Public speaking is easy …

... but actual oral COMMUNICATION requires a level of precision that many speakers (and some speechwriters) simply cannot meet.

The oldest canard in public speaking is that people fear it more than death. But nobody ever put โ€œjumpy about the big speech tomorrowโ€ in a suicide note.

But people do fear giving speeches. 

They shouldnโ€™t. You know why? Because speech audiences are the easiest people in the world to talk to. Speech audiences are like dumb, friendly drunksโ€”and the bigger the audience, the dumber, the more friendly, the more drunk.

Audiences are less intellectual than individuals, and more emotional. Less self-involved and more empathetic. Even if itโ€™s a business speech, they donโ€™t have their work brains on; theyโ€™ve got their church brains. Theyโ€™re not parsing every statement logically, and you have to put a real clunker out there to wrinkle the studiously guileless brow of a member of a large audience. Remember this guy, who effortlessly convinced his large audience that his childhood dreaming on a log on a hillside overlooking San Francisco resulted in a real-estate giantโ€™s new corporate mission?

An audience member will laugh at something sheโ€™d only smile at in conversation, and guffaw at something she would laugh at. With the exception of flinty Australians, I find that audiences cry at card tricks. (And Canadians cry at the sight of the deck.)

Speaking coaches often encourage speakers by telling them โ€œthe audience wants you to succeed.โ€ Oh no, the feeling is far stronger than that. The audience is at least as terrified that you wonโ€™t succeed, as you are. The audience is unable to fathom all these people coming all this way only to have the speaker shit the podium. They would rather see an actual car accident. (Luckily, such Hindenburgian hellfires donโ€™t happen often. But when they do, they get 1.7 million views.)

All of the above is truer, the bigger the audience. Once I was asked to give a speech to a dozen speechwriters at the United Nations. A couple weeks before the event, the organizers told me the audience would include some other communication staffers, and be more like 25. Fine. Then word spread and the number went up to 60. Then 100. Eventually, about 350 peopleโ€”pretty much every single staffer who had ever contributed a syllable or a fact-check to a speech at the United Nationsโ€”filled a huge auditorium that looked like the General Assembly itself. It was awesome, and the talk went over big. 

Conversely, I have given talks that were warmly received by 100 people that classes of 15 regarded a bit skeptically. 

Thatโ€™s because the bigger the audience, the more emotional, communalโ€”and the less intellectual, individualโ€”the collective mentality. Thatโ€™s why itโ€™s common to hear someone say they heard a great speech, then ask what it was about and have the person fail to remember much about it at all. (Whereas, thatโ€™d be an odd report on a small gathering, or a one-on-one conversation. โ€œI donโ€™t remember much of what Nancy told me, but boy, was she great!โ€)

People arenโ€™t listening and thinking when theyโ€™re in a big audience. Writing speeches for them isnโ€™t just โ€œwriting for the ear,โ€ as speechwriters have long been taught. Itโ€™s writingโ€”no matter how hifalutin the audienceโ€”primarily for the heart

That doesnโ€™t mean dumbing the talk down. Individual audiences have individual tastes, and if they value rigor, they know what rigor is supposed to sound like and they want to hear it and they will object to its absence. But itโ€™s the sound they want to hear, rather than the content itself. H.L. Mencken famously criticized the speeches of President Warren Harding because he said they were written for โ€œan audience of small-town yokels, of low political serfs, or morons โ€ฆ wholly unable to pursue a logical idea for more than two centimeters.โ€

Such imbeciles do not want ideasโ€”that is, new ideas, ideas that are unfamiliar, ideas that challenge their attention. What they want is simply a gaudy series of platitudes, of sonorous nonsense driven home with gestures. As I say, they canโ€™t understand many words of more than two syllables, but that is not saying that they do not esteem such words. On the contrary, they like them and demand them. The roll of incomprehensible polysyllables enchants them. They like phrases which thunder like salvos of artillery. Let that thunder sound, and they take all the rest on trust. If a sentence begins furiously and then peters out into fatuity, they are still satisfied. If a phrase has a punch in it, they do not ask that it also have a meaning. If a word slips off the tongue like a ship going down the ways, they are content and applaud it and wait for the next.

Beneath the bombast, Mencken has a pointโ€”not just about yokels and morons, but about all audiences, and how they listen to speeches, no matter how tightly and sincerely those speeches are written. They hear speeches more like music than like words. Theyโ€™re too busy to take in complex new ideas: Theyโ€™re seeing, theyโ€™re feeling, theyโ€™re seeing what theyโ€™re feeling. And all things being equal, theyโ€™re as likely to remember the aroma of the chicken salad being brought in for lunch, as to recall the thesis of the speech.

Speechwriter and speaker, donโ€™t take this to mean you shouldnโ€™t be create a speech with intellectual integrity. And certainly donโ€™t take it as permission to not get the words exactly right.

Who is dumber or drunker than an audience at a comedy club? That does not mean comics can afford to be sloppy with their language. No, itโ€™s where they go to sharpen their act, down to the syllable.

On the new HBO documentary, George Carlinโ€™s American Dream, Jerry Seinfeld tells what fascinated him about Carlin when he was young: โ€œI wanted to be just like him, getting every word in the right spot. Because when he did it, it thrilled me, you know? And I wanted to do that. I wanted that skill. And Iโ€™ve spent my life pursuing it.โ€

And Seinfeld once explained how precisely he went about writing a joke, and if you havenโ€™t seen it, you should. You think your work is exacting? Seinfeld took two years to write a โ€œsimple jokeโ€ about the invention of the Pop-Tart.

To have a chance at having a specific effect on an audience, the words have to be precisely written and delivered in order and rhythm. I donโ€™t care how you do thatโ€”a well-rehearsed script is probably the most realistic way to do so in the hurly-burly of corporate or political lifeโ€”but thatโ€™s what must be done.

The speakerโ€™s request, โ€œjust give me some bullets,โ€ usually translates to, โ€œIโ€™m just going there to show my face. This talk isnโ€™t going to make a difference one way or another.โ€ And the speakerโ€™s refusal to ever present precisely? That usually means the speaker doesnโ€™t believe what she or he says will ever make a difference one way or another.

But to make a difference with a presentation, a speechwriter must recognize that no one actually invited the speaker to teach the audience something truly new (any more than people go to a Springsteen concert hoping to hear the new stuff). A much more likely motive was to have the audience reminded of something oldโ€”and to have the spiritually bolstering experience of being reminded of that thing collectively, as a community.

And quite certainly, nobody came here hoping to have their mind changed. They came hoping to have their values reinforced, their courage bolstered, their love for their fellow human beings restored.

Whatever else you want to do in a speechโ€”get people to consider a novel point of view, to stop doing something theyโ€™ve been doing or to take a new action or buy a thing you are sellingโ€”you have to do all that other groundwork first.

Itโ€™s not speakers who should be nervous.

Itโ€™s their speechwriters.

Leave a Reply

Download Whitepaper

Thank you for your interest. Please enter your email address to view the report.