At some stage, around the 38th minute, you were tempted to pinch yourself to
ensure that you were still awake, and if not, that you had not slipped off
into some hell devised solely for corporate man.
“We are DETERMINED . . . that we OPERATE . . . one of the most ACTIVE . . .
and CUSTOMER-ORIENTED . . . delivery systems . . . for HIGH-VALUE
fast-moving consumer goods . . . and that we RETAIN . . . a COMMANDING lead
. . . over our COMPETITORS . . .”
The speaker was one of our most respected industrialists, whom I had better
not name. The year was some time in the early 1990s. The style of delivery
was more suited to a mass rally for a Third World dictator. The event was
the presentation of his organisation’s annual financial results.
The organisation makes . . . again, shall we just say the sort of consumer
goods you and I use every day. We had already LEARNT, as evidenced by an
eye-straining array of coloured graphics, that the MARGINS in the grommets
division had been LEVERAGED by a FULL THREE PERCENTAGE POINTS, while
TURNOVER in bent widgets . . .
Enough. The whole bloody thing took up 55 minutes of my life, as I can
testify, because my watch was easily the most fascinating object in the
room. Every single utterance, every boast, every statistic, was accompanied
on the screen behind him with a written repetition on his PowerPoint (the
curse of business presentations launched by Microsoft in 1988).
After a cursory question and answer session — what more could even the most
dedicated fact junkie possibly want to know? — we filed away, shellshocked,
to be handed a copy of said presentation, in case any tiny aspect, any
inessential detail, any jot and tittle of his organisation’s performance
over the past year, had eluded us.
It was all made possible by what was then the latest technology, the
PowerPoint presentation. It is an unacknowledged rule of emerging technology
that the easier you make it to generate product, the more rubbish gets
generated by said technology.
In the days when faxes were quite hard to set up, with a funny revolving
roller that the paper had to be fixed around, you sent only essential faxes.
Today, faxes are so easy to send that no one uses them any more. This is
because the fax machine is permanently clogged up. And anyway, everyone uses
e-mails and attachments.
Now e-mails are so easy, so omnipresent, that . . . well, you’ll have seen the
results in your e-mail box. And don’t get me started on mobile phones.
It was the sheer ease of filling up his PowerPoint with so many facts and
figures that allowed Sir An . . . our man to go on, at quite such a length,
about the margins in the grommet division etc. Had he been restricted to pen
and paper, or to those flip-over charts beloved of polytechnic lecturers, he
would have been severely curtailed. The sheer effort of filling in each
page, even if carried out in some basement by a team of corporate slaves,
would have required a shorter version. And his presentation would in any
event have been mercifully invisible to at least half his audience.
Instead he, or more likely one of the slaves, entered it all into Microsoft
Windows with full-colour graphics so it could be regurgitated at length on a
huge screen.
Now, research at an Australian university has proved that PowerPoint and the
human animal are not the best of collaborators. Apparently, evolving on the
savannah on a diet of half-rotted ox and at constant risk from sabre-toothed
tigers did not provide us with brains properly wired to read and take in
information that comes at you in a pincer movement, as the spoken word and
as a series of letters, lines and graphs on a screen. It is the end, they
say, for the PowerPoint.
The research, from the University of New South Wales, suggests that we process
information best in verbal or written form, but not in both simultaneously.
As so often, it has taken the best efforts of brainy academics to prove what
most of us instinctively knew. Trying to follow what someone is saying while
watching the same words on a screen is the equivalent of riding a bicycle
along a crowded train. It offers the appearance of making extra progress but
is actually rather impractical.
For our ape-like ancestors, it was either chowing down on the ox or watching
for the sabre-tooth. Multitasking was inadvisable. This may even be why we
evolved in groups, with tasks shared out. That or the sheer boringness of
the average savannah.
One City communications specialist, who was untypically unwilling to be quoted
by name, probably because his clients still insist on PowerPoint
presentations, puts it thus: “It provides a comforter, really. It would be
more sensible just to talk.
“Look at David Cameron, when he first became leader of the Tory Party. He just
got up on stage and spoke beautifully, without any notes whatsoever. But not
everyone can do that. With PowerPoint, people feel they can get away with
practising less, if they have the words in front of them.”
The presentation also encourages screens full of as many words or data as can
be crammed on, without any chance that they can all be appreciated or even
read in time. Advertisers learnt a long time ago that the longer and more
boring their ads, the less they worked. Corporate man, probably because he
evolved in an environment dominated by meaningless management buzz-words and
claptrap, has never quite grasped this.
Perhaps the only legitimate use is in the production of a series of paper
pages as an aide memoire to a proper presentation or for a one-to-one
briefing. This has occasioned an odd linguistic shift. “Now, if you will
just have a look at the next slide.” No, it’s a piece of paper. Been around
for centuries, you know.
Even here, there are pitfalls. I recall many years ago being deeply impressed
at being invited to a private room at an expensive London hotel to meet
another distinguished industrialist. Now, when two people are gathered
together to break bread, there is a tacit assumption that this is an
occasion for social intercourse, the equivalent of our primate ancestors
huddled together picking off one another’s ticks. And we had not previously
met.
As the tricolore salad was cleared away, his barely touched, I realised why he
had been so keen on a private room. “I wonder,” he said, removing from his
briefcase a familiar plastic-fronted folder, “if I could just show you how
we have leveraged the margins at our grommets division . . .”
Professor John Sweller, of the University of New South Wales, says: “The use
of the PowerPoint presentation has been a disaster. It should be ditched.”
If only.
— Martin Waller
Why speechmaking is still the way to persuade
In the latest issue of The Spectator, the magazine’s political editor
Fraser Nelson describes being invited to a “wonderfully conspiratorial”
dinner at a London hotel by the Home Secretary. Nelson is properly
circumspect, as a lobby correspondent should be, about what went on. But he
does reveal that the evening was blighted by the presence of “the most
unwelcome guest of all” — an overhead projector.
There are few words that have a greater capacity to chill than “I’ll just take
you through this on PowerPoint” and there are few surer guarantees of
daytime slumber than the gentle shuffling of slides as what was once a
compelling argument becomes a computer-aided anaesthetic. PowerPoint
presentations are to persuasion what male posing pouches are to seduction —
the death of the art.
If you do want to win an audience to your point of view, whatever it is you’re
selling, then there is no effective alternative to the traditional art of
speechmaking. Rhetoric, as it used to be known, has acquired a dodgy
reputation over the years. Platform speeches have become equated, thanks to
the efforts of hack politicians like me, with pompous and stilted
cliché-mongering. You know the sort of stuff — references to things being
“beyond peradventure” and initiatives being “rolled out through multi-agency
working”. But it is still the case that a single speech can move, excite,
motivate and change minds in a way that no other form of communication can
accomplish. The current prominence enjoyed by Barack Obama springs from the
inspirational speech he gave to the Democratic Party Convention in 2004.
David Cameron’s path to the party leadership owes a great deal to the
flawless, noteless speeches he gave at the launch of his campaign and during
the 2005 Tory party conference. The positions that JFK and Martin Luther
King enjoy in the pantheon of modern heroes are as much owing to the way
their oratory embodied the hopes of a generation as to any specific change
they introduced. The call to “pay any price, bear any burden” in defence of
freedom, and the hope embodied in the “dream that my four little children
will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of
their skin but by the content of their character” resonate across the
decades. I’m not sure that there are many PowerPoint presentations that
stand comparison in the collective memory.
Why is it that old-fashioned rhetoric is so much more effective than
21st-century slide-shows? It’s partly because pictures created by words are
so much more memorable and moving than words appearing on a screen designed
for pictures. And it’s also because classical rhetoric has developed, over
generations, to fit arguments to the contours of the human mind. Classical
orators have learnt how to shape their thoughts to rest pleasingly in our
ears. The use of lists of three, the deployment of humour, image and
metaphor, the way in which the tone of voice is varied, are all techniques
every bit as sophisticated as any Microsoft program, and much more
user-friendly.
A single speech, in isolation, whether it’s the Gettysburg Address or a party
conference oration, is one of the most persuasive tools devised by man. But
there is one that is even more finely honed. And that’s the debating speech
— the reply to a conversation in which the claims of your competitors are
examined, and shredded, with logic and humour. For all its faults, that’s a
practice that the House of Commons encourages. And that’s why, when members
of this place get the chance to display their skills abroad, as both Tony
Blair and George Galloway did in very different ways before the US Congress,
it’s possible to see why, when it comes to preparing for the big
communications challenges, debating still has the edge on computing.
— MIchael Gove
Top tips for presentations
1. Talk at the same speed and in the same style as you would in a
relaxed conversation.
2. Ensure silence after each key point or idea to allow listeners to
digest the information.
3. Eye contact is most effective in the silence at the end of each key
point.
4. Structure presentations around a few key messages, each one backed
up by your evidence.
5. Use your hands to emphasise your words.
6. Use stories and anecdotes.
7. Ask rhetorical questions, framed by pauses.
Provided by presentation consultancies Templar Advisors Ltd (www.templaradvisors.com
) and iOpener (www.iopener.co.uk
)
There is a better way...
The current trend
Modern software such as Adobe Flash is more interactive than PowerPoint, which
mainly uses simple bullet points. Flash can use voiceovers, better animation
and integrated video. It can also be used for overseas conferencing on the
internet. Flash presentations have the additional selling-point that, as
with a PVR, they can be watched by people in their own time, so if they are
not sufficiently engaging people can just turn them off and watch later.
Up and coming
Businesses will soon have to try to decrease their carbon footprint.
International travel will become increasingly unpopular so many are expected
to resort to avatars and presentations in parallel internet worlds such as
Second Life. Employees can gather in internet conference rooms cheaply and
quickly and have added bonuses such as online translators, literally testing
out new products in cyberspace and even virtual office “days-out”. It will
also allow for gimmicky, crowd-pleasing aesthetics, like Humphrey Bogart
introducing a new product.
The future
Software packages such as Blender can create three-dimensional images. This is
already used by architects (they may fly a virtual helicopter around
building images the better to view projects) and is increasingly appealing
to business presentations. Three-dimensional programs used to cost £3,000
and above but “open source” software, which allows users to share, modify
and expand programs themselves, has made this cheaper. Technology
developments are expected to lead to even more engaging uses for 3-D images,
including holograms, both for products and people. This will partly surmount
the problem of less human contact presented by other internet presentations.
Source: Jonty Pearce, editor, Presentation Helper
Technology in of itself has created a huge money trap for business in the 2000's. As information grows at an alarming rate we all continue to try and digest it and consume more. Cell Phones, PC phones, IM’ing, e-mail, internet, etc. It grows and grows.
PowerPoint is just one example on how something that was designed to provide the communication of information in a format that would eliminate the need for drafting hand held slides turned into a entertainment spectacle.
In one instance I turned what I thought was a well thought out delivered speech to marketing. They took my speech and added all kinds of fancy graphics, video’s, etc. By the time the speech was finished a customer came up to me and said. Wow! That was entertaining! You really did a great speech. Then he hit me with the zinger…..â€So which message are we suppose to walk away with?â€
That was the last time I let anyone enhance my slides!
Steve Muenstermann, Crown Point, IN
Another skill that seems to have disappeared over the years is writing succinct summaries. I've been doing marketing research for longer than I care to reveal and that used to be the measure of my work. These summaries can provide something someone can read in 10 to 15 minutes and get the gist of a research project. Try doing that with the average powerpoint presentation if you weren't at the presentation itself. Most of the time, you can't understand what was being communicated.
C Maurer, Wilmington, DE , USA
Education loves to jump on a bandwagon! Increasingly the IT co-ordinator had to show his/ her competence by using the technology to get her/his lesson across. Our one had the good sense to use it little and encourage interaction. Our maths co-ordinator and others as well, gave it to us as though laid down by God. Questions were discouraged (especially ones they didn't know the answers to: ethical considerations, the horrible legacy of history, morality - in fact anything that means the poor dumb audience thinks about it!). I do not remember one iota of the INSET day with the Maths co-ordinator except that he showed us he'd mastered Power Point. The dreaded white board is now used as a teaching tool: how good it is depends on the teacher, but the inspector can be blinded by science. I wonder how much has really changed since I left?
Carlyle Braden, Croydon, U.K.
PowerPoint is a tool and a bad workman..................However, those who use PowerPoint and believe it to be an effective teaching/training method need to consider the points already raised by Martin Waller as well as other commentators.
Preparation is of critical importance to anyone training or lecturing. Perhaps, PowerPoint has made it all too easy to produce something which is visually appealing or into which you can cram far too much information but the fault here lies with the person preparing the presentation. In addition, levels of concentration for after 15 minutes if only one method of training/instruction is used such as the lecture or PowerPoint presentation (see the Lancet No 8088 from 1978 or Midmer's article in the BMJ Career Focus from 2003).
Geoff Petty in his book Teaching Today describes a lecture as "an event where information passes from the notes of the lecturer into the notes of the students without passing through the brains of either." Food for thought!
David Montgomery, Sonning Common, Oxfordshire
As someone who types up presentations for other people to give, I can only agree that it is the speakers, not the package. It is too easy to try to hide behind whizzy graphics and loads of bullet points when a bit of confident public speaking will do. Then again, how many companies take the trouble to send managers on speaking courses rather than presentation courses? Clearly, too few.
Roger Nobbs, London,
As a trainer, I make frequent use of PowerPoint. I have put a lot of time and effort into finding out how to make the best of the tool (for that is all it is), so hopefully have not put too many people to sleep!
I also have to deal with requests from people who want to be trained. When they ask me for "PowerPoint training", they invariably mean that they want to improve their own presentation and speaking skills, and think that a dose of animated bullets will do the trick. I normally persuade them to go on "presentation training" instead.
Geof Sheppard, Bristol, England
I think it's completely inaccurate to blame it all on powerpoint. I'm not a huge fan of microsoft software or 'tools'. However, I think the fault lies on the presenter or the person preparing the 'slides'. I have seen wonderful presentations on powerpoint with hardly any words, than convey the gist of the presentation with all the relevant information. Sadly, most of the time, people just dump way to much verbiage on the slides and then read through them word by word.
James, Penang, Malaysia
I've long hated powerpoint - though I also have to use it. My approach has always been "less is more" - and that a diagram or figure requires verbal explanation, not bullet points and written summaries on the same slide. There are two funny things I've seen that you can search for via google, which illustrate the blight of powerpoint perfectly. One is a presentation put together by Edward Tufte (I think) - the brilliant US academic, who lectures on visual display of information. This document is Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, as presented when it's been put through the powerpoint wizard. VERY funny and says it all really. Except for an old Dilbert cartoon where someone gives a presentation and one of the characters in the audience gets killed by animated powerpoint graphics.....
Rebecca, Seattle, USA
Whenever my partner and his colleagues are forced to sit through a PowerPoint presentation, they spend their time making notes on the misplaced apostrophes, spelling mistakes and faulty capitalisation, which keeps them awake and gives them fuel for the question session at the end.
Janice, Leeds, UK,
Arguing the merits or otherwise of, for example, ID cards or global warming policy, may be achieved very well through the art of rhetoric and the process of debate.
However, describing the process flow of equity settlement or the global relationship of an industrial goods distribution chain (or even how to find your way to my office)requires IMAGES more than text.
Tom MacArthur uses Steve Jobs to illustrate the difference between someone who is excellent at presentation and those who have neither the skills required nor the application to build compelling presentations. Of course, Steve Jobs doesn't use PowerPoint he uses Keynote, Apple's own presentation software.
Even so, it's not the tool that counts, it's the content and the presentation. In these cases the medium is certainly not the message.
Alan, London, England
PowerPoint is only a tool. If the user can't use a tool, should we then abolish the tool?
The problem is obviously not PowerPoint, which is decent for its purpose, the problem is speakers who believe that if they only put their words into PowerPoint, magic will happen. The main point to take away from this article is the journalist's emphasis on the speaker's role. But don't shoot the messenger.
Sanford, Leicester,
PowerPoint is just a tool. It can be used for good and evil. Some ideas are just too complex to express them without a graphic or diagram.
Stephan, London, UK
Re Powerpoint:
I agree and disagree.
PowerPoint has some benefits:
It forces the presenter to organise his thoughts in a logical way
if there are going to be numbers, visual presentation is better than verbal (especially if the language is Russian!)
some people (e.g. me) think in pictures and charts, not in words - I think this is normal for natural scientists and mathematicians
If the presenter and audience are not sharing and using their mother tongue, then there is the sheer problem of understanding what is being said
The biggest disadvantage is that PowerPoint can kill spontaneity and interactive debate; it is difficult to be flexible. Propaganda replaces debate.
I agree that many presentations are just drivel. Volume of information may replace quality of thought.
The advantage of E-mail is that it gives the respondent the opportunity to make a considered reply, whereas a phone call may provoke a "top-of-the-head" response which is incorrect, impolitic etcetera. There is also the question of communicating between time zones.
Geoffrey Townsend, Moscow, Russia
Powerpoint is a hideous application. Even the Pentagon, well known for bloated presentations. long ago banned it. In the words of a famous southernism it is "putting lipstick on a pig". An idea has merit or it doesn't, dressing it up in fancy graphics doesn't make it better. It does however make it one of the best wasters of time ever devised. Rather than hide behind graphics and bulletpoints, all concerned would be better off with a presentation based solely on the merits of the idea... todd hampton, va, usa
todd, hampton, va
I have to say, I find PowerPoint an excellent tool. The problem is only when it is not used properly. In addition to the tips covered in the article:
slides are not a crutch for a bad presenter, they're not there to remind you what to say next.
Start and finish, at least ,with black slides.
Avoid word slides
Plan the story, which is almost always What is wrong? Why, What is the fix?
Do not present with the same slides that you use for a written report, the latter are too cluttered.
Rehearse
use slides for graphical presentation of numeric facts.
Geoffrey, Sydney,
Have a look at the Gettysburg address on Powerpoint -
http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/
David W, Birmingham, UK
- 1
- 2
- 3
Next