The Presentations Japan Series

We normally think of omnichannel in relation to the medium being used to contact buyers. We can also use this idea when thinking about planning our talk. We automatically revert to the brain when we start this exercise. Our logical, rational, analytical mode is needed but that is not enough for audiences. We need heart, value and sex appeal for our messages to resonate. We tend however to get stuck on the first rung of the planning ladder, the intellectual angle. We all know though that we are emotional creatures, running around justifying our emotional choices with a veneer of logic. Our talk need to access all of our human instincts.

We need our brain to be working well. Logic is required to make the argument make sense to our audience. It means we need to be piling on the evidence, proof, data, statistics and testimonials etc. The navigation of the talk should be logical, so that it flows like a good novel, making it easy for the audience to follow where we are going with this content. I have mentioned before a talk I attended, where the visiting VIP just rambled through this maze and mist of an esoteric discussion, peppered with his vague musings, which was totally impenetrable. It lacked structure, logical flow and clear, concise communication. It was totally self-indulgent. To this day, I still have no idea what he was on about, but his personal reputation and his organisation's reputation were both shredded that day.

Some members in the audience will be analytical types who love the logic, the detail, the nitty gritty, the evidence and they will be happy to see it. They will be calibrating everything we say and running it through their mind looking for inconsistencies, gaps, flaws and mistakes of fact. We will win this group over if we are well organised, however they are not the only personality type in the audience. We have to go omnichannel to appeal to other personality types.

Some will be more swayed by their hearts. We need to get them in touch with their emotions and feelings during our talk. Novels and movies are emotional engagement masterpieces in many cases. We are drawn into the characters in the story and what happens to them. I am a pretty logical guy, but I remember being captured by the heroine in the Japanese television drama Oshin. Her rise from crushing poverty to running a massive retail empire was a true story, which appealed to my logical brain, but her travails were all pulling at the heartstrings.

We do not have multiple weeks like a television show or three hours like a movie or hundreds of pages in a novel to emotionally engage our audience. We can have some elements of the human drama of what we are talking about. Because we are in business there is absolutely no shortage of drama which we can relate. There are the full spectrum of characters to draw upon as well, from amongst our colleagues, subordinates, superiors, suppliers and clients. Everyone loves a gory tale of corporate value destruction, factional bloodletting spitting out winners and losers and the dirty deeds done dirt cheap by business nasties.

Another instinct is the gut and this is where we are appealing to value for money. Is what we are talking about bringing concrete value to the audience. Have we proffered some information or insight, which was previously unknown to them? Are we making their business or personal life substantially better? Are we tuning into the conversation going on in in the minds of the audience and suggesting questions which they want answers to and then magically unveiling the solutions? The "what is in it for me" question is always the uppermost thought in an audience's mind, when they sit there listening to us pontificate about a subject. I attended a talk by a big shot executive from one of the largest companies in the world. She was talking about personal branding, so she pulled a good crowd. However, it instantly became apparent that she was talking about how to brand yourself within a mega monster of a company like hers, when the audience was full of punters from small to medium sized enterprises. There were zero take-aways and zero value on offer that day.

The last omnichannel is sex appeal. Is your topic sexy, will it fill the seats? The title is always a key. A lot of thought needs to go into the best shorthand description which will grab attention. Sometimes we need a provocative title to break through the daily detritus filling the minds of our potential audience members. "How to" titles also work because we are flagging you will learn something if you attend. The delivery is another aspect of sex appeal. We have to be excellent in giving the talk, looking for every opportunity to engage with our audience. We want them thinking, writing down our stuff and often we have to branch into edutainment. I am not good at snappy repartee, quick wit, zinger one liners or being a skilled raconteur. I can tell stories though, which are interesting and insightful, which seems to get me by.

When we sit down to design the talk, we need to be asking ourselves, "have I got all of the omnichannel touchpoints covered for this talk?". We know people are quite various in how they absorb information and in their interests. We have to do our best to appeal to as many people as we can in the one sitting. In the end, it is the planning starting point which matters most. If we plan to incorporate these four omnichannel elements of brain, heart, gut and sex appeal, then we will be more successful.

Usually when we have an opportunity to make a presentation, we get busy thinking about what we will talk about. The organisers may have set some rails by specifying the theme of the event or they may have asked us to speak on a particular topic. We are busy and often we start with creating new slides and scanning previous presentations for slides we can recycle. This is a poor strategy. What do we bang on about to our staff – plan the event or the project before you get started on the nitty gritty details. However, we neglect our own sage advice when it comes to presenting.

Part of the planning process should involve boiling the key message down to a nub that cleverly, succinctly and concisely summarises the whole point of the talk. Before we go there though we would be wise to consult others for ideas. It is a bit odd isn't it, because we are always recommending collaboration and crowd sourcing of ideas for projects. How we seek those ideas though is a bit tricky.

Bounding up to someone for your presentation and suddenly saying , "do you have any ideas for this talk I am going to give" may not work all that well. Teamwork featuring excellent levels of collaboration is a concept, a sacred concept in most firms, but rather undefined. What is the environment for collaboration? Are people's ideas welcomed in your workplace? Are we able to go outside the workplace and source broader networks for ideas? Do we have trustworthy networks in the first place?

I had to give a keynote speech to a relocation industry conference in Osaka. I called my contacts working in that industry and asked them about their issues, headaches and challenges. I have never worked in that industry and neither had anyone in my company, so I needed that broader network to help me. The irony was that after all the work I had put into crafting that piece de resistance , Covid put the whole event to the sword. I never did give that talk. It would have been brilliant of course!

Jokes aside, the idea of involving others is a good one, because we only know what we know. "Two brains are better than one" is ancient wisdom, but how often do we avail ourselves of outside input. I was getting my book "Japan Sales Mastery" translated and was struggling for the best title in Japanese. My friend Tak Adachi and I were having lunch and I mentioned my problem. He said why don't you just call it "Za Eigyo" or "The Sale". My son, later said to me why don't I drop the katakana for "Za" from the title and just use "The" from English, to become "The Eigyo".

This was a smart idea because I am an Australian writing in Japanese about selling in Japan, so the title combines both languages, to differentiate the book as a how foreigner would look at the world of sales in Japan. I would never have come up with those ideas on my own, so it demonstrated the value of collaboration.

The problem is we all recognise this in theory and we should be applying it to our presentation preparations, but we turn the whole thing into a solitary affair. We emerge from our cave, brandishing our slide deck and away we go. Getting more input is a better road to take, but there are some caveats. People we consult on the spot, will give us the very shallowest of ideas. We need to set this up, explain the theme and then fix a date a few days later, to allow them to digest the theme and work on some ideas. We are looking for diversity of views here and are not going to make any snap judgments. We should listen quietly – no interrupting, jumping in over the top of them or ending their sentences. We then thank them and privately reject, modify or incorporate their ideas.

If we ask them to give some feedback on our ideas, always frame the response. We want them to tell us what they like about it first and then tell us how we could make it even better. Confidence is a key aspect when presenting and that includes the preparation phase as well. This whole effort doesn't have to take a lot of time, so we are not going to be caught in a time crunch and have to rush things, to be in time for the talk. More ancient wisdom says we don't plan to fail, but we often fail to plan. We can incorporate more ideas into the preparation phase, if we simply plan for it.

The end is near. The end of Covid that is, as we see vaccinations increase and get us all closer to herd immunity. When will it end? There probably will never be an exact end, but it will diminish and our lives will get back to something approaching normality. That means we will be back in the meeting rooms and speaking venues to give our talks to live audiences. We have gotten used to online talks, which are the supreme example of impersonal presentations. The audience are a series of tiny boxes on the screen, some without their cameras on and there is no particular sense of interaction. We are talking to a camera mounted 10 centimeters or more above where the faces are positioned, so we have little read on the audience reaction to our talk.

Using body language on screen is difficult. In fact, it is so difficult that almost 99% of speakers don't use any when they speak online. They sit there talking and talking, but not involving their hands for gestures or using any facial expression. Fake backgrounds have taught everyone that if you start waving your hands around they will disappear. The secret here though is to use gestures, but just don't wave them around like a pirate captain. When you do move your hands, move them slowly and keep the gestures in the upper shoulder to around ear height range, in order to be easy to see.

When we are live in person, we can rediscover all the benefits of using our full body to emphasise our messages. When I see speakers standing behind a podium, so that they can operate their laptop or read from their notes, I always think what a waste. A waste of energy, which could have been distributed to the audience through our full body. We should move away from the podium and face the audience, so that we can draw on the power of our total body speaking techniques.

This includes using the three distances technique with the audience. When we want to make a macro point, we can move slightly back from the audience, lift our chin up slightly and employ very large gestures. When we want a neutral power position, we can be mid-stage and hold our chin level, while employing normal gestures. If we want to make a micro point, we can move as close as possible to the audience, drop our chin down ever so slightly and use rather smaller gestures.

If it is a big venue, we can cover the left and right sides of the stage too. When we move though, we should try to avoid speaking while moving. Walking is a distraction, so we want to minimise this as much as possible and have the audience completely concentrated on our words alone. We should walk naturally to the very stage apron on the left or right side, so that we are as physically close to that part of the audience as possible. This physical positioning gives a greater sense of speaker and audience connection. This is because we are showing we want to move to be with them, rather than remaining a distant, remote speaker on stage, clearly separated from the attendees.

Being in the room, we can now really use our eye power. Online, we have to train ourselves to look at the camera, but it is a weird experience. The way it works with the technology is such that we cannot see the reactions on the faces below, because we are looking up at the camera lens. Our talk may as well be delivered by phone, because we are not getting any feedback on the content of what we are saying. In a live venue, we can see the faces of the audience and can make contact with their eyes. We should be seeking to hold each person's gaze, one by one, for six seconds. This is enough time to make a connection, make the talk feel more personal, yet without the eye contact feeling too intrusive.

Keeping the lights up, if we are using slides is key, because we want to see their reactions and we want them to see us too. If any "helpful" individual decides to turn the house lights down while you are speaking, then stop speaking. Pause to build some tension in the room and then release the tension, by asking for the lights to be brought back up again.

We don't have a chat function live, but you can ask your audience to raise their hands if they agree or disagree with some point you want feedback on. It sounds funny, but when I have taught classes live, I miss that chat function. It gives you instant feedback from a large number of people and you can comment on their contributions and recognise them, as the chat input pops up onscreen. Constantly asking the live audience to raise their hands or to all speak up is going to be a shambles. Of course, we have the live Q&A to deal with enquiries and further clarifications, so all is not lost.

At some point soon we will back live. I found there is a transition from the computer screen to the big stage and it takes a bit of adjustment to get back in the saddle. We need to dust off our basic techniques for speaking and be ready to boost our personal and professional brands. Show time folks!

246: How to be a Star in Business Interviews

Being interviewed by the media can be a high risk affair, depending on the publication, the journalist and the business zeitgeist of the moment. These types of interviews come up relatively rarely in business. More common are panel discussions at business events hosted by Chambers of Commerce and more recently interviews on podcasts. I have been on both sides of the microphone, so let me share some observations which may help you prepare for your interview.

Chamber panels and podcasts are usually not "gotcha" interviews, as we will encounter with some journalists doing media interviews. Generally, we are going to be treated well and it would be rare that the interviewer really went after you. Having said that though, we have to expect the interviewer to want to dig down deeper into something you have said. This can be of two basic varieties.

One is a high level statement you made where the context and detail is obvious to the speaker. This may not be obvious to the audience though, so the interviewer will seek more detail and clarification. In this case, that is not a problem, because we have the depth of mastery of the subject. The other variety is a statement that may be accepted wisdom or it might be something we have said without giving too much thought to it. This is when we will get into trouble, because as soon as the interviewer starts to dig in, it becomes plainly obvious we don't know all that much about it and out pours fluff instead of substance.

The answer here is to talk about things you have experienced, read about in detail, have researched deeply or where you have listened to experts. This sounds obvious, however we don't know where we will go with the questions and we can be drawn to stray into areas where our intellectual coverage is pretty thin. There is nothing wrong with honesty. Just say, "I don't have much to say on that subject because I am not an expert in that area. However something I do feel passionate about is…". Don't just end it with telling the audience you don't know much, because we are starting to damage our personal brand. Avoid leaving the conversation hanging in the air with us having admitted we are babbling on about stuff we don't know too much about. Immediately segue into an area where we are knowledgeable and talk about that.

Always seek the questions in advance. With media people they will do that, but often they have a couple of silent assassins ready which they will hit you with unexpectedly, to throw you off balance, to gain their "scoop". Business panels and podcasts are usually not like that. Generally, for panels, they will let you know, in general terms, what is the broad discussion they are looking for. In the case of a panel, it is unpredictable where the conversation will move, but at least there are broad rails bounding the subject matter. Again, it always better to say you don't know, than trying to snow the organisers or the audience. Instead make a comment about some aspect you do know well and preserve your expert status.

For podcasts, you should expect they will have a set list of questions and you should get those in advance. If the interviewer says something like "I let the muse guide me", then I wouldn't recommend joining that podcast, unless you are massively confident about the subject matter. Generally, there will be prior episodes, so you can get a sense of whether you are in the presence of real genius or a total nutter. Often there will be a pre-meeting, to go through the episode theme and for them to get a sense of what sort of a guest you will be. You can also get a sense of who they are too.

Prepare for the questions, but understand you won't be able to read from notes. The pace will move too fast for that. You can glance at your notes, so it is better to have them arranged for easy reference, if you indeed need to do that. Just having mentally calibrated the questions is usually enough. Remember you are there because you know about the subject, so it will be easy for you to speak about it.

That is often the real problem. We do know a lot about the subject and we talk for too long and say too much. Media interviews are an area where the more concise you are the safer it is. Panel discussion hosts don't like guests who want to hog the limelight, so they will unceremoniously cut you off, effectively signalling to the audience that you lack self-awareness. Podcast hosts may just edit the hell out of you. There is a balance, but being concise comes across a lot better than rambling. If what you say is a bit too circumspect, the interviewer will draw you out further. If you hear yourself talking too much, then you probably are, so you need to conclude your remarks on that point and stop.

Rehearse your remarks based on the questions. Remember these are public occasions and just as you would rehearse for a public speech, you need to do the same for the interview. This will help you to trim the fluff from your answers and polish them into succinct, clever responses which will shine a positive light on you. This is just as much your personal brand as giving a keynote speech. Your fellow panelists or rivals on other podcasts, won't take this step. Think of these occasions in this way and you will definitely come across as a star.

One consistent issue which often pops up within companies requesting our training is achieving persuasion power with colleagues, bosses and subordinates. Being unable to convince others to follow your requests, ideas and suggestions is highly frustrating. Often the issue is how the topic is approached. In this "time is money", no patience, miniscule concentration span, twenty four/seven scramble, people drive you to get to your point. If you are giving a presentation the big boss might bark out "Story, get to the point". We are taught at business school to start with the punchline and get that into the Executive Summary, right at the front of the document. That is fine except it is ineffectual when presenting in person.

The punchline may be an excellent idea – "let's increase the marketing budget by $1 million to fund campaigns to coincide with the end of Covid". The problem though is that the punchline is naked and has no protection attached. As soon as we offer a statement, we suddenly transform our neutral audience into a raving band of doubters, sceptics, naysayers and critics. Fair enough too, because we didn't land the punchline properly. Comedians don't start with the punchline. They set it up, they build the mental pictures for us so we can see the scene in our mind's eye. They plug in plenty of context, add interesting characters, nominate a location and secure the build up in a temporal frame for us.

When the punchline is unveiled it is congruent with the set up, makes a lot of sense and we laugh. Why on earth serious, well educated business people would imagine they can just throw the punchline out there, with no context, background, proof, evidence, data and statistics is a bit of a mystery. But they do just that and then get cut to ribbons by the baying crowd of non-believers.

Our communication skills have to be good enough that briefly, we can build the basis for the punchline. If we do a good job, the members of the audience are all sitting there thinking "we should fund a campaign to coincide with the end of Covid", before we say anything about it. The lead up has been so well constructed that given the background, the best way forward occurs to everyone as the most obvious thing needed.

We have to keep it brief though. Storytelling is a big part of this, but these are "short stories", not War and Peace tome like equivalents. If we labour the point or go too long with the background, some grumpy attendees are bound to tell us "get to the point". So we need to have enough context, supported with tons of evidence, which draws out the needed next step. When we explain what comes next, everyone feels they already thought of that answer by themselves. This is guaranteed to get agreement to the proposal.

The way we get to the structure of the talk is to start with the action we want everyone to agree to. Having isolated out the action we investigate why do we think this? What have we read, heard, seen, experienced something, which tells us this is the best solution. There must be a reason for what we are recommending. All we need to do is capture that information and add in the people they know, a place they can see in their mind, put it all in a time frame and definitely add in data, evidence and proof to back up what we are saying.

We start with the background and then we reveal the punchline but we don't stop there. Recency is powerful, so we want to control what is the last thing our audience hears. We top it all off with stating the benefit of the action. The action/ benefit component must be very short. There needs to be one clear action, so that everyone can understand what we need to do. Also, while there may be many benefits, we only want to mention the most powerful one. If we keep piling on the benefits we begin to dilute their power with too much detail. Clarity must be the driving ambition here. If we put it into mathematical terms then 90% of the time we speak should be devoted to providing the richest context possible and 5% each for the action and benefit.

If we are doing a good job then by the time we blurt out the punchline the audience will be thinking "that is old hat, I knew that, that is obvious". If we can engender that reaction then we have done our job well. Brief but powerful, clear and convincing - these should be our objectives.

Clients have some common problems with their Japanese leaders. I know this because the same requests keep coming up. This is across industries and companies and it is consistent. Usually Japanese presenters are excellent at assembling lots of data and information. They can really pack a lot into a few slides. When they present it is like a waterfall of wonderous content, just flowing forth, without much structure or clarity. Somehow the bosses have to work out the key points for themselves, because the staff's job focuses on accumulating hoards of data and then putting it all up on screen. The presenter is almost invisible, has low energy, speaks in a quiet voice you can struggle to hear and blends well into the wall paper. This doesn't work so well in international meetings and Japan looks weak and ineffectual to the rest of the far flung company world.

We are battling two giants here. One is the educational system and the other is Japanese culture. I earned my Masters Degree here in Tokyo, so I have seen up close and personal what a high school education prepares you for and what universities do with that raw clay. An argument could have been made, prior to the advent of the internet, that the ability to memorise vast quantities of information and regurgitate it on command was a serious capability. We can find any thing very quickly today thanks to search engines, so having to memorise gobs of stuff isn't as important as it once may have been.

I see it in my son's education when he was at international High School here. They were required to have laptops and everything was done online. His generations' issue is there is too much information. How do you find the best and correct data, how do you sort the wheat from the chaff? Young people are digital natives, but they are all drinking from the firehose of all data every recorded, sitting just a few clicks away.

We teach our students to start at the end. Define in as short a sentence as possible, the most important key message you want to impart. This is not as easy as it sounds. You have to be brutal with yourself. You have to eliminate all the nice to have, all the interesting to have and refine it down to the must have. Just throwing up a lot of data on screen doesn't require as much thinking, as refining the data into the gold nuggets for the audience. Discerning the key message then allows us to build the structure for the argument and to align the necessary evidence in order to be convincing to our audience.

The first words coming out of our mouth have a powerful role. Everyone seems easily distracted today, have miniscule concentration spans and are quickly bored. So we need to say something that really breaks through that wall of indifference and grab their attention. There is no point launching that blockbuster opening in a squeaky, unsure, timid little voice. People will be flying for their phones to escape you. No, we need a strong voice, standing or sitting tall if online, when we kick things off. We have to be oozing confidence.

"But Story san, my English is so poor, I have no confidence". This is another trope we often hear. Here we have Japanese perfectionism, no defect, no errors and no mistake culture colliding with the Education Department's failed efforts to teach the population English. Don't accept that excuse. No one cares about linguistic perfection in business meetings, except the Japanese staff when they have to speak in English. Give them the "no grammar needed" escape jail card for the meetings, to give them permission to speak without fear and let the rest of us work out what it is they want to say. We are used to this and are all pretty good at it.

Just being able to isolate the key take away and deliver that in a confident manner will be a revolution to business meetings where Japanese have to present. Not having to wade through all the dross to understand the key point will be a relief. Having one idea per slide will be a life saver for everyone – make this the iron rule for Japanese presenters. This forces the selection of only the most important information to be shown. The result will be a much clearer messaging effort and greater clarity around what exactly is that message. Confidence sells the message, so the delivery has to be sold in that manner.

Rehearsal is critical for Japanese speakers and so is coaching. This applies to whatever language they are presenting in, because you can guarantee the issues will be present in both languages to a great extent. When giving feedback to anyone, only look at two elements and tell them what they are doing well and then tell them how they can do it even better. This will build confidence and create a momentum that will maximise capability. What does all of this cost? Nothing, so let's get to it.

Once upon a time, we taught public speaking and presentation skills in a class room, with tons of people all seated together, right next to each other. We moved to teaching everything LIVE On Line since February 2020, so what has been the difference? Surprisingly, not as much as we expected. The one big difference is the lack of opportunity to employ full body emphasis when presenting, because everyone is mainly sitting in front of a screen. You can use a standing desk, but even so, the camera will cut you off at the thigh level, so we are not getting the full body power. There are a few tricky things about gestures when using fake backgrounds, which by the way seems to be standard now. What are the things that stand out most in the online presenting environment?

Smiling is definitely one which has disappeared, when people are on screen. I don't know why that is the case. Perhaps we are more self conscious in front of a camera? Or is this now such a serious business world that smiling is out of fashion? Think of any online meeting you have attended recently and ask yourself was anyone smiling when they made their comments or gave their reports? I was teaching a class on presenting skills online recently and what a difference it made when people would smile during their talks. Not every subject lends itself to smiling of course but there are bound to be good news in there somewhere and that is the time to trot out that big smile of yours. It is congruent with the content of the talk, so it works. It is also such a connector with the audience, it really drives up the engagement factor with an audience.

We have all been doing these online meetings for 18 months now, yet most people still haven't mastered the medium. I know it is difficult, because the camera lens is 10 centimetres above the faces on the screen. However, take a look at the eye line of the participants in the next meeting. How many are framed in the screen so that there is a half body showing and their head is at about two thirds height on camera? Many will still have their heads cut off and they are arranged at the very bottom of the screen, like they have been decapitated. Or they will have the camera lens angle shooting straight up their nostrils – not an attractive look that one.

When we get the camera lens at eye line and we speak while looking at the camera, we are now using the medium as it was designed. The camera can bring us into the world of the viewer and we can be speaking directly to them through the lens. When we are looking down at the faces on screen we have broken off eye contact and we seem like we are looking down on everyone. It is the equivalent of giving a face to face speech without ever looking at your audience, in fact you are speaking to the floor, the whole time. Now I have seen speakers actually do that, but it is totally ineffective. The same with the online world – talk to the people through the lens and you will get your message across much more impressively.

We mainly use our voices when presenting online. Yet what about gestures? Gestures can support what we are saying by bringing more physical energy to the point. If you have framed yourself properly then you can use your hands on screen. There are a few best practices though. Firstly, don't wave your hands around, because the fake backgrounds will disappear them at certain points. So, hold your hands at between shoulder and head height, so that they can be easily seen and hold the gesture rather than trying to move it too much. Also, if you want to show some item on screen, use your own body as the shield and show it in front of you. The fake background won't be able to disappear it on you when you do it this way.

Most people I see online, are using the same speaking voice range they use all the time in the in-person world. When we are presenting we are no longer a part of the audience – we are on stage, be it in a venue or online. That means we need to bring a lot more energy to what we are saying, in order to attract the audience to our message. When we are online, we also need to compensate for the fact that the camera will sap 20% of our power and we will come across as having less energy that usual. You may have noticed that most people speaking online sound like they are on "downers". We need to get that voice energy up and start directing at it a key words we want to emphasise in our sentences. Not every word in a sentence has the same value, so we need to pick out key words and phrases and make them hot, by hitting them harder.

Most online presenters have a long way to go with this medium. The experience gained over the last year or so, hasn't improved them, actually. They are still making fundamental mistakes. These can be easily corrected and it just takes greater awareness and some practice to get it right. So let's think again about what we are doing here and how we are doing it. Apply these ideas and you will immediately be in the top 1% of online presenters, simply because everyone else is clueless, hopeless and way underpowered.

"Naomi Osaka would have earned at least $200,000 dollars if she made the Top 16 in the French Tennis Open and would have had a $1.7million payday, if she won the tournament. Speaking to the media after each round, is why she gets paid the big bucks, so she should harden up and get to work". Some other commentators have focused on her "bravery to talk about her mental depression and her decision to forego the money, to take care of her mental health". I don't fit neatly into either category really, because I get the "part of the job" responsibility in her chosen profession and I also salute her for talking about her mental health struggles, as a 23 year old young woman, facing a cynical, mercenary sports press. For me, although she may be a sportswoman, her issues also apply to the businessperson who faces the very same dilemmas. You are getting paid to represent the firm in the public arena, even if it is killing you.

I am not an expert on Naomi Osaka, but I do recall reading her comments about a year ago about her disinterest in becoming a skilled public speaker. At the time, I thought that was a curious idea for someone in her line of work. It is typical though isn't it. We start working in our chosen career and then as we rise through the ranks, we are given greater responsibilities and that includes speaking in front of others. Did we sit down at a young age and survey our future career path and conclude that at some point in time, if we do well, we will have to give internal presentations, deal with the press, handle shareholders or represent the company by giving public business speeches. No! We just went to work every day and then one fateful day, the bell rang or the alarm went off and we had to make that first talk.

I doubt whether leading tennis academies allocate any time to instructing their future stars on how to deal with the press, sponsors or the public. It is the same in companies. No one ever thinks about investing in your future, by training you on how to handle speaking in public. In the same way that this inability or choice to not deal with the requirements to speak in public could be a career ending outcome for Naomi, it can also mean we are passed over at work, in favour of those silky smooth, confident, more professional speakers inside the firm.

Recently she wrote about withdrawing from the French Tennis Open, "I am not a natural public speaker and get waves of anxiety before I speak to the world's media". I read in the press that she is worth $77 million, from sponsorships etc. She has the money to get media training, presentation training and every other form of training needed to enable her to become a master of her environment and be able to deal with the gutter sports press. Are businesspeople investing in themselves to become masters of their environment? No. Like Naomi they are just suffering.

No one is born a natural public speaker. I know this to be true. For the first 30 years of my life, I was terrified of public speaking. Like a whipped dog, I hid in the shadows, praying I would not be called upon to speak in public. As I rose through the ranks in my career, there came that point, that day, when the bell rang and I had to get up and speak to an audience. Did I go and get training? No! It was some number of years before I took the plunge and got the training. When I had the training, what did I think about it? I immediately realised I was an idiot and I should have done this when I was much, much younger and at the start of my career. Now, over 500 public speeches later, I enjoy it.

What was different between the old me and the new me? My mindset changed and I stopped embracing my fears and inadequacies. I stopped running away from the inevitable. The training gave me skills and the coaching brought out my confidence. Repetition did the rest. But your mindset has to be right to be able to get the training and to access the repetition. Naomi Osaka is seven years younger than I was when I did my first talk. I hope someone looking after her gets her a good coach and she can slay this public speaking demon limiting her career. If you are in business and that same demon is confronting you, get the training and slay your career limiters too.

Video is tricky. However, it looks so simple. You just stand in front of the camera and give your talk. I don't know why video saps twenty percent of our energy when it is actually broadcast, but that seems to be the accepted wisdom. That means that just speaking normally into camera will now look a lot less energetic. Getting the delivery to be fluent is also a challenge. Either we do it free style or we use a teleprompter. Both have their challenges. What do we do with our hands? This is an interesting one, because the camera lens seems to have some magic power to reduce our gesture self awareness to zero, until that is, when we see it played back in all its gory glory.

I broadcast three TV shows on YouTube every week, so I am doing a lot of video work. My first weekly TV show was kicked off nearly four years, so I have gained a few insights over that time. I am not from the media world or have any background in television. I am a typical businessman who got into this by accident and so it is all pretty much self taught through exposure, practice and repetition. Yes, I have the advantage of being a High Impact Presentations instructor for Dale Carnegie, but presenting to a live audience and doing it on video is totally different. Everyone has discovered this fact since we all moved home, to spend a lot of our time in Zoom meetings or their equivalent.

I also teach people how to present to the camera and I have noticed a few things. Invariably their energy is too low. They are transferring their usual speaking volume to this medium and it doesn't work. They appear lifeless and boring. No problem, speak louder, right? That is what I thought too, but I noticed a lot of people find that daunting. For them speaking with 50% more energy feels like they are screaming. Remember we are subtracting 20% immediately to counter the camera lens energy deficit, but on top of that they need to bring even more energy to the talk. If I ask for 50% more energy, invariably I will get about a 10% increase. This is why having an instructor or coach is handy, because you can't easily work this out by yourself.

Gestures seem to be another area of mystery. What do I do with my hands? The most common choice is to do nothing with them. This is a big missed opportunity to bring physical power to support your verbal message. I have found there is a 15 second window to hold the same gesture. More than that and it become weaker and weaker and more and more annoying. The gestures need to be coordinated with what we are saying, so that they are congruent. If what we are saying and the way we are saying it don't align properly, then our audience gets distracted. Once upon a time, the distracted audience would be by focusing on our voice or our apparel. Now it is on their phone. For half body video composition, we need the gestures to be held between rib height and the head height, so that they can be easily seen. For some curious reason, a lot of people hold their gestures at low waist level and apart from being difficult to see, this bit usually gets cut off in the editing process.

What we are doing with our face also is important. Having one facial expression may be very energy efficient, but it looks wooden on video. Our face should be showing what we are talking about. If results are good, then look happy. If they are bad, then look concerned. If you ask a rhetorical question, then look puzzled. I think you get the idea. One thing the camera doesn't like is when we drop our chin down, while we are talking. It looks like we are talking down to our audience, we also look very constrained. So we need to keep that chin up the whole time. Try it for yourself and you will be amazed at the difference it makes, to how we come across to our audience.

If we are just speaking off the top of our head, then we had better be pretty good or the video will be butchered in the editing process, as we have to stitch all those corrected mistakes together. It becomes very jerky in the final version, which is super distracting from our message. Zooming in and zooming out at these edits makes it appear less choppy, but you still don't want too many of these to have to contend with.

Teleprompters can fix this and a bit of adjusting for font size and speed is needed to find the right balance. The secret here is to only look at the left side of the screen as the words roll up. Otherwise, you will find yourself reading from left to right and on screen you will look like you are reading it. This rather defeats the purpose doesn't it. Have a look at my shows on YouTube and see if you can tell I am reading it off a teleprompter? Remember, our peripheral eyesight is good enough to focus on the left side and still read the words which are on that same line off to the right.

Video is a different game and we need to make this medium a winner for us. Try these hints for yourself and your image and impact will be much improved.

Too smooth politicians, silky salespeople, urbane company thrusters all set off alarm bells. We can meet impressive people and we can meet impressive looking people. Over time we have learnt how to plumb the difference. The world of presenting is made up of the top 1% who know what they are doing and the 99% who have no real clue. The 99% group are often card carrying sceptics, who have finely tuned radar for anything that looks different to what they know. Also, by definition this clueless 99% are our audience when we present. Are we in danger of turning them off if we come across as too professional?

This is certainly the case in Japan. Standing out and being outstanding are not welcomed here. The most insightful cultural norm in Japan is captured in the traditional wisdom of "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down". Owning the auditorium, dominating the podium, being a powerful stage presence are all "nail sticking out" issues. Looking supremely confident, being Mr. or Ms. Smooth, operating at a high level, are all viewed with suspicion. We have a similar idea in the West. When we meet a "smooth talking salesperson" we get worried about them taking our money.

Japanese culture appreciates humility, harmony, group consensus, not putting yourself forward and modesty. Hello to all of our American fans out there. This Japanese viewpoint is absolutely the formula for not getting ahead in aggressive, competitive societies. Interestingly enough, as an Aussie, I think this Japanese approach is close to our cultural norms too. In Australian parlance, someone who "big notes" themselves is a self aggrandising, big talker and they won't get very far Down Under. A Donald Trump telling everyone how rich he is, how smart he is, would be impossible for an Australian politician to replicate. As presenters, we operate within the bounds of our cultural rules and limits.

So how do we do a professional job of presenting in Japan, when the whole ethos is against the display of high levels of professionalism? There is a difference between being very professionally prepared and being a boring oaf on stage. Talking about yourself, except in terms of self-degradation, is out. That means we frame what we say about ourselves from a more humble lens. We do design a blockbuster opening though, to capture audience attention. We do set up the flow of the talk, so that the navigation is simple and easy to follow. We do provide evidence to back up any assertions we make. We do prepare two closes, one for before and one for after Q&A. We do rehearse numerous times to perfect the content, polish the cadence and make sure we are on time. In other words, we are a total professional in the way we prepare the presentation.

The friction points arise by the way we carry ourselves. I have lived here for 36 years and I have never seen a Japanese presenter stride confidently to the podium or the microphone. They walk slowly and hesitantly to the stage centre, stooping, wearing the greyest of the grey clothing, so they can be as boring as possible. They open up immediately with a series of apologies, to establish that they are not superior to anyone in the audience, even if they are.

I can't see me doing any of that when I am presenting. I will be a little more conservative in my dress, only because I don't want a pocket chief or tie or shirt ,to compete with my message. I won't be bounding up on to the stage like a panther ready to devour my audience. I will walk tall, with subdued confidence and go straight into my opening, without any time wasted on getting the tech right. There will be no microphone thumping because I will have tested it all before the event started. I won't be fiddling around to get my slide deck up, because I will have someone else doing that for me, while I use those first few vital seconds to engage my audience.

I won't be making any faux apologies for my poor preparation or poor public speaking ability, because I will be moving straight into explaining the value the talk will bring to the listeners. I won't be making flamboyant gestures or utilising any thespian artifices. I will be business like and focused on helping people through the messages I am delivering. The way I deliver the talk will be congruent with the content. It won't feel slick, but it will feel competent and that is what I want, in order to have my messages accepted. I won't attempt to be sardonic, cynical, use any idioms or try to be an amateur stand up comic. By Western standards, I will come across, as an understated expert in my topic. By Japanese standards, I will come across as a confident, but business like person, dedicated to their message for the audience. I will have threaded the needle between the two extremes and that will be a good result.