Finding Your Presentation Voice

Having worked at 100+ agencies and trained or coached thousands of people in presentation skills, I have reached a conclusion that are plenty of different ways to a great presentation and just as many ways to do a poor presentation.  While this may seem counterintuitive, my point is that there is no one way to do it.

The problem is that when well-meaning people try to help others with their presentation skills, the end result is advice that basically says “do it just like me and you will be great.”  This creates many unintended consequences like having a group of people that all look the same or having many presenters that simply look out of sorts, trying to be something that they are not.

Everyone needs to find their own speaking style.  One that allows their natural personality to come through and accentuates their strengths.  For some, this style might be more measured and thoughtful.  That does not give that thoughtful presenter permission to be a sleepy presenter but it does give them permission not to be overly boisterous. 

Other presenters will naturally be more high energy.  They are the jolt of caffeine that interjects new life into the presentation. 

Just think for a moment what it would be like if everyone was the jolt of caffeine.  That would be a very difficult presentation to sit through.  Just like all clients sitting across the table from you are not alike, your pitch team should have similar diversity in their presentation styles.

While I am more than happy to give people a great deal of latitude in finding their presentation voice.  That does not mean that there are not some rules.  No ummmming and ahhhhhing your way through a presentation. No low energy presentations to the point of sleepiness.  No reading from notes.  Put the laser pointer down…you look ridiculous.  I could go on with the list but you get the idea.

Work to find your own voice.  Don’t try to mimic someone else’s voice.  It is fine to learn from watching others present but don’t abandon your own style in an effort to present like someone else.  Even if they are your boss;-)

Mark Schnurman

President -- www.filamentinc.com

The power of non-verbal communication

I am not one to place tremendous importance on non-verbal communication and body language but it is undeniable that it has an impact on a presentation. Since the difference between winning a pitch and losing a pitch is a collection of small differences between agencies, we can't ignore subtleties like body language.

The following article in forbes.com does a nice job discussing body language. 

Forbes article on body language

Ejnjoy...
Mark Schnurman
Co-founder
www.filamentinc.com

Jon Steel, head of planning at WPP, give a great talk on communication, creativing and pitching new biz.

I have read The Perfect Pitch, by Jon Steel, and thought it was a great book on the new business process at ad agencies.  I just found a podcast by Jon covering a number of different issues from communication, creativity, how being "connected" 24 hours a day stifles problem solving and new business.  Clearly a very smart guy with some terrific insights.

Listen to Jon at  http://drt.fm/jon-steel/


Enjoy...
Mark Schnurman
filamentinc.com 

The Spark - Inspiring Better Presentations

While this blog is dedicated to winning new business part of the new business process is the presnetation.  Filament has launched a new blog (The Spark) dedicated to inspiring better presentations which looks  both withing advertising and beyond advertising to share lessons and thoughts on what makes for a great, compelling presentation.

Check out The Spark.

Every Presenters Nightmare

The following post is from Jim Joseph's blog, Jim is President of Lippe Taylor Brand Communications and author of the book The Experience Effect. I thought his post was a wonderful reminder about both preparation and connecting with the audience.

Every Presenter's Nightmare
I guess I should consider myself lucky that I lasted all these years without it ever happening to me. But yesterday it did. The moment I have dreaded for years ... the moment that all public speakers dread.

I was speaking at the MDPA marketing conference just outside Washington, DC ... talking about the evolution of social media especially as it relates to wellness. The MC of the conference makes a very articulate introduction for me and I confidently walk up onto stage. I say "Good Morning" with all the gusto I've got and hit the button to advance the next slide ...

Nothing happens.

I click again, I point it at the screen, I click again ... Nothing happens. Thinking that maybe something will save me I click again ... Nothing happens.

I decide to give an intro to the slides while the IT folks figure out what's going on -- to buy myself some time ... Nothing happens.

By the look on the IT guy's face, I quickly realize that I am hanging out there on my own. Forty-five minutes of content and I've got no slides. So I just start talking ... and something really cool happens.

I connect with the audience!

I pretty succinctly convey the message I want to make without a single slide. I proceed to tell a story of what I want people to hear from me. I put all my attention into the audience, rather than on the slides. And although I may not have hit every bullet point from every slide, I certainly did deliver the message. And because everyone felt so bad for me (and afraid for when it's their turn), they actually paid attention. Nothing like sympathy to draw in a crowd!!

What a concept. A story that people paid attention to ... at a marketing conference! I got pushed out of "slide land" and was forced just to talk and to tell a story. And by the sound of all the Q&A that happened afterwards, I'd say it went really well. Without a single slide.

Five lessons learned from this "experience":
- Be prepared for the worst case scenario ... always
- Tell a story ... in the moment
- Pay attention to your audience ... and they will pay attention to you
- Give 'em just enough content to spark engagement ... and they will ask questions
- Smile the whole time :) ... and they will smile back!!

Now that was an experience!! Ever happen to you? Jim.

Filament Inc. has a new website

After toiling over every word of copy and scrutinizing every photograph, Filament Inc.'s new website is up and running. While the old site served us well, it was starting to look a little dated. A fresh look at the copy was also useful.

Take a look, give us some feedback!

www.filamentinc.com


Mark Schnurman
Pitch Consultant - Filament Inc.

All Hand on Deck!

When I am with a new client working on a pitch, I am usually asked how other agencies handle the responsibilities of writing the deck. While revealing how a particular agency handles deck writing would be like revealing Kentucky Fried Chicken’s secret recipe, there are basically two different philosophies of deck writing represented by a deck dictator versus a deck democracy.
The deck dictator scenario is where one person writes every deck. The biggest advantage of the pitch dictator is that the agency is assured of a consistent flow and cadence to the deck with a low chance of inconsistencies. This typically makes it much easier for the audience to track with the presenters and follow the story. While this is the only significant advantage, the advantage is enormous and should not be overlooked.
The disadvantages of the pitch dictator are numerous. The most obvious is the tendency to get only one point of view. If that point of view is in line with the client, you are golden. If not, you will likely lose the pitch.
From a management standpoint, one author handling all new business puts the agency in a precarious spot. Basically, the entire new business engine is being run by one person. That person can then dictate their terms to management when it comes to compensation. Meanwhile, two or three concurrent pitches, a pitch during the dictator’s honeymoon, or a wayward bus on 5th Avenue could all put the agency in trouble.
Another disadvantage of the pitch dictator is the tone of voice. Presenters have different tones and manners in their presentations, and if they are not writing the content, the tone is not likely to fit their style. A presenter that needs talking points on the screen could be completely flustered by a dictator that does not believe in talking points. A more formal choice of words, which may work for a copywriter, might be completely inappropriate for someone without a copy background.
Finally, the dictator can become the bottleneck in the process, and virtually no work takes place until after the deck is written. Since people have little input on their slides, no one feels any urgency to do any work since they are going to be told what to say and how to say it.
At the other end of the deck spectrum is the deck democracy, where many authors contribute to the process. The big advantages of this style are that more people are developing their new business skills, the bottleneck is distributed among a number of people, and the agency is better prepared to handle multiple pitches (or wayward busses).
From a presentation standpoint, deck democracies are a mixed bag. While it is a significant advantage to have people write their own content, the downside is that this process frequently leads to subtle contradictions in the deck where presenter A says one thing and 30 minutes later, presenter B says something that conflicts, confusing the audience. A way to avoid this is to have enough time to rehearse to uncover the contradictions.
The presentation advantage of a deck democracy is that people own their content. It is written in their tone of voice and they should completely understand their slides since they wrote the slides. This ownership should lead to more genuine and compelling presentations.
If the more democratic approach makes more sense to you, there are a few techniques that will make it go more smoothly. First, have one person in charge of writing the agenda and organizing the content. This will help to make the content flow better and be easier to follow. Develop a style guide that lets staff understand the basic methodology to putting together slides. For example, bullets should not have children or grandchildren. No more than five bullets per slide. Bullets should be as short as possible and not full sentences. When possible, use a picture instead of a bullet. This will help to make the deck look more consistent. The last thing to keep your eye out for is that not everyone is going to be good at writing content. Including bad content simply because it is already written is not doing anyone any favors. Weed the garden and get rid of weak content.
I have seen both the dictator and the democracy systems work. Agencies that win the most seem to be best at adapting themselves to address the weaknesses of either the dictator or the democracy. Pick whichever system works best for you, but have your eyes open for the built in disadvantages of each option.

Mark Schnurman
Filament Inc. - Pitch Consultant

www.filamentinc.com

Clear all hurdles to win the pitch

During the pitch process, clients are not just looking for the agency they should hire. More importantly, they are looking at the agencies they should not hire. An agency needs to clear a number of hurdles in order to win the business. Some of the hurdles are obvious: creative, strategy, capabilities. But some of the hurdles are more difficult to see coming: charisma, likability, chemistry.
First let’s take a look at the obvious hurdles. When it comes to creative, clients are not only looking for good creative (and you can define good however you like), but they are looking very closely to make sure that the creative is on strategy. In both pharma and consumer pitches, I have seen creative presented that was not completely on strategy. There are typically a number of reasons for this. One is that it was politically not a good move to kill the concept. Perhaps the creative person had another concept killed and the team did not want to kill two concepts from the same person. Another reason could be that the concept was really exciting and sexy. While agencies will frequently argue that clients can’t spot great creative (this may or may not be true), clients can absolutely spot concepts that are off strategy. Present them at your own peril.
Another hurdle that the agency needs to clear is strategy. Unfortunately, sometimes the strategy to market a drug is pretty clear, and numerous agencies will wind up on the same strategy. If the strategy from agency to agency is the same, the winning agency frequently is the one that either did the most compelling research or did the best presentation of the strategy.
Research is the piece that establishes that the strategy is solid and not just your team’s opinion. Presentation skill is the component that develops the necessary excitement around your strategy. Do not think for a moment that presentation skill can’t be the difference between winning and losing. A better presentation of similar content can push your agency across the finish line first.
Capabilities is a different kind of hurdle. One would expect that if you make it to the pitch, you have made it over the capabilities hurdle. If you are a smaller agency and made it into the finals against larger competition, have you ever lost because the client wound up wanting a bigger, more established agency? If so, did you really make it over the capabilities hurdle? There is nothing you can do to make your agency bigger overnight, but it does make you question pitching a product when you know that you are at a disadvantage. A competitor three times your size is three times as likely to have someone on staff that is an expert in the therapeutic area being pitched, and their new business budget could be five times the size of your new business budget. I am not suggesting that you never pitch against larger competition; I am suggesting that you recognize when the cards are stacked against you and choose your battles wisely.
Charisma, likeability and chemistry come from a combination of factors, some of which are in your control, some not so much. Some people are naturally more charismatic as presenters. In many ways chemistry is a crap shoot. That being said, rehearsal can help to improve those areas. Once you are confident in what you are going to say, you can start to concentrate on connecting with the audience and being more personable. As rehearsals progress, presenters tend to spend less time worrying about the words and more time focusing on the audience.
When the strategy and creative are similar from agency to agency, presentation skill plays a larger and larger role. Two of our clients pitched a major retailer a few years ago. The agency fee (not including media) was well over $30 million per year. While each agency had its advantages, the winning agency was simply more likeable. Even the losing agency admits that they are not particularly warm in a pitch. The winning agency views warmth and charm as an important part of their presentation and works hard to dial it up. The other agency is also very smart, but they present the facts as they see them and make little attempt to connect with the audience. It is difficult to say that charm was the deciding factor, but connecting with the audience is in every agency’s control and is not something that should be ignored. It is not just the words but how you say the words. This is the last hurdle that you have to clear in order to win.

Mark Schnurman
President - Filament Inc.

One pitch, one leader

The single biggest characteristic of winning agencies is that they have a clear leader for every pitch. Rather than a bunch of people who think they are the leader, a team needs a very clear, one-to-one relationship: one leader for one pitch.
The pitch leader’s primary role is to keep the process moving. The leader is the final arbiter when there is a discussion about things such as strategy or creative. This does not mean that the leader makes every decision. It does mean that this individual makes sure a decision is made and that the process keeps moving.
Far too often agencies get derailed discussing a subtlety of strategy or creative when they would have been better served to move on with the process. The pitch leader needs to remind the team that the clock is ticking, and every minute the team spends on the particular topic at hand is one less minute that they have for the rest of the process.
The natural question becomes who should be the leader.
The advantage of the new business person becoming the leader is that this individual frequently sourced the lead and is very connected to the prospect. He is frequently a very strong strategic person with a great understanding of the new business process. While these are great advantages, the one disadvantage can be huge: no one on the pitch team reports to him. As a result, he can persuade and cajole pitch team members to do their jobs, but he has no hammer. To make matters worse, it is his rear-end in a sling if he loses the pitch. To sum up, the new business person is responsible for winning and is compensated and evaluated on the agencies win rate, but he has virtually no power to get people to execute the pitch. Not an enviable scenario.
The creative director can be a good choice because a large part of the pitch process and a good deal of the last minute work is in her department. She is the best person to crack the whip on the creative department, and she understands the numerous issues that can come up in the creative department during a pitch. There are two basic disadvantages. The first is that it can be difficult to get account services and strategy to listen to the creative director. The second is that process orientation is typically not a term used to describe creative directors, and the ability to stick to a process is very important in working a team through a pitch.
Similar to the creative director, the head of account services or strategy can make a good leader. The advantage is that a good portion of the team reports to him, and he is likely more process and schedule driven than a creative director. The disadvantage is that the creative team does not report to him, and he is not as tuned into the creative process as a creative director. This can lead to a certain amount of resentment when the pitch leader is trying to drive the creative team to stop tweaking and start rehearsing when that pitch leader has never been in that art director’s chair and does not understand the creative process.
The head of the agency is the obvious choice for a number of reasons. Everyone reports to her, so she should have no problem motivating people. Sticking to the process should not be an issue for her. But even the agency head has a few potential downsides that need to be addressed. First, the pitch leader needs to be at most, if not all, of the meetings. If the leader is not present, the leadership vacuum can grind the process to a halt. The second is that the leader needs to be careful to lead the process and not simply take over the process. Because of their role at the agency, suggestions made by managing directors and CEO are frequently taken as mandates by well-meaning staff. As a result, the process can turn into one person’s thinking.
While it may seem as if there is no ideal pitch leader, by simply managing the disadvantages of each potential leader’s role, you can develop a strong pitch process. I have seen people from each role be great pitch leaders, and I have seen people from each role fall prey to the disadvantages listed above. The key is insure that you have one person running the show. While we can discuss which person will make the best pitch leader, typically a committee will have all of the disadvantages listed above without any of the strengths. This is not to say that a committee can’t work, but you will make the process more difficult and painful than it needs to be.

Mark Schnurman
Pitch Consultant

www.filamentinc.com

Who Presented vs Who Sold at SXSW

The following is a blog from Luke Sullivan, CD at GSD&M and author of Hey Whipple, Squeeze This. Luke does a great job of discussing the need for selling ideas as opposed to simply presenting ideas.

To read his blog directly, go to www.heywhipple.com

Here is the cut and pasted version...

The ideas that were actually selling here at SxSW were the ones that were actually sold – by a fantastic speaker.

Now I agree, some ideas are so great they don’t need to be sold. For example, they day they discover a cure for cancer? They won’t need an ad agency. They can take out a classified ad in the Tulsa Weekly-Bugle and the world will know about it within a week. But for those of us with ideas less world-shaking, we will need to sell them.

Fact is, most of the presentations I saw this week kinda blew. The content was great, no question. Pretty much every presenter had something cool to say. (With one exception; one speaker was so 1998 she was puttin’ up slides about how “Consumers can now scan bar codes with their phones!” Dude. Please.)

The big difference in the transmission of ideas comes down to this: Passion. Power. Clarity. Energy.

I don’t care if you’re just on a stinkin’ panel about banner ads, when you have the mike you’ve been given the gift of the attention of 200 people and you’re failing if you do not knock it out with passion, power, clarity and energy. Of the sessions I attended, every single speaker failed. I know, I know, they weren’t all that way. In fact, at last night’s party at GSDM, most people were talking about Gary Vaynerchuk‘s speech. People were blown away by it. Blown away. Damn, I wish I’d seen it. I didn’t, but I heard about it. And you know what? Even if it turns out his speech was content I’m not really interested in, I woulda ended up interested in it because he made me interested.

President Bill Clinton came to speak here at the agency a couple a times (he’s best friends with Roy Spence, himself a legendary speaker). I remember watching Clinton that day and just soakin’ it in, trying to learn everything I could; his intensity; his command of the material; his pacing; his eye contact; his comfort in front of people; his accessibility. It was the full package and, man, it was mesmerizing.

So, if you agree we’re in the business of spreading ideas, of selling ideas, make it your business to learn how to speak publicly. To learn how to put on a kick-ass presentation.

TWO FINAL NOTES:

My friend here at GSDM, Jenn Totten, she told me to CTFD. (Calm The Fuck Down, a hip abbreviation I predict will soon to be in the national lexicon.): “You are cranky, but you’re right. The panels were the worst. They all winged it. But I found the solo speakers to be pretty good across the board.” Another agency friend, Lauren Walker, agreed with Jenn. “The solo presenters were great. The panels were ‘eh’ and the discussions just tanked. There were certainly a lot of interesting topics to discuss but moderating a discussion is a fine art. It requires tact and a large knowledge base. Most of the discussions I attended were steered in one direction early on and stayed there. Next time, no discussions for me.”

Dang, I wished I’d been in those cool solo presentations. (BTW, folks. SXSW is very good about listening to feedback, so fill out those survey thingies.)

Final note: I really liked these “Ogilvy Notes” things I saw here and there. I wonder if my own agency oughta do something like this? Maybe have our own artists make big-ass drawings this cool, for those presentations we have to make more than once – like, say, agency themes, case histories, stuff like that. These boards are more interesting, more playful and informal than stupid Powerpoint slides.

------------------------------------------
Thanks for a great blog Luke!

Mark Schnurman
Filament Inc.

Pitch Consultant
Twitter: @markschnurman

Differentiation vs. Betterentiation

If the goal is to differentiate ourselves from the competition, then why do agencies spend so much time just telling their clients and prospects how much better they are than the competition? The difficulty with focusing on what you do better than the competition is that the agency can rarely back up its claims. As a result, it just sounds like sales puffery that clients politely listen to and completely ignore.
After years of effort, agencies are now selling themselves as “full-service” and “integrated.” However, what they are basically saying is that we all do the same thing. The result of all of our effort is that we have created non-differentiated agencies and commoditized our product offering. When clients have a difficult time distinguishing one agency from another, there’s just one thing they use as a differentiator: price. This is not the situation any agency wants to be in, but it is where many agencies find themselves right now.
The key to a point of differentiation is that it is provable. Saying you’re better is mostly just stating an opinion. Differentiation always has a point of proof.
“Our creative is better” is an opinion. Your agency’s creative may in fact be better, but unless you have a shelf full of awards, you have no proof. And recognize that every agency has won a creative award or two, so unless you have a shelf full of awards, your claim is just your opinion and will not resonate with your prospects.
“Our agency has better experience than any agency in the business when it comes to biologics” is an opinion. Nearly every agency has biologic experience. “Our agency is agency of record for more biologics than any other pharma agency” is a fact.
The problem is that simply claiming to be better is easier, and as a result more agencies go down that path. It is easier to simply claim to be better than to go through the difficult work of actually making the agency different in some way. The question for agencies is, what is it that you can own in the marketplace? Odds are it is not about what you do better. These types of claims have difficulty gaining traction. It is more likely a controversial point of view or a method for executing some part of the advertising process that will help to put some distance between you and the competition.
One most popular differentiating claim is that an agency’s people make them different. While it is wonderful for morale, it probably is not true. If you are based in the New York area, those people that you claim make you so different probably worked for your competitor just one or two years ago. You could claim that your culture makes you different, but you would need to point out the specifics of the culture before the claim had much of a chance of sticking.
As if this were not difficult enough, the next danger is giving something a name and claiming it is different only to have the client say, “I have seen that before.” An agency’s branding process typically falls into this category. Having seen hundreds of agency new business pitches, both pharma and consumer, I know that if your agency has a process that includes concentric circles, a pyramid, or some kind of structure with columns supporting a roof … it is not unique or differentiating. Just because you have a pithy name for the process does not mean that the underlying process is different. It just means that the name is different.
So where does that leave an agency? There are still plenty of ways to carve out your own niche in the marketplace. One way is do primary research and uncover a hidden insight about the market. This is probably the oldest PR trick in the book. In the absence of news, make your own news. You can than build upon this research to become the defacto expert on the topic.
Another strategy would be to develop a unique point of view about the role of the agency, the role of promotion, or the direction of the industry. Anything that gives you a platform to discuss your topic as an industry leader and not just another agency in a sea of similar agencies could work.
While none of the solutions to the conundrum are quick or easy, the value of being different is immeasurable. It may seem silly to preach the value of differentiation to an agency, but sometimes we all need to listen to our own advice.

Mark Schnurman
Pitch Consultant

Pitch swag

I was involved in a pitch recently where one agency was criticized for not giving the client a goody bag. Mind you, the client did not put it in so many words, but the message was loud and clear.

The agency did provide the presentation on a memory stick, as well as 10 bound leave behinds (as required by the client)...just no gift bags.

What are your thoughts? Have you heard this kind of feedback before? If you are a client...what do you think of the goody bag? Is it a pitch necessity or a lame pitch bribe?

I am interested to see everyone's feedback.

Mark Schnurman
Pitch consultant
www.filamentinc.com

Stop talking about rehearsing

During the pitch process, every agency gives lip service to rehearsal. They plan for rehearsal time and schedule a conference room, but how much time is actually spent rehearsing? Odds are people would rather talk about rehearsing than actually rehearse.
We have all been in sessions where it took half a day or even all day to get through a 90-minute pitch deck. There is a great deal of spirited discussion as to the content on slide 37 and whether the strategy is well articulated in the strategy section. In addition, everyone is happy to report that they spent a full day rehearsing when, in fact, they spent 90 minutes rehearsing and about seven hours talking about rehearsing.
Discussing the content, removing slides, wordsmithing, etc. are all important parts of the pitch process; they are just not rehearsal. Once the presentation deck is tight and the discussion of content is over, this is when rehearsal starts. Rehearsal is the part of the process where presenters become so familiar with their content that they can start to concentrate on other issues. For example, connecting with the audience.
Agencies get so wrapped up in the content that they frequently forget that the audience is a group of living, breathing human beings who want to be conversed with, not simply presented to. When pitches work well, agencies often hear that there was good chemistry. If chemistry is such an important part of winning pitches, doesn’t it make sense to at least make some effort to enhance the chemistry in the room?
Chemistry happens when the presenters make an effort to connect with the audience. The presenters need to be more than just automatons, getting up and delivering their slides. They need to be personable and charming. In essence, presenters need to give the impression that they would be a pleasure to work with. The more conversational tone the presenter has, the more chemistry they will be building.
This kind of tone is natural for a precious few presenters, but for others, it only comes when they are no longer nervous about forgetting their part. It is rare that an agency hears that their strategy or creative was bad, but it is not uncommon to hear that the chemistry was bad.
Think about the acting world. Actors have read-throughs where the actors sit at a table and read their parts. This is not the time to practice the physical part of acting. This is the time just to get comfortable with the lines and what comes before and after the actor’s part, much like the first read-through of a pitch deck. After the first read-through, the actor goes home and practices. The next step is to get up and rehearse. Here the actor rehearses both the words and the delivery. Finally, we are ready for a dress rehearsal. The actors go through the entire performance without stopping, without discussion. Actors are smart enough to know that the first time they get through their performance without stopping should not be on opening night. Agencies can benefit from the same rigors when it comes to rehearsal.
The question is how to allocate time when the timeline to get a pitch ready is so compressed. Typically, agencies work forward from the day the pitch process starts, and rehearsal time is whatever is left over after the team is done talking about the deck. Winning agencies work backwards from the day of the pitch. Those agencies know exactly how many rehearsals they need in order to have their best chance of winning. Typically, it is a relatively low number of rehearsals. Four or five usually do the trick. Winning agencies also do not rely on working until midnight the day before the pitch. They finish at a reasonable hour and get some rest. This way if they need the extra time, they have it.
Agencies in the consumer world suffer from the same short pitch timelines, but they still manage to dedicate significant time to rehearsal. You can bet that when the Martin Agency won Geico and NASCAR, they didn’t decide to wing it on pitch day. That team was rehearsed and ready to go when they arrived at the client to give their presentation. If rehearsing helps to win at the big consumer shops, then it can clearly help give agencies the winning edge in the pharma world.
If your agency is not winning at least 40% of its pitches or if you’re hearing that the chemistry is not right, perhaps now is the time to rethink the pitch process and dedicate a bit more time and discipline to rehearsal.

Simple Rules for Q and A Mastery

It is virtually impossible to win a pitch with the Q&A session, but it is fairly easy to lose the pitch.

Agencies seem to feel that the Q&A session that follows the new business pitch is there to promote the free exchange of ideas. After 90 minutes of a finely crafted presentation, where the agency has scripted every word, every interjection and slide, the question and answer session is more of a test than it is a conversation. The client is using their precious 30 minutes of Q&A to kick the proverbial tires of the agency. Is everyone on the same page? Do they get along? Will the agency be easy to work with? Will the client need to suffer through an agency’s internal squabbles? These are the questions that the client is trying to answer when they ask, “Which concept would you recommend?”

So the question becomes, what is the agency doing that is getting them closer to a win during the Q&A? And what is the agency doing that is potentially losing the business?

When you start to look at Q&A as a conversation versus a test, certain behaviors become either positive or negative. For example, when you look at it as a conversation, team members discussing an issue makes perfect sense. When you look at it as a test, when one team member adds to another team member’s answers, it gives one of two possible impressions. First, that the team members are not on the same page. While this is bad, it is not nearly as bad as the second impression, which is that the person that adds on to the answer does not trust their teammate. This can be deadly. The client wants to know that not only are you all on the same page, but that you all trust each other. Other poor impressions that can result from someone adding on to an answer – the client may feel like the person just has a need to talk. We all know people like this.

There are two things you can do to combat the add-on. Train your staff to answer the question and then ask, “Does that answer your question?” If it does answer the question, most people would consider the case closed and would move on. If it does not answer the question, the answerer is now free to look for some help from your team. Asking for help is much more charming and intelligent than having five team members jump in for the save.

A second thing to consider during Q&A is to keep the answers short. The more you talk, the more likely you are to say something that you don’t want to say. Also, longer answers tend to make the presenter sound defensive. Keep the answers to 60 seconds or less. Closer to 30 seconds would be better. Don’t tell the client how to build a watch when all they asked for was the time. Another reason to keep answers short is that the goal is to get through as many questions as possible. It would be a waste of time to spend five minutes or more answering a question that was asked by someone that does not get a vote.

A third rule of thumb for Q&A is to not let any one person dominate. When one person answers the bulk of the questions it can give a number of non-favorable impressions. The first is that the agency has one smart person and a bunch of less smart staff members. Another impression is that the person answering all of the questions does not trust their team members. Remember, these are the same team members that are about to be assigned 100% to this account. Clients do not necessarily expect that their day to day staff will know all of the answers, but they do expect that staff to have the trust of agency executives. The goal is to get the pitch team involved and not let any one person dominate.

Finally, leave time for Q&A. The fact of the matter is that sometimes presentations run long. The danger is that if the agency leaves no time for Q&A, the agency is not so subtly saying to the client, “Your thoughts and questions are not important to us. It is more important for us to talk than it is for us to listen.” This is not the message that an agency wants to send to a perspective client.
The rules are not complicated, but they do require discipline. As much as I preach the “no add-on” rule, agency staff can find it difficult to hold their tongues on pitch day. As difficult as it may be, stick to the rules, and the pitch will be better for it.

Mark Schnurman
Pitch Consultant
Filament Inc.

Let junior staff speak

Most ad executives I speak with agree that bringing junior staff to a pitch is a good idea. After all, the day-to-day employees are going to be doing the work, and clients are likely to expect to meet the team. And bringing junior staff to pitches – with small roles – is a great way to develop the next generation of pitch superstars. With all of this going in their favor, I would expect to see pitch teams overrun with junior staff. But that is not the case.
Most ad executives I speak with agree that bringing junior staff to a pitch is a good idea. After all, the day-to-day employees are going to be doing the work, and clients are likely to expect to meet the team. And bringing junior staff to pitches – with small roles – is a great way to develop the next generation of pitch superstars. With all of this going in their favor, I would expect to see pitch teams overrun with junior staff. But that is not the case. Most of the resistance seems to boil down to two issues: presentation skill and knowledge.
When it comes to presentation skill, management is simply concerned that a junior person will lay an egg and lose the pitch. But in reality, it is virtually impossible for a junior person to lose a pitch. First of all, the bar is much lower for them. The client does not expect them to be perfectly polished. Second, if the junior person flubs but the rest of the team is great, the client will simply ask that individual not to be assigned to the account. On the other hand, if the junior person does a stellar job, now the client thinks that everyone at the agency is as smart as the junior person.
A bigger issue around presentation skill has to do with senior staff as opposed to junior staff. My suggestion is that agencies scrutinize all of their presenters, not just the junior ones. Poor senior level presenters do not get the same latitude as their junior colleagues and may cause much more harm to the chances of winning. Over time, a client may recognize the genius of an individual who is not a great presenter, but in a pitch, the client does not have the time or inclination to recognize that genius. They just see an inarticulate senior staff member.
When it comes to knowledge, not bringing junior staff because they do not know as much as the senior staff seems a little foolish. No client expects the day-to-day account/creative person to have the same expertise and insight as the VP of account services or the creative director. Clients expect the day-to-day staff to be smart and easy to work with and to know where to go when they don’t have an answer. They do not expect them to have all of the answers.
There are few keys to insuring that junior staff does a great job in a new business pitch. First, define their role. This means making sure that they use words like day to day when they describe their role on the account in order to set the bar that they need to clear. The client sets the bar lower for day-to-day staff than they do for the VP of account services.
Second, give them appropriate content to deliver. Clients expect to hear industry analysis and/or tactics from day-to-day account people. They do not want the 26-year old account executive to be developing and delivering the strategy for the product. The other half of appropriate content is giving the presenter enough content to deliver. If the account executive only has 90 seconds worth of content to deliver, he or she is not giving the audience enough time to get to know the presenter. But once an audience establishes an opinion on a presenter, there is no benefit in having the presenter continue. It takes about five minutes for an audience to get a good read on a presenter.
Finally, don’t change the content at the last minute. Junior staff members are probably petrified of the new business process. For many of them, they will be presenting with the president or managing director for the first time. Changing their content at the last minute could very well send them into a tailspin. Give them a day or two to really own their content.
Remember, the bar is lower for day-to-day staff. No one expects them to be as polished as the executives at the agency. Use that lower bar to your advantage and let the lower level staff show the client how smart everyone is at your agency.

Mark Schnurman
Pitch Consultant

The most imporatant part of the content...

The key to most new business presentations is figuring out what parts of the presentation should stay and what parts of the presentation are not necessary.

Mark Schnurman
Pitch Consultant
www.filamentinc.com