7 Tips for Microphones and Meetings
Planning for and Using Microphones: 7 Tips Here are a few lessons learned about planning and using microphones at meetings and events, gleaned from my own experience and experiences from other meeting planners. I hope you find them useful! If you’re a planner, consider the Rule of 30: If your event: – involves more than about 30 people, – has a layout with more than about 30 feet between the speaker and the most distant audience member, or – will last more than about 30 minutes, then you’ll find some degree of voice amplification will help make your meeting or event more effective. When establishing the agenda, consider whether there will be people in the audience that will need to make statements, ask or answer questions, or be recognized. Does your speaker (or panel) have a question/answer session planned? If so, put at least one microphone on a stand in the audience, or have a runner with a handheld microphone ready to move around the audience. Some people feel resistance to using the microphones, but if the meeting is being recorded most of them will go ahead and use the mics. Encourage people to use the microphones so that their questions or comments will be on the recording. By default, try to get your speaker to wear a lapel mic. Infrequent speakers have a tendency to look away from a fixed lectern microphone to see slides while commenting. As they move their heads away, the sound level drops. Likewise, inexperienced or distracted speakers may unintentionally go off-mike while gesturing with the hand holding a handheld mic. Lapel mics help keep speakers consistent in both volume and distance away from the microphone. Experienced speakers almost always prefer the freedom of movement that comes with a wireless microphone, but note that they may wish to use a handheld wireless microphone if they intend to interact with individuals in the audience. The pros put fresh batteries in their equipment for every show for a reason: it’s worth it. Start with fresh batteries for each microphone or transmitter pack. Have a replacement set on hand for every microphone. It can save your meeting from disaster. If your group is in a room with large bare walls, or if you are only taking up half of a large room, consider adding some noise-dampening materials to the walls. Even pipe-and-drape can be effective. Closing off part of a room not only helps the event to feel better attended, it also helps the acoustics of the room and can require a lower gain on the microphones. This reduces noise and the risk of feedback. You can easily avoid the most common sources of feedback. First, performers should remember not to walk in front of a speaker with a live microphone. As a planner, you can help your platform presenters by getting to the venue early and putting down tape to establish a “no mic” zone. Your AV team may be able to tape off some areas in front of the speakers so that there is a visual reminder. Also – if you can’t get the presenter to wear a lapel mic, remind her to hold the microphone within 6 inches of her mouth and speak in a conversational tone. The audio technician will adjust the gain, but if the mic is too far away then the elevated gain makes unpleasant feedback more likely. (You can find more helpful conference audio tips here.)
Reasons To Use a Microphone
Always Use the Microphone Planners, speakers, networkers, on behalf of your audiences and attendees, I beg you: if there is a microphone in the room where your event is happening, use it and make sure everyone else does, too. Plan for it, use it, enforce it, and remember that it’s not just for the others – it’s there for you, too! – Just making a quick announcement? Use the microphone. – Just introducing another speaker? Use the microphone. – Confident you have a loud voice? Use the microphone. – Think it’s inconvenient? Use the microphone. People who are introducing, people who are speaking, people who are transitioning, people who are just making announcements… everyone who is speaking to a group in a professional setting should use a microphone if it is available. Why? Consider the following. Reasons You Should Be Using That Microphone Your job is to make it easy for your audience to get your message. Whether you’re a planner or a speaker, you bear responsibility for communicating your message as effectively as possible. An inability to hear easily, without strain or distortion, is an unnecessary hurdle. Your voice isn’t as loud as you think it is. Many people think their voices are loud and use that as a reason not to use a microphone. A loud voice, though, seems louder to the speaker than it does to the audience. Often, the person who claims “I have a loud voice and don’t need a microphone” is simply making an excuse to cover their fear of using a microphone or of hearing their voice amplified. Even if your voice is loud and you know how to project well, the change in sound makes the presentation disjointed. Good diction and projection are great, but not everyone’s voice has the same volume or timbre. If most people are using the microphone and one person insists on not using it, the drastic change in audio quality is jarring to the audience. Meetings and events run more smoothly. Microphones grant a perceived authority to whomever is using one. The nature of a group is to listen to what is being said on the sound system. This makes a big difference in the dynamics of a meeting, when you may have interruptions or a group discussion that needs to be reined in. You will strain your voice. Unless you are a trained singer, you are likely to strain your voice when trying to sustain the increased volume you need to be heard clearly by even a small group. Most people do not like the feeling of being shouted at or “projected to.” The microphone allows the speaker to maintain an easy, conversational volume and still be heard clearly. Your brand will be perceived negatively by an audience who cannot hear your message. Your personal or organizational brand is not strengthened by an audience experience that includes strain, discomfort, or the intermittent dropping out of the information you’re trying to communicate. Next Blog: Tips on Microphones In our next post we’ll share some helpful tips on the effective use of microphones for planners, speakers, and entertainers.
Costume, Character, and Respect
Costume, Character, and Respect Much has been written on subjects of professional attire, costuming, image, and character. Whether you’re a professional making a business presentation, a performer on a stage, or even a member of a crowd, your choice of attire speaks to the people who see you. Your costume speaks to your audience. What is it saying? Let’s start by allowing the word “costume” to mean not just what we might wear at a masquerade party or in a play, but all the attire we choose to wear in all circumstances. If you are wearing clothing and other people see you, that is a costume and you’re on a stage. Your objectives will vary from stage to stage, from audience to audience, and from costume to costume. Your objectives on your “stage” while getting your tires rotated will be different from your objectives on your “stage” when pitching your business idea to a group of investors. But in both cases, what you’re wearing is your costume for that audience. Costume and Character The first and most important role of costume is to help the audience understand the identity of the character. Before the actor speaks, the audience is judging him based on his shape, movement, and costume. These assumptions will linger and, if incorrect, will become obstacles in that character’s quest to communicate with the audience. Likewise, in our own personal and professional lives, our costume must help our audience understand who we are and what our intentions are. There is a wide spectrum of choices, of course. People making presentations may wish to be seen as authoritative, safe, innovative, trustworthy, or eccentric. People may wish to appear more or less financially successful than they really are, based on their objective or their environment. Performers on a stage may have different or competing objectives. Their director may wish to conceal something about their character for later revelation. A solo act, like a magician, may develop different costumes for different audiences and environments. It’s important to remember, however, that all the choices count whether you intend them to count or not. Whether the choices were made consciously or unconsciously, wisely or unwisely, the audience can and will take your clothing into account as they process your performance, whether you’re pushing a grocery cart at the supermarket or speaking at a TED Talk. Respect for Your Audience, Respect for Yourself Because costumes speak to the audience, we must be careful to ensure that the messages they carry show respect for the audience. Some time ago I attended a show where a performer took the stage with a thoughtful and artistic performance. She was skillful and creative. Her performance, however, was almost completely undermined by her choice of costume. Without going into graphic detail, she was too large and too top-heavy for the clothing she chose. She seemed to want to communicate that her character was mysterious, feminine, and powerful. Instead, she came across as insecure, unaware, and perhaps even a bit deluded. Her failure to recognize that her clothing was not suitable for her performance wasn’t just an indicator of a lack of understanding of her own body, but also a demonstration of a lack of respect for her audience. An audience of people who wanted to love her were uncomfortably awaiting a wardrobe malfunction, wondering if the families with children present were going to make it through the show, and silently rooting not for the performer to be successful, but for the containment to hold everything until the act was concluded. Some may think it insensitive or sexist for me to notice that, since the performer in this example was a woman. The fact of the matter is this: I myself have been the performer on the wrong end of this equation. I gained some weight and insisted on cramming it into my suits. Even though I could see that I was too flabby for my costume, I pretended to myself that I was close enough and that it wouldn’t matter. I have my friend Bob Sheets to thank for taking me aside and telling me, in love and in honesty, that I was diminishing my performance by wearing clothes that were too small for the body I had chosen to put on that stage. I had to respect myself and my audience enough to look at myself honestly, and make decisions about costume and character from that true starting point, not the starting point I used to have. Perhaps we have all been guilty of looking in rose-colored mirrors, but if we want to have an amazing impact on our audiences, we must make choices about costume and character based on reality. Simply put, our audiences should only be asked to suspend their disbelief for our illusions, not for our delusions. There comes a time – or better said, there should come several times – in every performer’s life when he or she takes an honest look at his or her body and assesses it realistically. What we choose to wear is a reflection of our character, our respect for ourselves, and our respect for our audience.
Protecting Your Brand or Industry Image in the Media – Part 2
Protecting Your Brand or Industry Image in the Media, Part 2 More Lessons Learned Last time we discussed some important questions about being ready to join a media conversation when your brand or your industry is under attack or scrutiny. Sometimes that scrutiny is warranted, even if it’s unwelcome. Sometimes it is based on a false assumption but still captures enough media attention to require a response. If the situation arises, then, are you prepared to make your case in a court of public opinion? Note: In the previous article I discussed that while this particular experience is instructive across industries and topics, it does involve some issues of faith and religion. As before, I remind you that my point in sharing this adventure isn’t to proselytize, but rather to share lessons learned that you might be able to apply to your own media involvements. In my first post on this topic, I shared links to the video that sparked another author to write the article that led to my response. [spacer size=”60″] More Tips for Protecting Your Brand Image in the Media After both of our articles appeared online – along with a reporter’s article on the subject – I received a phone call from the producer of the Alan Colmes Radio Show on Fox News Radio asking if I’d come on the air to talk about it. I agreed, making it clear as before that I was more interested in response and conversation than I was in argument or debate. Being familiar with news and talk radio shows and personalities (including Mr. Colmes), I wanted to make sure that we were not going to be pitted against each other. I was not interested in decimating or insulting the other writer, despite the fact that I thought he was completely mistaken. So from the original conversation with the producer, I made it clear that whether we were on together or separately, I was interested in a conversation, not a shouting match. Nevertheless, I took the risk of going on live national radio to make my case with a host whom I knew would be interested in at least some degree of conflict. I discovered in the preliminary talk with the producer that the other interviewee didn’t want to be on at the same time with me. This wasn’t congruent with my original hope of having a “conversation,” but it did avoid the possibility of any unpleasant “debate,” which may have been what he feared. (I was also given the advantage of going second, as my comments were a response to his original column.) It is worth noting, however, that his decision not to participate in a three-way discussion gave me the opportunity to publicly mention my willingness to have appeared together. By positioning myself that way, I was able to establish my point of view as being more open to discussion, and willing to listen to him as an equal. It’s important to stake out the high ground of being obviously fair, open, and reasonable whenever possible. If you listen to the interview, you’ll hear me return to my points often. I’ll start by answering the question in a brief way, but pivot with “But to the point I was making before…” and emphasize my key idea. Even when given the opportunity to plug myself, I took advantage of the moment but immediately pivoted with “Thanks for the opportunity to plug, but that’s not my purpose here…” and went back to my content. I listened to the other person’s interview while I waited on hold. As I did, I made notes about ways that we agreed. He emphasized the idea that we would agree on many things, and I took my opportunities to demonstrate that. I also made notes of words and phrases he used so that I could use them myself but apply them to my own point. As I listened, I also heard his tone change from the original article to the discussion on the radio. It was softened and not as accusatory. I made it clear that I noticed and that I thought that was a good idea. It did not serve whatever common faith-oriented goals we share for me to simply argue or disrespect him, or to cause him to lose face. It also didn’t serve my professional credibility or industry needs to let misconceptions go unanswered. Finding ways to credit the other side on areas of agreement or on areas where there has been a correct shift in position allows us to go for a win/win situation. It strengthens my credibility on the points where we disagree if I am able to point out legitimate areas of agreement. Any appearance on national media, web or broadcast, is worth leveraging. In addition to my social-media sharing as the issue unfolded, there is a lasting value in mining the experience for lessons that can be shared. As business strategist Marna Friedman advised, the lessons learned from going through this not only have interest to other people strictly as a media opportunity, but they contained insights related to the topics on which I speak and write. As a result, I have two blog articles and you have 8 practical tips that you can apply to your own media opportunities in the future. Let me know how your experiences work out! Relevant Links The original article is here. My response is here. Here’s a reporter’s news article. Here’s the original author’s follow-up article. Here’s the Fox News Radio interview: [media url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4THh71LWCs” width=”360″ height=”300″ jwplayer=”controlbar=bottom”]
Protecting Your Brand or Industry Image in the Media – Part 1
Protecting Your Brand or Industry Image in the Media, Part 1 A Brief Case Study, Plus Some Lessons Learned Several weeks ago an online video of a magician doing a levitation stunt in London went viral. After a brief flurry of activity, an opinion piece appeared on a targeted-audience news site in which one of their columnists cast some pretty serious accusations and aspersions on not just that performer, but all magical performers. I wrote an article in response, and somehow we both ended up on national radio. Are you ready to engage in a public conversation that may involve accusations or misconceptions about you, your brand, or your industry? If the national media calls, are you prepared to make your case in a court of public opinion? In this post and the next, I’ll share and discuss the original piece that started the discussion, my response, our subsequent radio interviews, and some of the brand management lessons I learned along the way. One quick note: While this example involves some issues of faith and religion, there are important ideas here for brand management in any arena. I rarely insert my personal beliefs into my writing or speaking, but in this case I think the events are instructive beyond that specific content. So please don’t let your agreement, disagreement or disinterest in the topic dissuade you from the value of this experience. Likewise, let’s keep any comments on this post focused on brand and media management concerns rather than any religious content. Thanks in advance. [spacer size=”60″] Tips for Protecting Your Brand Image in the Media I saw the original video of the levitation. Then, due to maintaining social media connections with a wide range of people in my industry, I saw the critical and misinformed op-ed being shared and discussed. This discussion was, as you would imagine, extremely negative. Comments on the original site became progressively more heated against my industry, while discussion among my industry colleagues became heated against many people of faith whether they agreed with the article or not. A good bit of anger and lack of understanding resulted from the original article, causing unnecessary heartache among people sympathetic to both groups. It also resulted in an exacerbated credibility gap, as the demonstrably false accusations came from a point of view that is already considered largely ignorant by a significant percentage of the industry under attack. As the discussion within my industry continued, I was contacted by a fellow performer who had a connection to the original publication. He felt that I’d be an ideal person to write a rebuttal and contacted me to ask if I’d do it. I said I’d be willing to write a response, but I’d prefer not to frame it as a “rebuttal.” He recommended me to the publication. Even when that publication called and asked me to write the piece, I declined to call it a rebuttal, preferring to eliminate or at least minimize any antagonistic connotations of the word. Instead, I looked for ways to frame my piece as simply “a contribution to the conversation.” Despite that intent, though, my first draft still had some pretty pointed criticism. After submitting the article, the editor of the publication and his staff talked with me by phone. I was asked to consider eliminating part of the article that went very directly at the credibility the publication and of the original author. I was convinced by their argument that I had made my case sufficiently without it, and that their willingness to publish my piece was a testament to their credible intent to present multiple viewpoints. They had and wanted to maintain a long-term relationship with the other writer, and frankly they wanted to protect him to some degree. If I had chosen to be obstinate or to resent input from the editors, my final piece would have had an angrier tone than I really intended. Even though the advice to cut some of it came from a source who was protecting a person whose work I was critiquing, the suggestion was correct. Legitimate, informed criticism – even from a source you don’t necessarily respect – deserves consideration. My response article was improved by my decision to take good advice. What About You? What about you? Have you had media experiences that caught you by surprise because you weren’t paying attention? Have you charged in, guns blazing, with a rebuttal instead of a response? Have you ignored good advice based on its source, and lived to regret it? What did you learn in that situation? Have you put that lesson into action since then? If so, how? In the next post I’ll continue with another 5 lessons I learned in this recent adventure, and I’ll share the audio from the interview. Stay tuned!
Five Kinds of Amazing, Part 2: Science
Five Kinds of Amazing, Part 2: Science In a previous article we outlined the framework of the Five Kinds of Amazing model for understanding what makes an experience “amazing” for an audience. Later, we examined the first category of such experiences, those based on overt demonstrations of talent or deep expertise. Now we’ll turn our attention to the second category of amazing experiences: Science. Amazing experiences in this category are essentially an encounter with the unexpected consequences of a natural law. Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001: A Space Odyssey and other science fiction novels, famously wrote that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” If you think about this statement, you’ll realize that it concisely communicates a few different interesting ideas. People develop expectations about how the world operates based on their most common experiences; these experiences are driven by the prevailing culture and technological environment. There are completely natural laws that, under certain circumstances or in certain combinations, will produce counter-intuitive results. If you can create circumstances or devices that exploit those less-familiar natural laws and frame the results in a desired dramatic context, you can create what appear on the surface to be impossible experiences. That experience will be interpreted as “amazing.” We are surrounded by technology that only a few years ago would have seemed almost supernatural. Think about the first time you had a computer with wi-fi, made a cellular phone call, watched cable television, or played Wii, Nintendo, Atari, or even Pong. These experiences seemed almost magical because you had never experienced those scientific principles in those ways. Outside of digital technology, there are other fundamental scientific phenomena that still seem magical. The moon constantly orbits the earth, but it doesn’t always line up just right to produce an eclipse. When it does, that experience is unexpected – even magical in some cultures – despite being just a natural result of the physical law. Likewise, many of us have been amazed by unusual physics demonstrations such as refracting a laser beam inside a stream of water, spinning on a stool with a bicycle wheel due to the conservation of angular momentum, or the shattering of a banana frozen in liquid nitrogen. Some optical illusions exploit the physiology of our eyes, or the psychology of our attention and perception, in order to produce unusual visual experiences. These experiences are amazing not because any physical laws are being broken, but because they are being applied in unexpected ways and lead to unexpected results. [gn_spacer size=”50″] Process and Brand Engagement So how can we harness the concept of “amazing science” and apply it to our own businesses and brands? When it comes to applying this principle to business and brand engagement, the counterpart to “Science” is “Process.” Your processes are your enterprise’s natural laws, determining how and when things happen. Your action and reaction are determined by your business processes, whether they are documented or not. Look at the processes in your business. How are sales made? How are orders taken? How are invoices sent? How do you communicate with your customers and your employees? Which process in your business do your customers experience the most? Which process do you get complaints about? Look inside that process for a way to hide an unexpected moment or reward, like an “Easter egg” in a piece of software. Maybe every customer will experience it, or maybe only some of them will. But every process of your business is an opportunity to deliver an unexpected outcome to the audience, and if you want to be amazing in their eyes then you have to take advantage of at least some of those opportunities. How do your processes lead to unexpectedly delightful experiences for your audience?
4 Guidelines for Maximizing Attention and Retention at Meetings
4 Guidelines for Maximizing Attention and Retention at Meetings Okay, I’ll be the one to say it. If you want your meetings to be as effective, engaging, and memorable as they can be, then yes, there should be elements of creativity and fun in the mix! Whether you’re a corporation, association, or even a government agency, your meetings have a return on investment – derived from both attention to and retention of the content. That return will ultimately be greater if you give your attendees a combination of tension and release in their experience. That tension and release may include a segment or two which are lighter on pure content than the other segments, but those kinds of segments can actually increase the overall impact of meetings. Relevant Fun Has Real Value We’ve all seen the news. We know that the degree of scrutiny applied to meetings, events, and conferences – especially when funded with taxpayer dollars – seems to be at an all-time high. Last year brought plenty of controversy surrounding conferences by the GSA and the NOAA. Since then, the IRS has come under fire for a number of comedy videos produced for and shown at training events and conferences. Some outside speakers who were hired to speak at those meetings are also being criticized on the basis of their content or fees (often by commentators who have not researched the question of whether fair value was actually delivered). How can we make sure we are using creative segments effectively and maximizing our audience’s attention and retention? Here are four useful guidelines. 4 Guidelines for Maximizing Attention and Retention at Meetings Chunk the content. No, not out the window – into segments! Include breaks for the mind as well as for the body. People engage more, learn more, and retain more when they are given the breaks they need to process information most effectively. A coffee break between morning sessions is good, but an outside speaker or entertainment segment that can build on the underlying concept in a unique way could be even better. Every other form of storytelling – film, theatre, television, etc. – makes use of rising and falling tension in order to bring intensity to the key content. Your graphic designer will tell you that white space matters. In the same way, your conference days can and should be intense and focused on objectives, but pummeling an audience with heavy content for hours will not result in increased retention. In fact, it reduces the ability to remember what happened at all – and that’s certainly not good for ROI. Link creative segments to clear objectives. Give creativity a chance to flourish with outside speakers and activities, but be prepared to link them to objectives. Check out my article on “Culture Building versus Teambuilding” for a framework that you can use to understand and explain how different activities and speakers are supporting your organizational objectives. Sure, some team-building and culture-building experiences can be trivial, but some are effective and meaningful. Meet with providers by phone, video conference, or in person to discuss your meeting’s real business objectives. Do they have credible tie-ins to support your objectives? Compose the snapshots yourself. At the risk of using campaign terminology, just remember that optics matter, whether it’s fair or not. Who’s standing on the platform matters, as does their billing in the agenda, the content of their bio, the look of their promo, and what they’re wearing on the stage. You have to ask yourself, “What will this picture look like on Facebook?” Here’s a hint: Advise attendees that you are taking professional photographs (hire a photographer!) and that you’ll be sharing them on your event page, Facebook page, or other online gallery for them to download. Take the initiative to provide the photos, and you simultaneously gain the ability to control which images from your event are in widest circulation. Go deeper than a meeting theme: Create a meeting narrative. We’re in a new day, and you need more than a theme whose only purpose is to explain your decorations. You need more than a catchy phrase to put on the welcome sign in the lobby and on the cover of the program. You need a narrative. You need to tell your attendees – before, during and after the meeting – how to describe the experience. And like an effective speaker uses cues during a presentation to help the audience understand the roadmap of the presentation, your meeting needs to be structured so that every attendee can describe the roadmap of that conference. Your opening session each day should lay out the overarching objective of that part of the journey, and your closing message should reinforce to attendees their success in getting to that spot. The story of the conference has to be told in every communication, from registration to post-conference follow-up. In Conclusion… With carefully spaced content, creative but relevant segments, careful attention to the visuals, and a narrative that your attendees can understand and communicate, you give your attendees a framework on which to build their meeting experience day-by-day. That’s an immediate benefit for comprehension and retention. Another lasting benefit, though, is that you make it easier for them to retain and articulate that experience and its value long after the meeting is over.
When Scrutiny Becomes Prejudice
When Scrutiny Becomes Prejudice Recently I heard a local radio personality – a man with whom I usually agree – engage in such intense scrutiny of a news story that his objectivity audibly turned into prejudice. He discussed wasteful, extravagant government spending and pointed to numerous government conferences as the source of some of his disgust. Frankly, I was with him up to that point. But then he and a reporter went down a cherry-picked list of expenditures, giving short descriptions of conference sessions and the price tags associated with them. “Four 90-minute sessions on crisis leadership” – followed by a fee. Some other sessions with more creative, even fun titles were subsequently laughed “at,” not laughed “with.” Neither man managed to ask what is obviously the critical question: Was the value of the session worth the cost? Don’t Judge a Fee by Its Label A number in the tens of thousands for a handful of breakout sessions at a conference may sound like a lot of money for a few hours in a training room, but the broadcast mock-fest completely ignored the amount of preparation and expertise that goes into creating, developing, researching, and preparing solid content and skilled delivery. There is a lot of time, effort, education, expertise, and experience that goes into that number… hours, months, and years that far surpass the mere minutes on-the-ground in that training room, on the platform, or on the stage. [pullquote align=”right”]”Nobody asked him what his hourly rate would be today if divided into the fifteen hours per week he spends on the air. But if he were being attacked in that way, he would rightly object…”[/pullquote]It is interesting to note that nobody asked that radio host what his salary was. Nobody asked him what his salary was when he was a CEO. Nobody asked him what his hourly rate would be today if divided into the fifteen hours per week he spends on the air. But if he were being attacked in that way, he would rightly object to the positioning of his work as taking only that many hours per week. He would argue that there’s a lot more work going on than what you hear behind the microphone. He’d argue that the reason he’s there at all is because of the cumulative value of his experiences in his life, as a corporate leader, political figure, and radio host. He would argue, in short, that he’s worth it. So would every caller who phoned in to join the angry refrain. Without any facts to the contrary, I wouldn’t begin to dispute the work value of any of those callers, or the value of that host as a radio host or as a CEO. In fact, I am a supporter of free market, no-limits salaries for a corporate leader or anyone else who has great vision, great skills, and who brings great results. And no matter who is paying for that value, if the value is earned then it shouldn’t be mocked. If the value isn’t earned, it should be stopped. But the transaction should not be prejudged and ridiculed without even attempting to understand the value exchanged. That is absurd. [pullquote]”A transaction should not be prejudged and ridiculed without even attempting to understand the value exchanged.”[/pullquote] This radio host – and others belittling the value of live speakers and trainers at live conferences – should pause and give those professionals the opportunity to make the same case they would make if their own compensation were put under a microscope for the world to see. Are you worth your keep? Frankly, we speakers and entertainers ARE worth it, or at least some of us are. We certainly ought to be evaluated and held to high standards, but our value should not be dismissed or mocked because of a creative session or program title in a 24-character field on a spreadsheet somewhere. High Fees for High Value are not Wasteful Let’s be clear. Nobody thinks excessive or wasteful spending is a good idea, particularly when you are dealing with public funds. There should rightly be a higher standard when the taxpayers’ money is being spent, and those expenses should never, ever be treated lightly or frivolously. (In all candor, it’s an unfortunate double standard that the intense scrutiny used to evaluate spending of thousands or tens-of-thousands in these cases is not applied to the spending of billions and hundreds-of-billions in other cases, but that is a discussion for another place.) So let’s accept the shared understanding that wasteful spending is bad. With that as a starting point, I offer this challenge to my colleagues and peers: [pullquote align=”right”]”We need to stand ready to push back when unfair preconceptions of our value are thrust into the public debate.”[/pullquote]Fellow meeting industry professionals – planners, vendors, speakers, performers, hoteliers, and others – we need to stand ready to push back when unfair preconceptions of our value are thrust into the public debate. We should prepare beforehand to be pleasant, well-informed, and steadfast advocates for the value we deliver. There is no reason not to stand in defense of the creative or even unorthodox elements of our meetings that may be fun, social, entertaining, or otherwise non-technical, armed with the knowledge that such segments, used effectively, add real value. Whether paid with private or public funds, a truly high value merits a high fee. Will there be arguments or debates about the value? Sure. But let’s not start with the assumption that any entrepreneur who comes up with an engaging title or structure for his or her presentation is automatically suspect simply because there were four, five, or six digits on the check they received. You cannot fairly label that fee as unreasonable unless you have given their content a fair evaluation, and that didn’t happen in 5 minutes on a radio show. Speakers and entertainers, are you prepared to justify your value? Planners, are you organizing your conference so that you
Five Kinds of Amazing, Part 1: Talent
Five Kinds of Amazing, Part 1: Talent Last time, we discussed the “Five Kinds of Amazing” model for increasing brand engagement. This week, we examine the first category in more detail. Further, we will begin to tie those experiences to business competencies. Within the genre of theatrical magic, there exists a branch of performance related to the open display of skill and dexterity. This style of magic performance is called “manipulation.” (In the magical world that word carries none of the negative connotations sometimes associated with the term in other settings.) Some performers become legends because of their manipulation acts. One such performer was Richard Pitchford, who performed as Cardini. His skill with playing cards, making them appear and disappear even while wearing gloves, made him a figure so revered that his name still tops any list of skillful magicians of the past century. The open display of talent is a fundamental category of amazing performance experiences. We are impressed and astonished when we see an individual perform at a high level, whether they are manipulating magic props, dancing en pointe, or breaking a world record at the Olympics. Jaw-dropping demonstrations of honed talent engage attention, exceed expectations, and may even defy explanation beyond some recognition of the years it took to perfect the skill. Nothing supernatural had to happen to create the astonishment; it was just the experience of seeing someone perform and achieve at a high level. That is the first kind of “amazing.” When it comes to creating an amazing experience for a brand’s audience, the parallel experience to “Talent” is “Expertise.” Amazing brands consistently demonstrate and share a high degree of specialized knowledge. Whether through blogging, social media, traditional marketing, or public relations, amazing brands consistently share interesting, unusual, or practical information. This information usually indicates such a depth of knowledge and command of history in their field that they are instantly positioned as the experts. An interesting facet of this parallel relationships lies in the speed with which expertise is demonstrated. A novelty act on stage knows that he has to come out strong and nail them early in the performance with something that proves not just competence, but mastery. Likewise, the sooner a brand demonstrates mastery when they encounter a new audience, the better positioned they are to establish and defend their claim to “amazing” in that audience’s mind. Talent. Expertise. Have a great opener and differentiate yourself from the rest in the way that you share expert knowledge.
Five Kinds of Amazing – The Framework
Five Kinds of Amazing – The Framework “Five Kinds of Amazing” is a useful model for understanding, evaluating, and increasing audience engagement, typically as it relates to retail or corporate brands and their associated audiences. It has relevance not just for marketing professionals and brand managers, but also for event producers, team or organization leaders, and even individuals. If you make decisions that ultimately have an audience that you’d like to influence and amaze, then this concept can be useful for you. If you’ve heard me speak in the past year, you’ve probably heard me give a version of this presentation. In the next few weeks, I’ll be giving you a thumbnail sketch of each of the concepts. I’m also openly asking for your stories and contributions, as they will be part of the accompanying book that I’m currently writing. For today, though, I’d like to give you a brief overview of the model. This is a map for where this blog will go in the next few weeks. “Five Kinds of Amazing” begins with an analysis of the theatrical magical experience. Magicians and mentalists perform a wide range of entertaining illusions, from making things appear or disappear to apparent feats of mindreading. These experiences share the characteristic of being “impossible,” but they are different in terms of effect; that is, they are different in the characteristics of what rules are being broken or what normal constraints are being overcome. The various “flavors” of impossible experiences have been systematized in many ways over the years. Some magical writers have taken it to truly impressive degrees of granularity, describing dozens of different effects. I have divided the experiences into five broad categories: five kinds of amazing. Talent – Relating to the overt demonstration of exceptional or highly-developed skill. Feats of amazing dexterity fall into this category, along with demonstrations of juggling or complicated magical flourishes. Outside of magic, many other fields fall into this category including performing arts, sports, and many crafts. Science – Relating to an unexpected consequence of a natural law. Some magic tricks work because natural physical laws sometimes lead to unusual results. Creators such as Martin Gardner and Stewart James are well known to magicians for their insights that fall into this category. Optical illusions, science demonstrations, and unusual natural events such as eclipses would also fall here. Mystery – Relating to the apparent contradiction of a natural law. Most traditional magic falls here – people are cut in half and put back together, or birds appear from nowhere. Even a signed card vanishing and reappearing in a wallet fits here. This is an enormous category but the characteristic of all the effects is that physics is being visibly contradicted. Contact – Relating to apparent mental interaction or influence. Mentalism consists in large part of the apparent ability to read minds. This category involves all apparent thought-reading or thought-sharing, including tricks relating to contacting spirits. Essentially, if there are two minds involved then the effect belongs in this category. Hypersight – Relating to apparent knowledge at a distance, either physically or temporally. I’ve used an unusual term to describe a combination of clairvoyant effects (i.e., seeing something at a great physical distance) and precognition effects (i.e., seeing something that happens in the future). This category includes effects that involve a single mind – a “receiver” only, not a “sender” – and a separation of either distance or time. As we explore these concepts, I’ll explain how each of these concepts can be applied to the decisions you make relating to your own brand and your own audience. Stay tuned!
