO and founder of the Accumen Foundation:(Novogratz is not only a seasoned TED speaker, she’s married to Chris Anderson, moderator for TED.)

• Give your speech (no matter how often you’ve given it before) to a close friend, or out loud to yourself before you actually get on stage for your real talk.

From Daniel Pink, professional speaker, best-selling author, former speech writer for Al Gore, and TED talker:

• Remember your audience wants you to succeed
• Relax and enjoy your time on stage

From June Cohen, TED University Moderator,

• Stand, move, and walk around on stage, but don’t stand and sway or shuffle
• Smile
• Don’t block the TED logo
• Don’t walk out of the camera range
• Don’t worry about looking perfect. We edit out all the mistakes and the parts where you forget your place. The video makes you look perfect, but no one gives an error free presentation.

From the guys who ran the sound checks…
From Bruno Giussani (European Director of TED Global Conferences)…
From Sam Martin, TED Magazine editor…
And from all the TED Global Fellows:

• Breathe
• The louder your voice, the more you’ll naturally gesticulate
• Enjoy the ride
• Be authentic
• It’s not a competition

The advice I would give now?

Practice, practice, practice – in front of mirrors, in front of friends, in front of small audiences before you make your debut in your final venue. And then relax and enjoy it. You’ll be fine. You may not be perfect, but you’ll be fine.

Honestly? I don’t remember the six minutes at all. It was the longest and the shortest six minutes of my life. But for the rest of the week at TED, I was gratified to find those who heard the talk come up to me to thank me for speaking. I swallowed my tendency to protest (“It was no big deal”) and to just say “Thank you,” and take it all in. I resisted the temptation to compare myself to any other speaker. It would have been counterproductive.

Perhaps the most important thing I learned was that the best talks of our lives are the ones that focus on describing the journey more than the outcome.

Watch Becky Blanton’s TEDGlobal Talk

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related to This Story…

• You can read more about Becky’s story in a TED Magazine article.
• Three other TED speakers — Al Gore, Hans Rosling, and Majora Carter — have been featured on Six Minutes previously

Similar Articles You May Like... Speech Critique: Dan Pink (TED 2009) 5 Speaking Resolutions to Wow Your Audience in 2012 Pump Up Your Speaking Voice with a Strength Training Workout Speech Critique: Elizabeth Gilbert @ TED (Author of Eat, Pray, Love) Speech Critique: Jacqueline Novogratz (TED 2009) 8 Key Points for Perfect Presentation Practice

Have a Question? Contact me anytime, or find me on Twitter: @6minutes

Becky Blanton is currently back in her van, with her Rottweiler, traveling across the USA and documenting her journey the second time around, this time as a writer, not a homeless woman. Discover more about Becky at beckyblanton.com.

Majora Carter’s TED talk has both incredible strengths — passion, energy, authenticity — and one unfortunate weakness — rapid speaking rate. Both extremes are worthy of public speaking analysis.

I encourage you to:

1. Watch the video;
2. Read the analysis in this speech critique; and
3. Share your thoughts on this presentation.

Click here to view the embedded video.

What is Phenomenal about this Speech?

Guy Kawasaki has written a thorough 15-point speech review, describing the many wonderful aspects of this talk. His entire review is worth reading, but I’d like to quote a few excerpts which echoed my own analysis:

• She immediately provides a clear problem statement. (1:00-2:00)
• She personalizes her story all the way through the speech.
• She shows raw emotions and unveils a piece of her soul when she breaks into tears when talking about her brother being gunned down. (5:10)
• She capitalizes on alliteration: “pimps and pushers and prostitutes” (6:50) and repetition: “economic degradation begets environmental degradation which begets social degradation” (7:24).
• Her presence exudes power and confidence without a trace of arrogance, fear, or condescension.
• She ends with an insanely great call-to-action: “Please don’t waste me.” (17:57)

In short, Majora Carter exhibits incredible passion — more in 19 minutes than many of my college professors in an entire semester. Her message is captivating, and her enthusiasm is infectious. All speakers can learn from Majora Carter.

But… it could be much, much better

This talk by Majora Carter is not without flaws. Here’s what Guy Kawasaki wrote about her speaking rate:

• She speaks rapidly—bordering on too rapidly, but she is articulate at all times. And she slows her cadence for her most important points. You can tell that she’s trying to observe her time limit—communicating that she respects the audience’s time.

While I agreed with much of Guy Kawasaki’s analysis, I believe he is being too generous on this point.

Majora Carter speaks too fast for much of this talk. Period. It does not “border on too rapidly.” It is too rapid.

Her talk is packed with dense information, often delivered at a rate too fast for many in the audience to absorb. Garr Reynolds recently wrote about a presentation by economist Robert Frank. One of Frank’s slides asks these questions:

• How much can I cover today?
  vs.
  How much can my students absorb today?

While Majora Carter may be respecting the audience’s time, she is not respecting the audience’s capacity to absorb information.

I have the luxury of watching this video three times, pausing, and rewinding to get the meaning. This is a luxury that your audience rarely has. More importantly, your audience will rarely give you more than one opportunity. Overloading them with information is not effective.

Her speaking rate is so fast that she trips over her own words multiple times. At times, she seems breathless. Used sparingly, a rapid speaking rate can be used to very good effect by a speaker. However, when most of the talk is delivered at this rate, that’s a clear sign that too much information is being presented.

What’s the Solution? Aggressive Editing.

If you have a 20-minute time slot and 40 minutes of information, the solution is not to double your speaking rate. The solution is to cut the material in half. Keep the best lines, the best stories, and the most powerful images. Be ruthless in trimming the rest.

Depending on your speaking scenario, you may be able to include additional facts, figures, statistics, stories, and diagrams in handout material for the audience.

What about Reading from a Script?

It is generally better to avoid reading from notes, but that in itself didn’t bother me in this presentation. Despite frequently reading, Majora connects deeply with the audience throughout the talk. Her face is expressive, her body is active, and her vocal variety is excellent. She compensates well for the use of notes.

The indirect problem with reading notes is that it encourages rapid delivery. This is a problem that I have personally battled. In the past, I often wrote with red pen in margins of my notes: “SLOW DOWN!” In recent years, I go without notes or with only a few key phrases to guide me along. The time it takes me to occasionally catch my thoughts is time well spent — it allows the audience time to digest what I’ve just said.

Critical analysis notwithstanding, this is still a fantastic talk from Majora Carter. It could have been better with some aggressive editing and a slower delivery. [For contrast, watch this 2-minute video from Majora Carter demonstrating a much better speaking rate.]

Your Thoughts?

Did you enjoy this speech? What did you like most? What did you think of the speaking rate?

Similar Articles You May Like... Speech Critique: Elizabeth Gilbert @ TED (Author of Eat, Pray, Love) Six Simple Techniques for Presenting Data: Hans Rosling (TED, 2006) Video Critique: Al Gore (TED, 2006) Speech Critique: Dan Pink (TED 2009) Speech Critique: Jacqueline Novogratz (TED 2009) Video Critique: J.A. Gamache (Toastmasters, 2007)

Have a Question? Contact me anytime, or find me on Twitter: @6minutes

Andrew Dlugan is the editor and founder of Six Minutes. He teaches courses, leads seminars, coaches speakers, and strives to avoid Suicide by PowerPoint. He is an award-winning public speaker and speech evaluator. Andrew is a father and husband who resides in British Columbia, Canada.

Hans Rosling uses six simple techniques for presenting data which transform a run-of-the-mill presentation into a must-see presentation.

I encourage you to:

1. Watch the video;
2. Read the analysis in this speech critique; and
3. Share your thoughts on this presentation.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Six Techniques for Presenting Data

Rosling employs GapMinder to display his statistics. This is a wonderful software tool for displaying data, but the real magic of this presentation lies in the techniques demonstrated by Rosling. These techniques are easy to do, but I’ve rarely (if ever) seen them all demonstrated so well in a single talk. The techniques are:

1. Explain the data axes
2. Highlight subsets of data
3. Dig deeper to unwrap data
4. Place labels close to data points
5. Answer the “Why?” questions
6. Complement data with energetic delivery

Let’s examine each one and compare this presentation to common approaches.

Technique #1: Explain the Data Axes

Common approach. Graphs are displayed with either no explanation of the axes, or a quick, obligatory “Here we see variableX versus variableY“.

As Hans demonstrates, don’t assume that your audience intuitively “gets it,” particularly when presenting statistical data.

Starting around 2:43, he devotes approximately ninety seconds to:

• Explain what quantities are on each of the two axes (e.g. fertility rates versus life expectancy at birth);
• Provide the background story as to why he chose these two quantities (“We vs Them = Western World vs Third World“);
• Share his students’ prediction as to what the data will show.

Because of this careful preparation, the audience understands the context thoroughly. A very energetic description of the data follows while the time advances the “movie” for about 45 seconds.

The “instant reply” is a nice touch which fills the otherwise empty time during audience applause, although I suspect this was added in the post-production by the good folks at TED.

Technique #2: Highlight subsets of data

Common approach: Presenters attempt to explain complex data which they have studied for days, weeks, or months in just a few minutes. The audience grasps little.

Rosling recognizes the impossibility of explaining all of the data in detail. Instead, he carefully selects and explains subsets of the data.

• Example #1: 1964-2003 United States and Vietnam [5:15 to 6:06] This is a clever choice as his (mostly American) audience will easily connect the early part of this period with that of the Vietnam War.
• Example #2: 1960-2003. South Korea, Brazil, Uganda, United Arab Emirates [12:22 to 13:40]

Technique #3: Dig deeper to unwrap data

Common approach: Presenters restrict themselves to one level of data inspection. Deeper analysis is often only present in scientific journals.

Several times, Rosling displays first a high-level data view (e.g. one point for a country) and then digs deeper to lower-level view of the data (e.g. country quintiles).

• Example #1: Income versus population
  Compare the global curve [7:26] to the one broken down by geographic region [7:54]
• Example #2: GDP per capita versus Child survival rate
  Compare the Sub-Saharan Africa bubble [9:48] to the individual country bubbles [9:54]
• Example #3: GDP per capita versus Child survival rate
  Compare Uganda bubble [14:12] to quintile data points for Uganda [14:18]

Technique #4: Place labels close to data points

Common approach: Data legends and labels are often absent. The presenter assumes that the audience will follow their verbal cues. Or, when legends and labels are present, they are often presented far away from associated data points. This forces the audience to visually scan back and forth.

Throughout Rosling’s talk, data labels are presented right next to the data points. An example is shown here for the OECD data point [9:28].

Additionally, the appearance of these labels is synchronized well with the verbal component of his speech. In this way, the visual labels complement the audio.

Related to this, there are several instances where GapMinder shows a bubble “about to burst” a second or two before the data is expanded. This is a subtle touch, but an effective measure to draw the eye to the right spot on the screen. The Sub-Saharan Africa example shown is from 9:48. Others are at 10:33 and 10:40.

Technique #5: Answer the “Why?”questions

Common approach: Large data sets are presented, and the presenter often explains only the dominant trend or the one measure of most interest. The audience is left to wonder things like “Why is that data point there?” or “What caused that point to be low/high/odd?”

Obviously, no presenter can answer every question the audience might be thinking, but Rosling does a good job of anticipating these questions. He anticipated several “Why?” questions, and answered them on the spot.

For example:

• Q: Why does the progress in Vietnam accelerate in the 1990′s? [5:43]
  A: They give up communist planning and go for a market economy.
• Q: Why is Mauritius so different from most of Sub-Saharan Africa? [9:54]
  A: Mauritius was the first country to get rid of trade barriers. They could sell their sugar. They could sell their textiles.
• Q: Why is China moving up and then to the right (when most countries are moving diagonally)? [11:52]
  A: Mao Zedong bought health to China (up) and then he died. Deng Xiaoping then brought money to China (right).

Anticipating and answering the why questions achieves two goals:

1. It allows you to satisfy the audience’s curiosity while also maintaining an energetic pace (rather than being interrupted by questions).
2. It demonstrates your credibility and solid grasp of the subject.

Technique #6: Complement data with energetic delivery

Common approach: Statistical data is often presented in a dry, clinical manner. Perhaps the theory is that the audience should naturally be excited about data?

The most memorable technique displayed by Rosling is his energetic delivery. Examples are numerous, and include:

• Highly energetic sequence as he narrates 1962-2003 fertility rates versus life expectancy [4:15 to 5:03]. This is the highlight of the presentation for me. The audience seems to agree, rewarding Rosling with 13 seconds of applause.
• Spider-web shape with his hands to demonstrate how the bubbles burst [9:55]
• Ghost-like acting to accompany “overlooking the United States, almost like a ghost” [18:11]
• Approaching the screen numerous times to align his arms and body with the data

The thoughtful presentation of data makes this an understandable talk. Rosling’s energetic delivery makes it memorable.

Other Opinions from the Public Speaking Blogosphere

• Lisa Braithwaite: Best Presentation Ever?

Your Thoughts?

Did you enjoy this speech? What did you like most? How could this presentation be enhanced?

Similar Articles You May Like... Video Critique: Majora Carter – Greening the Ghetto (TED 2006) Video Critique: Al Gore (TED, 2006) Speech Critique: Dan Pink (TED 2009) Speech Critique: Elizabeth Gilbert @ TED (Author of Eat, Pray, Love) Speech Critique: Jacqueline Novogratz (TED 2009) Video Critique: J.A. Gamache (Toastmasters, 2007)

Have a Question? Contact me anytime, or find me on Twitter: @6minutes

Andrew Dlugan is the editor and founder of Six Minutes. He teaches courses, leads seminars, coaches speakers, and strives to avoid Suicide by PowerPoint. He is an award-winning public speaker and speech evaluator. Andrew is a father and husband who resides in British Columbia, Canada.

This was a fantastic presentation worthy of study. There is much to be learned from analyzing what Gore did well, and what he could have done better.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Humorous Opening Segment

The first six minutes of this sixteen-minute speech are devoted to establishing rapport with the audience. Gore does this with several humorous observations and stories.

Tamsen Salvador writes:

Whether you love him or hate him, Al Gore will make you laugh out loud. No kidding!

Kate Trgovac observes (and laments):

After a wry and witty bit of stand-up (Al, where was this passion, charisma and personality during the 2000 campaign?!?!), Gore got down to brass tacks.

Remarks like those from Kate are echoed often when people view this video. Let’s take a closer look at the techniques employed by Gore in this opening segment.

• By my count, he gets nineteen laughs from the audience during this time (@ 0:54, 1:01, 1:11, 1:17, 1:30, 1:54, 2:00, 2:12, 2:18, 2:55, 3:02, 3:12, 4:27, 5:05, 5:11, 5:22, 5:26, 5:37, 5:48).
• Primarily self-depracating humour. Not only is this form of humour generally safe, but this humanizes Gore effectively.
• Storytelling! I love it.
• Lots of smiles.
• Delivery and comedic timing is superb.
• Vocal variety is fantastic in several impersonations:
  • Restaurant customer: “He’s come down a long way…”
  • Man on runway: “Call Washington! Call Washington!”
  • News reporter voice.
  • Bill Clinton: “Congratulations…”
• Gore is holding the slide remote during this entire opening sequence, despite not using it once. Why? Holding objects (e.g. remotes, pens, papers, props) can limit mobility to use arm gestures, so he would have been better off picking up the remote only when he needed to use it.

The Fifteen Call-to-Action Slides

A set of 15 text slides forms the core of the presentation. The text of these slides is reproduced here (coloring inspired by Ferry Simatupang):

1. Reduce emissions from your home energy use (better design, insulation, green electricity)
2. Reduce emissions from your car and other transportation (buy a hybrid, light rail, carpool, biking)
3. Buy the most energy-efficient appliances and other products. Be a green consumer.
4. Live a “carbon neutral” life. It’s easier than you think. Reduce; then offset the rest.
5. To find out how, go to: www.climatecrisis.net Use the carbon calculator.
6. Then make your BUSINESS Carbon Neutral. (It’s not as hard as you think.)
7. Then, whether you work in the T, E, or D — INTEGRATE climate solutions into all your innovations.
8. Invest sustainably — in companies and funds that are part of the solution.
9. Become a catalyst for change in your community. Teach others about the Climate Crisis.
10. Raise awareness by promoting “An Inconvenient Truth” in your community.
11. Send someone to Nashville who can learn how to give my slide show in your community.
12. Become politically active – Speak up! Contact your elected officials! Make our Democracy work!
13. Urge the U.S. to join the rest of the world community in capping and trading carbon emissions.
14. Help with the mass persuasion campaign when it is launched this Spring.
15. Let’s call it the “Climate Crisis” It really is a “Planetary Emergency”

Highlight colors. What is the symbolism for the use of green and red here? I cannot figure it out. I thought perhaps green was going to indicate environment friendly phrases, and red the opposite. But, that relationship isn’t used consistently. I think it would have been better to stick to one highlight color.

Text-only slides. This presentation follows one that Gore gave to the same audience earlier in the conference which was highly visual, so I suppose it balances out. Still, audiences prefer more visuals and less reading from the slides.

Tornado slide transition effect. Why was the bizarre swirling effect used to lead into each of the 15 main slides? Perhaps the letters magically falling into place is a metaphor to show how some complex theories are leading to some simple actions? It’s possible, but that isn’t the impression I had.

A better alternative? He’s trying to convince the audience that there are very simple actions they can take. Yet, there’s this complex set of letters flying around the screen that looks anything but simple. A simple appear or wipe effect would have been cleaner.

“Teach others. Learn about it. Talk about it.” (Slide 9) I particularly liked this slide. Simple and effective. A clear call-to-action within a set of calls-to-action.

Audience Awareness and Interaction

T, E, and D. Slide 7 directly references the Technology, Entertainment, and Design groups in the audience. The best presentations are customized for the audience, and Gore demonstrates this.

Ask for Help. Gore asks for help twice from “those of you who are good at branding.” Techniques like this help create a conversation rather than a presentation.

Contextual Ad-libbing. Gore refers to Larry Lessig and other speakers from the conference. This reinforces that he’s not just giving a speech. He is part of the shared experience (the conference) just as he hopes the audience will be part of the shared solution (climate).

Asking a Question with Purpose. Gore asks: “How many people here serve on the Board of Directors of a corporation?” (14:20) Many hands go up. This is textbook audience interaction, but many speakers stop there. Instead, a few seconds later (14:25), he follows up with: “You will have legal liability if you do not urge your CEO…” The emphasis here on you is made more powerful with the earlier question which prompted many audience members to raise their hands. (i.e. “Oh, I raised my hand… when he says YOU, he must mean ME.”)

Other Observations

Unnecessarily complex language. Recapitulate is the only one I caught. Gore otherwise uses fairly simple, easily understood language.

“Killer app.” (8:45) “CCS is going to become the killer app” Is this phrase mainstream? Or is this more readily understood in technology circles? I liked it, but I have a technical background. It might not be as effective in other audiences.

Failed humour. (7:05): “I know that you wanted some more bad news about the environment.” It seems like he’s looking for laughs here, but doesn’t get any. He also doesn’t get a laugh on his follow-up line: “I’m kidding”. It was reassuring to know that his humour wasn’t all perfect. He demonstrates good technique by not dwelling on the failed joke. He just moves on.

Inconsistent phrases. He uses “It is easier than you think” and then later “It’s not as hard as you think.” Consistency would be better, considering this phrase is one of the key take-home messages from his presentation.

Left hand in his pocket. I suppose one could argue that this adds to a very conversational style. Nonetheless, I don’t like it because if his hand is in his pocket, then it isn’t readily available to punctuate his words with gestures.

Not political? (15:47) “This is not a political issue… We are one.” I agree that it isn’t political, but Gore’s words and gestures are sending mixed messages.

• He gestures to the audience’s right when he refers to Republicans. He gestures left for Democrats. When you’re trying to take politics out of it, perhaps it is better not to reinforce this left-right polarity?
• Earlier in his opening, he takes a crack at the current Republican administration: “What in the world could be wrong in Washington. [pause] I remembered it could be a bunch of things.” If he truly wants to remove the politics from the situation (and I believe he does), partisan jokes should be removed. He’s clearly capable of delivering humour which is safer.

Repetition makes for memorable phrases. (~11:44). “People do what you pay them to do.” Great line, with repetition of “do“. This is followed shortly by: “…based on the short term returns, you’re going to get short term decisions.” Again, repetition of words “short term ” makes for a memorable phrase. Great energy in this segment.

Oops. (14:41) “The market will work to solve this problem” (turn to screen, pause, then turn back to audience) “… if… if we can accomplish this.” The slight glitch in delivery here weakened this point. I’m glad I’m not the only one to botch lines once in a while.

Emotional peak. (~14:50) The segment ending with “we have to buy a lot of those ads” felt like the emotional peak of the presentation. Gore is emphatic with his voice, his facial expressions, and his gestures. I loved the emotion in this segment.

Other Opinions

Loïc Le Meur:

Al Gore gave a mind blowing speech…

Bruno Guissani:

It shows both the “old” Gore – lecturing us about global warming with depth of knowledge and intensity – as well as the “new” Gore that many seem to have discovered only recently – funny and passionate and convincingly authentic.

Finally, here is just one of many comments from TED participants, many who witnessed the presentation live. [If you ever doubt what effect one presentation lasting 16 minutes can have, read all of these comments.]

My wife and I came to TED uncertain about Al Gore and not thrilled to hear him. He seemed fake to us in the national political election he had gone through. His presentation profoundly changed our view of him even more than his message. We bought the messages. We did not buy the message presenter. At TED, he gave a sense of his humor, three-dimensionality, commitment to the cause, ability to criticize himself. We left with a positive attitude toward him and a commitment to help. — David and Heidi Hoffman

Similar Articles You May Like... Video Critique: J.A. Gamache (Toastmasters, 2007) Speech Critique: Steve Jobs (Stanford, 2005) Critique: Lessig Method Presentation Style (Dick Hardt, Identity 2.0, OSCON 2005) Speech Critique: Dan Pink (TED 2009) Video Critique: Majora Carter – Greening the Ghetto (TED 2006) Six Simple Techniques for Presenting Data: Hans Rosling (TED, 2006)

Have a Question? Contact me anytime, or find me on Twitter: @6minutes

Andrew Dlugan is the editor and founder of Six Minutes. He teaches courses, leads seminars, coaches speakers, and strives to avoid Suicide by PowerPoint. He is an award-winning public speaker and speech evaluator. Andrew is a father and husband who resides in British Columbia, Canada.