You're never alone with a microphone

We've all had microphone gaffs in the performing world. I remember forgetting to switch off my radio mic during a show, and after my scene nipping down to order a drink in the bar.... which the audience all heard. Mercifully this didn't lose me an election, although I had a serious note from the director! I have never made that mistake again.

What surprises me about Gordon Brown's mic-gaff is that he is highly trained to use microphones; deal with the public and well, be a politician complete with two faces. GB does find it challenging to meet 'real people' and in the case of Mrs Duffy, she was an articulate, passionate lady who had supported the Labour Party for many years. She had also participated in a number of Party campaigns. She was controlled and had a right to voice her opinion and concerns. By all accounts, the discussion was conducted well and GB didn't leave it with his image dented.

However, leaving your mic on when you get in a car to be incredibly rude about a member of the general public: someone who could vote for you is unacceptable. The fact he'd slimed up to her - even discussing the colour of her blouse, then be personal is dreadful. Yes; when you are in the privacy of your home or car, you do let off steam. But this wasn't a challenging 'confrontation'. GB was also looking for someone to blame in his team. By leaving his mic on GB revealed more about himself; how he viewed his team AND the general public than any staged debate or Number 10 leaks.

GB is an experienced media animal. He has aides and 'experts' to advise him on every facet of his media image. He will certainly have had media training - which includes using a microphone. One of the rules is, never say anything until the mic is switched off. In fact another rule is: don't say anything of a private nature until you are in the privacy of your home, when you KNOW there are no mics around. Duh!

For expert training and a masterclass in connecting with clients, customers and colleagues "Speak, Connect, Engage" is on 7th July Click here for more details I recommend GB attends.

Election TV Debate: they all learnt from Nick's performance

After the first TV debate last week, there was increased hype as to how the main protagonists were going to fare under the spotlight. Despite walking the talk, David Cameron had been poorly advised by his team and underperformed in the first debate; Gordon Brown had adopted the 'Father of the Nation' role: to limited success. So it was left to Nick Clegg to schmooze, flirt, engage viewers and win the pollsters vote - for now...

Well: both GB and DC adopted NC's style of looking into the camera and addressing the audience. I still can't understand why they didn't do this last time, but they had to listen to their advisors.... Everyone was on the attack and this led to a more animated debate with some interesting discussions. We all like a good verbal scrap. I should mention that Adam Boulton was an effective chairman, who managed GB better and let the other two leaders have their say more easily.

I am focusing on the verbal impact and the performance side of the debate; how the three men came across; how they engaged and some possible changes that need to be made for the last debate.

Nick Clegg: The golden boy of the first debate was still basking on the success of his first performance. The knives were out for him; he'd had a smear campaign in the press and his policies had been questioned. He was attacked by both DC and GB, but maintained a relaxed composure, with the Mr Sad face not making too many appearances. However, I was concerned about the quality of his voice. The impact he made would have been significantly less on the radio. From the start he had a 'tight' throat, resulting in a less than resonant voice. His nerves showed in his voice and it lacked authority, confidence and trustworthiness. Given that his physical appearance was still good; he engaged well on the TV screen and with the audience (although he wasn't calling people by name) and his posture was good, this impacted less on the screen than on the radio, where listeners couldn't read his body language. I have mentioned the vocal relaxation exercises on the website, but do give me a call Nick if you want some specific one's for your problem. This needs to be addressed by next week.

David Cameron: I had been very disappointed for DC last week as he under performed. This week he was so much better, and presumably his original advisors are now having a prolonged stay in Siberia. DC looked into the TV camera; his posture was much better: I even saw him putting weight on the front foot (yeah!); he looked confident, commanding and no longer intimidated and annoyed by GB. Vocally, his voice was far stronger and he was able to maintain a lower pitch: thus avoiding the slight 'whining' voice that was apparent last week. Instead of his nerves and frustrations showing in his voice, he was able to maintain a calm albeit confident vocal presence. For next week, DC's homework is to practice placing his voice at a lower pitch when GB talks over him. Remain focused when you are interrupted; drop the voice and you will still be audible. Also, when this happens, raise the volume of your voice, but watch that your voice doesn't RAISE in pitch, so consciously think of speaking LOWER! Good luck!

Gordon Brown: GB did everything to excuse the fact he isn't Media friendly by his first address; substance over PR spin, which is ironic given that New Labour have been masters of spin in the last 15 years. A good try GB, but these are words of a desperate man. GB adopted the role of 'Elder Statesman' again; referring to the 'World Stage' and crises he has been involved in, he used the 'experience' card. Physically, he looked into the camera to engage viewers, but more work needs to be done, to be more effective. His posture was authoritative; confident and 'powerful' with him on the front foot and very much in attack mode. GB has a vocal advantage over his rivals since his voice is significantly deeper; this gives the impression of gravitas and authority and he is more audible when two people are speaking. He could have used this to even more advantage by slowing down his speech and adopting dramatic pauses, but no: he went on the attack and tried to steamroller the other speakers into submission. He gave no impression that he listened to other's views, instead adopting a sneer. Is this the behaviour of a leader? Finally, he attempted humour; his swipe at the other leaders appearing to argue like his sons in the bath was cheap; not funny and lost him some credibility. Humour is very powerful, but subject matter and timing are crucial. What does GB need to work on for next week: he has every advantage, experience, confidence, a powerful presence and vocal quality, yet at the moment he is wasting these. He needs to calm down; stop attacking others and focus on what he is saying. Putting more weight onto his heels, he would be able to balance himself better. He needs to listen to what others are say and internalise his personal thoughts on the others, to avoid him looking cheap.

Executive Voice are co-hosting a masterclass in engaging clients, colleagues and audiences on 7th July in Central London Click here for more details

Tonight's Debate: what the party leaders' need from their Fairy Godmother

If I was the party leaders' Fairy Godmother, what would I provide, in order they had their wish fulfilled. I am assuming their wishes will to perform well; to engage with the electorate, and to improve their popularity.

Gordon Brown: Gordon didn't have a particularly good performance last week. Many people noticed that he interrupted the other candidates (particularly David Cameron); he was aggressive and talked over other people speaking. He didn't listen either. As an effective leader, people are looking for someone who listens to other ideas, rather than shouting them down. Gordon would be advised to take a step back; count three before he jumps in when someone else is speaking and to engage with the audience - one by using their names and by looking into the TV camera. I am sure he will be on the attack to Nick Clegg and given the smearing today, there will be ammunition available for him to use.

Nick Clegg: Nick had a fantastic response to his performance last week. Not only did he flirt with the studio audience and TV audience; he looked straight into the camera, engaging viewers. He also used questioners' names and made friends with them. He played 'hard to get' with Gordon Brown who was schmoozing up to him. However, I have no recollection of what he said. His performance was very effective and made an impact, but viewers will be expecting to find out more about his policies and whether or not he can walk the talk. The other leaders will be on the attack, so he needs to watch his back and have some convincing responses to their queries over his effectiveness. Also he will have to fight off the repercussions of the smear campaign. This evening will either make or break him.

David Cameron: David was a real disappointment on Thursday. A good guy who has excellent ideas and speaks well was over shadowed by the other leaders. He also looked uncomfortable; his body language was ineffective and vocally his voice became strained. He was, however, the only leader that said something I still remember..... David needs to relax; move his weight onto the balls of his feet. He also needs to look at the camera, do the name game; keep speaking LOUDER when GB tries to interrupt him and keep going. He also needs to start questioning GB's comments rather than shaking his head. My last advice would be to look GB in the eye and keep the eye stare. It would be interesting to see how GB reacts to that on Live TV.......

Good luck boys!

Executive Voice are running a course on using the voice to Engage clients and colleagues. Called "Speak, Connect, Engage" on 7th July in Central London Information on the course. Many of the issues I discuss in this blog are covered in the masterclass.

How was the vocal performance of the leaders in the TV Debate?

Many apologies for the tardiness of this email report. Vertigo; writing at the computer and using your brain don't go hand in hand!

I don't know about you, but I really enjoyed the first 30 minutes of the debate; I then got bored. There have been plenty of comments on the performance of the three leaders. From a body language perspective, none are better than the excellent Peter Collett who appeared on Sky News. The impact of the debate has affected the polls, with the Lib Dems doing remarkably well at the moment BUT polls are one thing; it is what happens in the voting booths that matter.....

As Peter Collett mentioned, two's company, three's a crowd and this was perfectly illustrated by this debate and the dynamics between the three. Nick Clegg was the one they wanted to be friends with; GB clearly was smoozing with him, whilst deliberately leaving out DC. NC was playing hard to get. DC was the 'piggy in the middle'; left out with 'no mates'. Avoid Threes where possible!

There is no doubt that Nick Clegg had a fantastic result from his performance. THere were notable skills he used:

• Looking straight at the camera to engage viewers.
• Using first names for people who had asked questions.
• Bending the rules when talking to people in the audience.
• Open, confident, professional body language. For readers who have attended Executive Voice's workshops and one to one coaching sessions, he had a classic 'Divo' posture, which was non-threatening, professional, open and enabled his voice to be engaging, clear and interesting to listen to.
• HOWEVER - under stress, he makes his mouth into a 'Mr Sad' :( If you do this now, you will feel that tension develops in the jaw area; throat and back of the tongue. This impacts on his voice by creating a 'strangulated' sound. He needs to relax this area For jaw relaxation exercises go to the Executive Voice website
• He came across as trustworthy, in touch with the public and willing to 'work things out'.
  
• It was a very good performance - although I have little recollection of what he said.

Next David Cameron who, in my opinion, underperformed. I noticed

• He was physically on the back foot.
  
• His weight was actually on his back foot and this impacted on his performance by giving the impression he didn't want to be there.
  
• His energy was being used to prevent him falling over backwards.
  
• It prevented him from projecting his voice and personality.
• He didn't engage with the audience - both in the studio or the TV audience.
• He looked awkward, frightened and weak (in my opinion.)
• His voice was high pitched and strangulated. He was in a lot of discomfort - possibly from being so close physically to Gordon Brown.
• Looking broodily into the distance works for Clint Eastwood in a Spaghetti Opera, but not for a political debate. He looked silly and didn't engage.
• One positive; his stories and examples were very powerful and I do remember some key messages he said.
• For people that have worked with me, he showed classic examples of 'The Mouse' in his posture; no energy or engagement was coming from him, and he didn't invite engagement from his audience.

Finally Gordon Brown. In fairness I was spending a lot of time shouting at the TV saying "But you've had 13 years to sort this out!" Etc... However, here are my comments: I have tried not to be biased.

• Gordon Brown adopted the 'Elder Statesman' persona in the group, with confidence, solid body language.
• Gordon's low pitched voice added gravitas and experience to what he said.
• HOWEVER, because he has a tendency to drop his jaw, the actual voice drops from some of his resonating chambers resulting in a less focused voice which lacks clarity. It becomes more difficult to hear what he's saying.
• He spoke slowly and concisely to create the 'Elder Stateman' persona.
• He was aggressive, physically (he leaned on his lectern a lot) and 'Gave the eye' to David Cameron. I believe he intimidated DC.
• Vocally he was aggressive in a quiet, demanding way.
  
• He didn't play fair - he was for ever talking over DC and butting in, preventing DC from completing sentences and being heard.
• He jumped down from the stage to shake hands with the audience, leaving the other two leaders looking like school boys.
• There was no two way engagement with the audience; it was one way - listen to me, but no eye contact with the camera. He wasn't warm.

I will be very interested to see what happens this Thursday. Adam Boulton has his work cut out managing the debate. I am sure every second has been analysed by the researchers and advisors for each of the leaders and that NC will be the main target of attack this time!

For more information about Executive Voice go to http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

How the politicians say it NOT what they say will win the debate

Tonight we have the historic TV debate between the political leaders in the UK. Until this morning, when volcanic ash became the leader story, there was blanket coverage of the debate. Experts were wheeled into TV studios to discuss the appearance of the politicians and to analyse their body language. In all cases, experts said that it was how the men appeared on the TV rather than what they would say, that would affect the outcome of the debate.

One area that hasn't been mentioned is the tone of the voice; I find this surprising, since most of the experts are excellent. It is clear that all three men have worked on the quality of their voices: if you listen to early Gordon Brown broadcasts, you will hear that his voice has more energy and animation. I would, however, be advising and coaching David Cameron to become aware of his voice rising in pitch when he's stressed or pressured.

Since this is a TV broadcast the experts have focused on the visual impact of the men, yet there are many people that have strong auditory reactions - and the broadcast will be broadcast on radio. Whilst all the men have clear voices, Gordon's has a tendency to lack variety of tone and Nick Clegg's sometimes lacks charisma.

I have no doubt - or at least hope - that they have all had vocal coaching before this debate. Tomorrow, if I remain awake during the debate, I will let you know how well they did! But my message is: don't forget the impact your voice has on any appearance.

There is an interesting video on the Sky News website where the excellent Peter Collett analyses the 3 party leaders' body language and the messages they are sending.

For more information on Executive Voice go to http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

Learn to speak 'The Queen's English' on your iphone

I read an intriguing article today about an iphone app that can train you to speak the 'Queen's English' - allegedly...

Apparently, the app will train you to speak a certain number of vowels and consonants that are part of the RP style of speaking. What a great resource! I am very much in favour of people speaking clearly although speakers of regional accents can also speak very clearly. Ironically, some people that believe they speak 'Queen's English' don't enunciate clearly and they are difficult to comprehend.

This is a great resource for individuals to improve the quality of their voices; making it clearer for others to understand them. In a world where we speak to people that don't speak English as a first language, we need to work especially hard to be understood. Gone are the days when we thought speaking louder whilst gesticulating: like Basil Faulty, was acceptable. Come to think of it, was it ever acceptable??

It is also useful for people who use the phone a lot; there is nothing like a clear voice for making it easier for the listener to LISTEN EASILY.

Of course Executive Voice also offer these services: either one to one, face to face and on the telephone, and audio CDs. Go to our website for information.

Here is the article:

Listen to your customers!