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!

How to lie without showing it in your body language

My family used to have 'animated' debates with my grandmother over "white lies" - fibs that might prevent someone being offended, and telling the truth. Being a die hard Lancastrian, she believed that telling the truth - or what Southerners would say "being blunt", was more honest. The fact that we had to tell a white lie over her cooking "Oh this is delicious", so as not to offend her, didn't cross her mind!

People DO lie: stinking porkies, white lies or fibs. In business it is very useful to learn how to detect a lie, and also be aware of what you do when you're fibbing. I came across the following article, which could be of use when meeting clients! It gives some self awareness of the types of signals we give to other people when we're fibbing. Of course, when you KNOW what you do, it is easier to disguise this.
Here's the article. Good luck!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/7324032/How-to-lie-and-not-look-as-though-you-are-lying.html

More information from http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

Complaining online only devalues yourself

In the last couple of days I have come across a number of situations where individuals have tried to undermine a competitor or individual online. Instead of it being a private 'spat' or discussion, this has been played out in the public domain.

1. At a conference I was attending, a potential delegate wasn't happy about one aspect of the arrangements and set up an 'anti conference' twitter account, rather than discuss it with the organiser. Like other people I looked up this individual's tweets, and let's say that I'm surprised she's invited to any network groups, since she has negative tweets on all of them.

2. An exhibition I attended had a derogatory blog written about it. Everything from the timings, to the quality of the exhibitors was mentioned in scathing tones: although the writer had problems writing grammatically correctly. Her expectation was that she would be wined and dined, but she engaged with no one; choosing to sit in a corner tweeting from her blackberry.

3. At a dinner party last week, a friend described how she had discovered an ex colleague had written a song: freely available on the Internet, which destroys her character. Although she is not named, things she said and did are freely quoted in the song. She feels victimised and powerless to stop the song being played.

4. On a wedding website, a supplier was "named and shamed" for "ruining" a bride's wedding. Instead of discussing the alleged mistake directly with the supplier, the bride went straight to the website, complaining without there being an opportunity for the supplier to give his side of the situation. Other brides chipped in, condemning the supplier without knowing the full facts. Eventually the shaken supplier: a small business; came online, giving a completely different view on the situation. It was clear the bride had an unrealistic expectation of what was agreed. However, the suppliers' reputation was affected.

In all cases, damage was caused due to someone going online and 'naming and shaming'. Despite there being one side to the argument, they were making 'noise' online and potentially damaging the reputation of a business or individual. Of course, we all have rivals and competitors, and yes, there are times when we wish to have more of the market ! but believe me, it results in more damage to your own reputation if you make a habit of bad mouthing competitors.

As Julie Meyer said at the BIG Event last week; you never know when you are going to be under. We all know what it is like to be struggling; don't laugh at others for their current situation.

Whenever I see derogatory comments about a business; individual or organisation, I always ask the question: who is this person and why are they doing it. Most of the time it is evident they are envious; struggling or bitter. As professionals we don't want to give that impression - so don't complain on line!!

More information from http://www.executivevoice.co.uk