Don’t Blame Your Customers!

“A business without customers isn’t a business.”

– Anonymous

If you are running a business you know that your number one job is to attract and retain enough customers to remain viable. You need to attract enough customers who want to buy what you have to offer. You also need to entice your customers to return and make additional purchases. And… you work hard to delight your existing customers so that they, in turn, will recommend your business to their friends and associates. That is a smart way to build your business.

It is also a smart way to run a political campaign.

To get elected – or nominated by your party to run for election – you need to attract enough voters who want to vote for what you have to offer. And… you work hard to encourage the people who are now ready to vote for you to encourage their friends and associates to consider voting for you.

But the primary responsibility for success resides with you – the business owner or the political candidate. You must offer something that your customers want to buy; something that voters want to support.

Successful businesses do not make sales. Rather, they develop enough customers who are eager to buy the product or service that they offer for sale. Likewise, candidates need to develop enough voters who are eager to support their cause. Voters who are willing to recruit others in support of your campaign.

All of this seems rather simple and straight forward. And it is. The complexity lies in how you ask for your customers business; how you ask for your supporters vote.

People love to buy but they hate to be sold. Likewise with voters. You can – and should – tell them that you need their support; you need their vote. But I would never tell them that it will be their fault that I went out of business or that I lost the election.

Unfortunately, the Clinton campaign is ignoring this advice. Granted, I am not a million dollar a month political adviser (like Mark Penn) so why should they take my advice. But, I would never say this to my supporters: Continue reading “Don’t Blame Your Customers!” »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Orkut
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn

Don’t Point Your Finger!

hillary-points-finger.jpgYour mother told you! “It’s not polite to point your finger at someone.” And she was correct on this point. I do not like to have someone point their finger at me – literally or figuratively.

Senator Hillary Clinton – It is time that you started to listen to your mother! Remember what she told you: “It’s not polite to point your finger at someone. It will not earn you any points (votes) and people do not appreciate it.”

obama-1.jpg

Senator Barack Obama also points his finger. What politician does not? But this post – and my blog – is not about “political finger pointing.” I am not writing about shifting the blame. I am posting and blogging about effective communications.

 

I have been watching the videos and analyzing the body language of each candidate vying for their party’s presidential nomination. In reviewing the video of the recent CNN debate between Senator Clinton and Obama I noticed a distinct difference in how each candidate uses the fingers to make a point:

 

  • Sen. Clinton consistently pointed her finger directly at her audience.
  • Sen. Obama usually pointed his finger upwards or to the side.

This may seem subtle to some. And it may prove significant to others. And it may play a role in the outcome of the voting. We will see. We listen to what we see!

 

However, professional speech coaches agree that you should avoid literally pointing or poking your finger at someone. Here is a quote form Joan Detz, the author of “It’s Not What You Say, It’s How You Say It.”

 

“Don’t point at the audience. The simple truth is, no one likes to be pointed at.”

 

At this late date in a heated primary election campaign, Hillary Clinton is probably not listening to outside experts on body language and effective communication styles. She is relying on instinct and (unconsciously) responding in the heat of the moment. In my opinion, she does not respond effectively – especially with ter body language – when feels that she is being attacked or is having her proposals rejected. Who does? I don’t. Do you? Of course not. But we must be aware of how we physically react when we are attacked:

 

We listen with our eyes.

 

No matter what we say, people will remember what they see. We remember more of what we see than what we hear.

 

This is the image that plays back in my head when I see someone pointing their finger at the audience.

bill-clinton-points-finger-2.jpg

 

It is not a pretty picture. It will not win votes. It is not polite. Just ask your mother. She will tell you – and she will not point her finger at you!

When you give a speech or make a presentation you must present your point of view – that’s why you were invited to speak. To be effective you must state your point, present you case and back up your points and finally give your audience a call to action. Make you point. Point out how you differ from your opponent. Just remember not to point you finger at you audience!

They will get the point.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Orkut
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn

Take Note!

obama-takes-notes-at-debate.jpg As I watched the televised debate between Senators Clinton and Obama, I was struck by one particular piece of “stage craft.” I found it to be annoying. It distracted my attention from what was actually being said. What was it?

Senator Obama was diligently writing notes every time that Senator Clinton spoke – at least during the first 45 minute segment. Why was he doing this?  Surely he had prepared his remarks and rebuttals ahead of time. At this point in the campaign, he had to have heard Senator Clinton’s arguments, stump speeches and 9-point plans ad nauseum. Very little new ground was being broken during the debate. So why was he so preoccupied with his note taking?

It’s simple really! The answer is, it was “staged!” Barack Obama wanted to avoid two things:

  1. Looking directly at Hillary Clinton as she spoke – I felt that his note-taking distracted my attention from her words.
  2. Reacting physically to her comments – he did not wish to convey his agreement with, surprise at or anger about any of her comments. His body language probably would have conveyed defensiveness and weakness had he not kept himself busy scribbling his notes as his opponent spoke.

Was this effective? Perhaps. Several professional observers have commented on Obama’s unconscious physical reactions when he is criticized. He winces noticeably. He tends to withdraw. He looks pained. He looks less than confident.

But the good news is… at least he stopped “raising his hand” asking permission from the moderator to speak! For that reason alone, the diligent note taking was an improvement.

Why does body language matter? Here’s why: Continue reading “Take Note!” »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Orkut
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn

Strategic Thinking

“Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do.  Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do.”

– Savielly Tarakover

Name one thing that Sen. Barack Obama has accomplished … Political pundits (Chris Matthews, etc.) have been challenging / brow-beating their guests to respond to this question. Political opponents (Sen. Clinton, Sen, McCain) have been trying to use this rhetorical question to their advantage. So, courtesy of Time Magazine’s Joe Klein, here is one significant accomplishment for Sen. Obama:

He is the only significant candidate whose campaign has not gone broke! He and his staff have defined a successful strategy to capture the Democratic part’s Presidential nomination. 

If nothing else, a presidential campaign tests a candidate’s ability to think strategically and tactically and to manage a very complex organization. We have three plausible candidates remaining–Obama, Clinton and John McCain–and Obama has proved himself the best executive by far. Both the Clinton and the McCain campaigns have gone broke at crucial moments. So much for fiscal responsibility. McCain has been effective only when he runs as a guerrilla; in both 2000 and ’08, he was hapless at building a coherent campaign apparatus. Clinton’s sins are different: arrogance and the inability to see past loyalty to hire the best people for the job and to fire those who prove inadequate. “If nothing else, we’ve learned that Obama probably has the ability to put together a smooth-running Administration,” said a Clinton super-delegate. “That’s pretty important.”

Strategy and tactics – both are important; they are intertwined. Your strategy defines and points you towards your goal. The tactics that you employ enable you to reach your goal.

A clearly defined strategy guides and informs your staff. It shows them they way and tells them what to do – especially when no one is there to tell them what to do; when no one is there to answer their questions.

Your clearly defined strategy provides the answers to these questions: What? Why? and When?

The tactics that they employ to successfully execute your strategy answer these questions; “How? Where? and Who? Continue reading “Strategic Thinking” »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Orkut
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn

Defining Moments

“The Chinese symbol for adversity contains a symbol for opportunity. Therefore, adversity brings opportunity.”

– Anonymous

How do you rebound after 10 straight losses? Is it possible? Theoretically, yes.  Is it easy? Of course not. How do you do it? Stay in the game long enough to find your opportunity – and then seize the moment!

No doubt about it – Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is on a losing streak. You can not “spin away” 10 consecutive losses. You can not discount the outcome of some state elections  as “not that important.” A caucus or a primary? It doesn’t matter. A loss is still a loss.

But there is always tomorrow. Another opportunity. A chance to gain a foot-hold. A chance to debate. A chance to turn her ship around. A chance to turn adversity into opportunity.

All eyes will be on Austin, TX – the scene of the next Democratic Party Debate.

More precisely, the eyes of the camera will be focused on the eyes, the hands, the posture of the candidates. It is my opinion that the outcome of tomorrow’s debate will be determined more by style than substance. And specifically, I predict that the outcome will be determined by how Senators Clinton and Obama master their body language during the debate.

The audience will be “listening with their eyes.”

We will not require a political analyst to tell us who won the debate. We can throw away the scorecard that tallies points scored on policy matters. The only points that matter will be how the candidates react to each other. Non-verbal reactions to each other.

We will “listen with our eyes.” We will determine the winner based upon what we “hear with our eyes.”

My advice to Senators Clinton and Obama: Spend more time preparing your non-verbal communications than in polishing your 9-point policy positions. The outcome of this debate will be determined by what the audience sees!

This has been the case – at least since the first televised Presidential Debate in 1960 between Kennedy and Nixon. The outcome was determined by a “close shave.”Future President Kennedy came across as a tanned, vigorous, confident leader. Then Vice President Nixon appeared to be hiding behind his “5 o’clock Shadow.”

Who can forget these images? Moments when non-verbal communication decided the outcome of the debate: Continue reading “Defining Moments” »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Orkut
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn

Who’s Line is It?

“People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them Benjamin Franklin said it first.”

– David H. Comins

I love quotations! I enjoy collecting and categorizing them. I enjoy reading them. And I use them – liberally – in my writing, speaking and training. I strive to always cite the source of the quotation, but this is not always possible or practical.

With all due respect to Mr. David H. Comins – and I assume that he is a decent, honest and wise man – I could not easily locate any biographical information on him. I remembered this quote and I verified it on the Quotations Page website. But a Google search and a search on Amazon.com did not turn up any background information on Mr. Comins.

So… is my audience more interested in Mr. Comins or in his pithy comments?

And, since I am not a citizen of the fine state of Massachusetts, I must admit that I knew nothing about their current Governor Deval Patrick – up until this past weekend, that is. The 24-hour news cycle continues to churn out stories about Sen. Barack Obama’s alleged plagiarism. Obama “liberally lifted” a riff that Gov. Patrick had previously used – “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

As was to be expected, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign was watching and vetting Sen. Obama’s speech that night and quickly alerted all parties who would listen – not to mention all ships at sea – about this “outrageous plagiarism.” Full of high dudgeon, they demanded that justice be served – or at least that the press properly criticize Sen. Barama on this matter.

The press did indeed criticize Sen. Barama on this matter. They also played a video tape of Gov. Deval Patrick when he delivered these lines and compared it to Sen. Obama’s speech in Wisconsin. It is almost scary to see how closely Sen. Obama invoked not just Gov. Patrick’s words but also his tone of voice and even his body language.

The question is: “Was this plagiarism?” The answer is: “I don’t know. It depends…” Continue reading “Who’s Line is It?” »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Orkut
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn

How to Deal with Hecklers

Former President Clinton should take a few lessons from his spouse. One lesson that he needs to learn immediately is how to handle hecklers in the audience. She is very good at it. He is not. She turns a heckler’s taunts in into tumultuous applause – for her! He is lured by the heckler’s bait and turns their comments into hand-to-hand combat. She wins. He loses.

The former President always loses these arguments with hecklers. Unfortunately, his lack of discipline when it comes to dealing with hecklers and provocative statements may cost his spouse the nomination. Who wins these arguments? More importantly, who stands to lose as a result?

This morning’s headline, “Bill Spars with Obama Supporter” dominated the 24-hour news cycle. With only a few days until the next state primary elections, do you think that this was the headline that Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign wanted to see? Of course not. If nothing else, the heckler – or rather, Bill Clinton’s reaction to the heckler – took the spotlight away from Sen. Clinton’s campaign. The focus was once again back on Bill. Not on Hillary. I am sure that she and her supporters were not pleased by this.

Who won the argument? Certainly not Bill Clinton. Certainly not Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The heckler succeeded in getting what he wanted – attention! Attention on him. Attention on President Clinton’s reaction to the argument. Attention directed away from Sen. Clinton’s campaign.

Do you see how hecklers can succeed in grabbing the spotlight? Do you see how easy it is to fall into their trap? Want to find out how to avoid taking their bait?

It’s easy. Hillary Clinton can show us how. Remember the hecklers in New Hampshire who carried signs and shouted, “Iron My Shirt!”? Let’s look at how Sen. Clinton handled that situation: Continue reading “How to Deal with Hecklers” »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Orkut
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn

Features vs. Benefits

“In the factory, we manufacture perfume. In the store, we sell hope.”

Charles Revson, Founder of Revlon Cosmetics

Why are so many voters – especially younger and first-time voters – attracted to Sen. Barack Obama’s message of hope? Why does it seem that Sen. Hillary Clinton’s latest message – “I’m in the solutions business” – is not gaining traction?

Could it be something as basic as the difference between saying, “This will make your stomach feel better” versus, “Trust me, this medicine will be good for you?”

People like to buy, but they do not like to be sold! The sales guru Jeffrey Gitomer reminds us of this basic tenet in each of his best-selling books. Don’t tell us what what you have done in the past – and why it will  good for us. Entice us with a message of what our future will look like. Paint a picture of the future – our future. And help us to see how we fit into that picture. Help us to make the decision. Don’t just tell us your solution.

We will buy hope – if we can see the benefit. Our benefit. Don’t try to sell us on the basis of the quality of the ingredients you put into your perfume. Charles Revson did not build his Revlon cosmetics empire based strictly on a special combination of ingredients. Those ingredients are features – and features do not motivate us to buy. Hope is a little more difficult to see and quantify. But that is a leader’s role – to help us to see hop and to put us in the picture. And that gets the sale most of the time!

This is not a political blog. I am not writing to “put down” a candidate. Nor am I advocating for a candidate. I enjoy observing and analyzing political strategy. I like to learn from the successes and mistakes in the current presidential primaries and apply them to my business – consulting and training. I write to share my observations with my readers.

Here’s what I see so far. Perhaps you agree, perhaps you don’t. But I hope that you will at least read on: Continue reading “Features vs. Benefits” »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Orkut
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn

Less is More

“A speech should be as long as a piece of string – long enough to wrap up the package.”

– Anonymous

Read Patrick Healy’s NY Times article, “For Clinton the Speaker, the Smaller the Better” (Click here) for insight into how the venue (where a speech is given) determines the effectiveness of both the speaker and their message.

There are books titled “It’s Not What You Say, It’s How You Say It, and “It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear.” But in his article, Healy draws a sharp contrast to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings when she speaks in front of large audiences and her remarkable success in connecting with her audience in more intimate settings. Consider:

“Big rallies are clearly not her strength,” said one senior adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in exchange for a blunt assessment of his candidate. “She’s far better at town-hall meetings, round tables, smaller venues. The challenge for her is to connect with and inspire large audiences more than she does now.”

versus

Yet in intimate settings, like her visit on Monday to the Yale Child Study Center in New Haven, Mrs. Clinton comes across far more personably, listening and empathizing and on occasion showing her emotional side. Indeed, at the Yale center, where she volunteered in the early 1970s, she became teary as her old boss praised “the incomparable Hillary.”

I remember Senator Clinton’s “Listening Tour” of New York state when she first ran for Senator in 2000 – and it was a great success. Sen. Clinton is a very good listener – she shows empathy and people really feel that she cares about them and that they have been heard.

And to her credit, she has shown great improvement as a speaker in venues both big and small. However, in my opinion, she needs to improve two things: Continue reading “Less is More” »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Orkut
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn

Who Writes this Stuff?

“(President) Reagan was the most natural speaker in politics, but he was a natural because he practiced so hard. He’s the one who worked and reworked everything and practiced emphasis.”

Peggy Noonan,’ from On Speaking Well’

Considering the number of speeches that a politician or business executive delivers each year you expect them to employ a speech writer. Full-time, part-time, or one-time only. A single writer or a staff of speech writers. Nameless, famous or infamous, speech writers can be either a pen for hire or evolve into the role of trusted adviser. The very best are able to “channel” the ideas, sentences and phrases of their client. They speak and write as one.

Do you need a speech writer? That depends upon the importance of the speech, your time constraints and your audience. Do you need to write out every speech that you deliver? Yes, if if it is important for your speech to deliver an impact and if you want to show respect for the time that your audience has invested in listening to your speech.

Sen. Barack Obama appears to have a natural gift for delivering speeches that galvanize his audience to take action. He also knows how to engage his audience while he delivers the speech – a “call and response” technique popularized by pastors such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rev. Jesse Jackson. However, I suspect that just he employs a rigorous practice schedule much as Ronald Reagan did. He puts a great deal of emphasis on emphasizing his key words and phrases. He establishes a cadence in his speeches. The cadence propels the speech to a dramatic conclusion.

You might be surprised to learn who Sen. Obama employs as his chief speech writer. You may recognize the name – Jon Favreau – but it is not the actor / writer from the 1996 movie, Swingers. No, this Jon Favreau is a 26 year- old graduate of the College of Holly Cross. Click here to read an article on Mr. Favreau from the New York Times. Continue reading “Who Writes this Stuff?” »

Share and Enjoy:
  • Add to favorites
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Orkut
  • SphereIt
  • Sphinn