Archive for June, 2007

Loving the LeFevers of CommonCraft. Newest Video: Social Networking in Plain English.

Watch these for 3 reasons:

• Can you present more like this? Short, direct, clear, attractive but simple. They tell a story, you learn. Everything you see has a purpose. Everything you hear is straightforward. They illustrate and anchor new concepts (social networking) with VERY familiar ones (post office, electricity, maps).

• You need to understand social media stuff. So do your friends, co-workers and your boss. (Tell them.)

• I want you to free yourself using constraints. Read all about it.

“The essence of the Paperworks format is simplicity - bringing down the bar of technology and presentation to it’s most basic level. By doing away with fancy graphic and soundtrack options, we can make room to think more deeply about the idea and concept that will convey the message in the simplest way we can.” (my emphasis)

“You might think that having constraints is limiting, but I think the opposite. Constraints are liberating. By narrowing the scope of possibilities down to only a few ways to present ideas, we can eliminate needless decision making and complexity…

Examples: We only use certain materials (paper, whiteboard, markers, string), we won’t make a video over 4 minutes long, we only use our hands to tell the story and we don’t use any external music (just humming, snaps, claps, etc.).

Materials: By limiting ourselves to paper, markers and a whiteboard, we don’t have to think about all the things we *could* do with flash animation, 3D, focus, perspective and the like. Our materials, while limited, keep us lightweight and simple. (ed: think PPT animations, transitions, colors, patterns, fonts, etc.)

Time: By limiting the video’s possible length to 4 minutes, we limit ourselves to major points. We don’t sweat the small stuff.

The Lesson: The lesson is that constraints work to limit the number and depth of decisions we have to make. By eliminating the decisions about technology, presentation, music, etc. we have time to focus on the core of what makes Paperworks work: the ideas.”

Watch their other videos too.

Wikis in Plain English:

RSS in Plain English

Chris Brogan’s Summer of Projects kicks off with the 100 Comments ebook project. Mojo 4 Video led as the first topic (thanks for picking my idea, Chris). I asked:

Why does some video content grab viewers by the throat, compel them to watch and then suck their mouse towards the bookmark/email/blog about link?

How do we get us some of that mojo for our productions?

Here’s my answer:

I am a total outsider to vlogging. I’m bearish about it, I don’t subscribe to any, I don’t have much interest in watching them. But, I can see where in the right hands, they could catch on. The whys and the audience questions fascinate me.

I think degree of fit with/use of the medium is a significant chunk of what makes the experience suck/not suck for the audience… In no particular order…

• STUDY FILM/TV: Successful vloggers will have come to understand at least some film/TV production history/theory, if only to break the “rules.” Whether they’re native talents or they took time to learn, it’s going to help. Just ‘cuz vlogging’s new, and arguably the film/vid establishment doesn’t “get” it, doesn’t mean there are a hell of a lot of things the establishment DOES get that vloggers NEED TO — a whole raft of qualities that make video watchable. Video can be so completely compelling and addictive. But, the majority of it is not. At all.
• FITTING THE MEDIUM, 1: you don’t need video to:
  • understand that someone is talking
  • digest a lot of information and new concepts with no visual aids
  • experience music
• FITTING THE MEDIUM, 2: you DO need video to:
  • even conceive of what really happens when mentos hit diet coke.
  • be astonished that someone is walking through the mall/driving down the 101/being interviewed during a commute/etc. WHILE videotaping (and in some cases) broadcasting live via the internet
  • see that Millie truly cannot open it
  • understand the context, see what the subject is seeing
  • (sadly) see that the chick is hot (tho remember there is a lot of radio talent whose stock in trade is perceived sexiness even though they can’t be seen and in many cases are not hot)
  • laugh at what the cat/dog/kid just did
  • have an emotional response to color/shape/form/movement/scenery
  • construct the absurd/make certain humor work. seen the LOLCATS podcast? (the LOLCAST?). the script, written out as text, wouldn’t have been funny at all. audio of the dialog would’ve been cute, but… the actual scenario — people speaking in LOLCAT in an “actual” restaurant in an “actual” situation was frigging hilarious.

And some “applications” of what fitting the medium means:

• Baseball actually kind of sucks on TV — just not that much happening most of the time. Even though the video gives you more than just the “call,” and you can’t replace the thrill and tension of waiting to see if it leaves the park, a well-called game is pretty darn good listening. It can actually draw in ALL of my attention much more sometimes than a game on TV can. Sure, there are huge benefits to watching the big plays, but you really have to be a fan to get excited about the visual aspect of every single pitch.
• Learn from YouTube hits, but also, before YouTube there was Wayne’s World. There’s actually a lot — good and bad — to be learned from public access TV. They tape those damned town meetings and who the f___ cares? Put a camera in someone’s hand and go to the part of town where the development is proposed and show me how it looks now, then cut to the artist’s rendering. That’s more productive digital democracy.
• A videocamera in the finest concert hall with the best orchestra playing an incredible symphony pretty much blows. Fantasia does not. Why?
  

Whether the goal is entertainment, digital democracy, professional development, adult education, hacks and tips to just make life better; better storytelling makes a more effective experience for the audience (or the people formerly known as the audience)

Really, it’s a lot of what presenters struggle with. A lot of what is hated about PowerPoint is the bigger/more general problem of poor use of any given medium. (OK, that and scant or misguided preparation.)

…

Hop on over to the Grasshopper Factory and weigh in with your ideas!

Pardon the (sort of) detour here, but Chris Brogan threw down this weekend with a compelling idea (actually, several). Pose a question to his network, and by extension our collective networks, and pull the 100 best answers into an e-book on the topic. Although launched on a Saturday morning, as of early afternoon Monday the project already had 58 comments.

I’m blogging about all this for two reasons. One, to play along. I think it’s a great idea and would love for some of you to jump in here or there with your comments.

Two is because a lot of the things that make video great can also make presenting great. In particular, using specific media for their highest and best uses. (Text outlines do not necessarily need to be visuals, complex descriptions can often be shorthanded by a good diagram, etc.). In fact, a lot of my answers to my own question (actually I had thrown the answers around in an earlier “compversation” and Chris asked me to come up with a question or two to drive them) were written with presentations in mind.

My question/s were:

Why does some video content grab viewers by the throat, compel them to watch
and then suck their mouse towards the bookmark/email/blog about link?

How do we get us some of that mojo for our productions?

I like the Summer of Projects meme — one part crowd-sourcing, one part activating your network and an immeasurable mix of collective wisdom, fun and social media (aka 2.0 style) collaboration.

Oh, and no, I haven’t posted my answers yet. (Sorry Chris!) Hoping to get them cleaned up for posting tonight. Will post here and in Chris’ comments.

I’m going back to school and I couldn’t be more psyched.

Here in Boston, the Improv Asylum offers 6 levels of training in Improv. Why not join me and sign up for the next round of classes starting in July? Yeah it’ll be fun, but I’m also “in it” to keep getting better at what I do. Want to increase confidence, think on your feet, read your audience and fellow “presenters” better and of course, practice, practice, practice?

I heartily recommend acting classes, Toastmasters, improv, karaoke (especially if you can’t sing) and any public speaking op you can get, no matter how good you already are. Read all the good ideas you want, to get substantially better you need practice, training and coaching. Penelope Trunk blogs today about the excellent speaker training she just took at TAI Resources. John Wesley of Pick the Brain talks about “brain plasticity” research that monks can literally re-wire their brains through ongoing meditation practice. There is measurably different brain performance between the novice who has “learned” mindfulness but hasn’t done a lot of it and monk who has practiced for years.

Sharpen that axe, baby.

Rick Segal spotted this gem by Stanley Bing.

Marc Andressen continues to thwack it out of the park with a few more thought-provoking entries on VC:

The PMarca Guide to Startups, part I: Why NOT to do a startup

Navigating an asteroid field is evidently quite tricky.

But seriously, you have to be ok with the overwhelming likelihood of failure. Not because anyone’s mean or against you. Not because it can’t be done. But because the odds are (again) overwhelmingly against you. If you know that and it’s still crucial to go for it, have at it.

For all the successful tech companies that made bazillions, there are bazillions who made nothing. Call it the long tail of startup failure. It happens everywhere: professional sports (sure Pedro makes ga-millions, but ga-millions of players never even make the minors), real estate investing (don’t get me started about “experts” who make all their money teaching others. If real estate’s so easy, why not teach others for a small cut of what they earn, instead of cash upfront? Some will make a lot, many will make nothing or lose money), network marketing, etc. etc. etc.

I ‘m not saying don’t try, I’m saying don’t be a dumbass naive about what you try to do.

The PMarca Guide to Startups, part II: When the VCs say “no”

ROTFL:

Being told “no” by VCs in 1999 is a lot different than being told “no” in 2002.

If you were told “no” in 1999, I’m sure you’re a wonderful person and you have huge potential and your mother loves you very much, but your plan really was seriously flawed.

If the layers of an onion are the layers of risk for your newco:

The whole theory of venture capital is that VCs are investing in risk — another term for venture capital is “risk capital” — but the reality is that VCs will only take on so much risk, and the best thing you can do to optimize your chances of raising money is to take out risk.

Peel away at the onion.

It can be difficult. It can sting. It can even make you cry.

Bonus: Also funny (from a link embedded in PMarca Part I)

Instant classic. Garr distills out two essential questions every presenter must be able to answer.

He connects Marty Neumeir’s Brand Gap work to presentations through one of my pet concepts:

We can, more or less, read about what you do and who you are, but why it matters? Why we should care? That’s going to take persuasion, emotion, and empathy. Empathy in the sense that the presenter understands that not everyone will see what to him is obvious or that others may understand well but not see why it should matter to them.

The contribution bit calls on Benjamin Zander. Your business objective and your message together must equal your “contribution.” Nerves and “hard questions” won’t rattle you if you’re strong and clear about your contribution. Know it and you can be more profound, present and confident.

But look, you’re busy, just go read the post.

[ooops. ed. note: I wrote this while cleaning out my drafts folder. Only when I looked up the trackback URL did I notice I had already blogged about it. Pretty sad, huh? But what the hell, it's THAT good. "Read it, Sam."]

Oldie but a goodie. Thanks Scott Monty for the reminder that this has been eating a hole in my “blog about” bookmarks file!!!

These are some really good presentation tips from Doug Lawrence at Guy Kawasaki’s blog. Really good. If you adopt and use any of them, sweet.

But…

Don’t knock yourself out trying to do it all at once. Don’t get lost in the cool tricks. John’s right about too much noise hindering your game. Every one of us can make giant improvements by sticking to the basics. Know your audience, know what you need to achieve, build a message that works with (and for) both.

I tell clients “ums” are no big deal. Get hung up on eliminating them and the first one you utter can blow your game. Same goes for any rule.

I’m not dissing the advice. I especially like the one about ‘performing’ for a hero, because damn straight, you will prepare like you never have before. My point is never get too lost in “the rules” (yes, even mine) to present like the star you are.

No matter how much strategic duct tape, smile-lubricating tooth vaseline or, gasp, (if Miss Confidentiality is to be believed) eye wrinkle removing hemorrhoid ointment is put to use, a person lacking personality, character, talent or beauty won’t win a pageant. Tips and tricks can help, but don’t let them distract and annoy, and NEVER rely on them to make a lame presentation better.

I just said “impact,” I didn’t say it had to be a good impact or a pleasant one. This zoomable infographic-cum-poster makes it pretty clear how much net dough is going to what programs and where.

These ain’t presentation-friendly visuals, folks, but it’s astounding what you can glean from “30,000 feet” without zooming in.

And when you do drill down, there’s no mistaking the relative sizes of various budget items. Definitely high impact. Something for everyone here.
Death and Taxes: 2008

Ever Zen, Garr gives us When there is no quiet, there can be no loud

When I talk about the 3 Vs, (accurately) it’s about using each “V” (Visual, Vocal and Verbal) well. Your voice has 4 basic qualities: pitch, volume, tone and speed. Shift each to emphasize important points and maintain attention.

Most of the time, you default to one comfortable place on each of these four scales. For impact, shift each characteristic to a different level, kind of how you would adjust a graphic equalizer. Are you high pitched? Swing low. Loud? Go soft. Excited? Spring your “ah-ha” point with flat calm. Fast? Slow it down when they really have to listen.

For rapt attention:
Pitch: Drop to much lower voice
Volume: Pull it back to a stage whisper
Speed: Slow way down
Tone: Judicious use of a “sad” tone of voice pulls focus in the midst of excitement
Or, just shut up completely. Count to at least 5 in your head.

On some level, your audience wants to “succeed” at listening to you. Human nature responds to vocal shifts by thinking “why?” Shifts signal change and trigger interest in following along. Dead silence is brilliant. Few can resist wondering “what did I miss?” and looking up. (And you felt compelled to say ummm instead of silence!)

Shifts are the “italics, boldface or underline” of your speaking voice. These tools organize writing as headings, emphasis, etc. Vocal shifts help organize your presentation. Oh, and just like highlighting, overuse renders them meaningless.