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
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
.JPG)
1 comment:
I wonder what would have happened had William Hague still been the Conservative Party leader? Would he have faired better than David Cameron?
Speak Connect Engage
Post a Comment