What Happened to the Simple Wedding Toast?

I attended my niece's wedding over the weekend, and I witnessed the latest sign of the impending apocalypse: the devolution of the wedding toast. For years, the toast was an opportunity for the best man to wish the bride and groom well. No more. Now it is the occasion for a long-winded dissertation on the happy couple's relationship with the best man AND the maid/matron of honor. (More on adding the second speech later.) Today a toast consists of the following elements:
1. How great the respective other party is ("Betsy, you're just great. You are pretty, smart, AND you even cook.")
2. How much the respective other party added to the life of the subject of the toast ("Lyle, you have done so much to make Sylvia a happy person, and I love you for it, Man!")
3. Pointlessly humiliating facts about the person being toasted ("Having gone through four years of college with Phil, I can't believe he sobered up enough to make it through this day.")
All this fun in the space of seven minutes or more. Valuable time that could be spent eating or drinking. Instead it becomes an excuse for drinking in order to anaesthetise the pain of hearing this endless speech.
Plus, we get to hear twice as many tirades, because today it is de riguer for the maid of honor gets to give a speech, too. I am not so traditional or hidebound to think that the toast is strictly in the male domain, but really... must we be subjected to such long oratory? Can't it be an either/or?
If you really want to endear yourself to the guests, try to remember these key points:
* Focus on the bride and groom. Remember, it's THEIR day, not yours.
* Be prepared. You're likely not Robin Williams, pal, and very few people are very good at winging a speech.
* Be brief. This is a toast, not a mini-series.
* Be touching, and I mean legitimately touching, not cloying. Try to create an emotional connection with the guests; they are more like to remember what you say.
* Stay sober. It will not only help you remember what you wanted to say, but it won't embarrass you or the newly married couple.
I once stood as a best man and used these words: "We used rings as symbols of a couple's commitment to each other because it is endless and eternal. We also put the ring on the third finger of the left hand, because it was once believe to have an artery that connected directly to the heart - our symbol for love. In that spirit, let us wish Dick and Diana an eternity of love together."
It's not the "I Have a Dream" speech, but people still remember it after 30 years.

Because it was memorable and not indigestible.

Professional Speaking Vs. the Toastmasters Model

Yesterday I attended a Toastmaster speech competition. It was part of their International Speech competition - the only series of contests that leads to Toastmasters' World Championship of Public Speaking. (The other categories are humorous speeches, extemporaneous speaking, and speech evaluation, but they are limited to championships of much smaller areas). The speeches were all heartfelt and earnest, varying in quality. The first was about living a life of values versus one of acquisition. There was an evangelical feel to it, evoking a preacherlike tone. The speech reflected the solid and sincere spiritual values of the contestant.

The second speech was titled "Double Dutch Queen," a charming tale of competing for a neighborhood jump rope title. It was an exquisite example of storytelling, though the point was not exactly clear to me.

The third speech was about language and speaking ("the toolbox we have called the English language," said the contestant). The speaker was charming in her smile and rapport with the audience, but she was clearly inexperienced as a writer. The content consisted a lot of cliches I have heard over the last 30 years about double meanings of words. Example: citing how Arnold Palmer had good luck in his competitions because, before each event, his wife would "kiss his balls." The audience was clearly uncomfortable with this phrase.

The last speaker gave a speech titled "On an Ordinary Day." She spoke about accepting new challenges. As part of her speech, she took balls out of a box and attempted to juggle them. When she dropped them, it became a metaphor for trying and failing. But she encouraged the audience to keep a-going, as Henry Gibson sang in "Nashville." She subsequently juggled them successfully. (My synopsis doesn't do this charming speech and speaker justice, but you get the picture.)

First place went to the juggler, with the "Double Dutch Queen" coming in second. However, it caused me to ruminate on Toastmasters versus the world of professional speaking. Would any organization pay to see these speeches? I believe the most marketable was the first speech on values, because its theme was universal, while the others were personal. It led me to further consider: What is the ultimate value of Toastmasters? If this is the level of speaking that we can expect from "championship" events, what does Toastmaster deliver?

An important disclaimer: I am not trashing the organization, as I am an active member. In fact, I have won many local championships myself. (District 38, the segment from which I won four championships, comprises 3,000 members from the New Jersey coast to Western Pennsylvania.) However, as I launched my pro speaking career, I turn to the National Speakers Association for development. I am outpacing Toastmasters.

What do you all think? How relevant is Toastmasters to speakers? Are the exercises worthwhile? Are the members doomed to live in amateur land? Or is Toastmasters the perfect organization for those who want to keep up their speaking skills? I'm interested in your thoughts.

Welcome me back and pardon me for breaking the cardinal rule of blogging

Wow, what a mistake that was! More than a month without posting to this blog. I have lots of reasons: mostly my day job, with writing and publishing the annual report, and then writing a video script and traveling to Mexico to shoot part of it. But these are not excuses. I should have been keeping up on this. I believe I have more to say than I allowed myself. There is so much going on in the public arena with the Potential Prezes, General Petreaus, the Pope coming to America, and so on.

There is a lesson there. Mostly, this blog should be a conversation between you and me, and I did not keep up my end of the bargain. This two-way thing we have going between us is the very heart of blogging, a trust. Otherewise there is no raison d'etre (I think that's the way you spell it). But I ask you: What should we do when we don't have much that is worthwhile to say? Should we just go on for the sake of blogging, or should we give it a rest? I'm interested in your thoughts on the very nature of this communication. In the meantime, look for more from me. And please let me hear from you.

PowerPoint Still Sucks!

Just got back from a company sales meeting from Orlando, and I am more convinced than ever that PowerPoint is the scourge of corporate communications. I don't want to READ what you're saying; I want to hear YOU! I want to see your body language, I want to hear your nuances, I want to feel your emotion. I want to feel your passion, not be slowed down by seeing your words on a large screen.

One of the most effective moments of the meeting was a manager with a wig, a guitar and a harmonica, singing a song called "The Backorder Blues." The guy received a standing ovation afterwards, and no PowerPoint could have enhanced that message. I hear Toastmaster speeches at least three days a month, and I study the award-winning speeches. Some of these rise to the best oratory that I hear, and they generally don't contain PowerPoint. How can PowerPoint add to a touching story of a mother losing her child to a hospital-acquired infection? To a hillarious speech about being on a yacht for the first time? To a coherent message for an organization going forward? They cannot. At best, they are superfluous. At worst, they're distracting.

Please, corporate America, go cold turkey on these things and trust your ability to move an audinence yourself. If you don't have confidence, then get it by practicing or hiring a coach. Rest assured that you will stand out for being the person who does not rely on this tool of the devil.

William F. Buckley - Notable, Quotable, Irrefutable

All of us who love good writing and speaking must note the passing of William F. Buckley this week. I knew him mostly as a well-schooled, well-cured ham in the 1970s talk show era. His reptilian tongue constantly wagging, he kept a mischievous eye on all that was happening around him, always secure in the knowledge that he was the most literate and lettered loudmouth on the dais. However, as I read more about him this week, I came to realize that mine was a narrow view of the man's impact on our culture.

With the bully pulpits of Rush, Sean, Glenn and their ilk, it is hard to know (or remember) that their were few, if any, conservative voices in America. Mr. Buckley became a fine spokesman for his brethren, as his wit, charm and superior intelligence gave lubricity to his anti-liberal writings and speeches. No matter which way you lean on the political spectrum, I would hope that everyone wishes for a diversified dialogue on the issues of the day; otherwise, we may as well be talking into our mirrors. (Note the lack of "the other side" on the programs of the aforementioned pundits or on the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal. Looks to me like revenge for years of bias levied against them.)

Eventually, Buckley's influence helped pave the way for President Reagan. Again, regardless of your politics, I believe that we should be grateful for the balance that we've achieved in the national dialogue. I turn you over to two viewpoints that are more informed that mine - and keeping with my theme of balance, they offer two distinct views of Mr. Buckely. One is by George Will, a writer whom I admire for his sheer craft as a writer. He wrote this appreciation for The Washington Post ---> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022803230.html .

The other is from Timothy Noah from the online magazine, Slate. He offers a glimpse into Mr. Buckley's darker side. This deserves airing, too. ---> http://www.slate.com/id/2185301/ .

Mr. Buckley died at his desk. He never wasted a moment of his life. For all of us who yearn to use our communication skills to serve a higher purpose, we have no better role model.

TV Or Not TV - Is That the Question?

Some things never change. Or perhaps they change slowly, even over decades. But set the Wayback Machine to early fall 1960, Sherman, and we’ll visit the Kennedy-Nixon presidential debates. On September 26, 70 million TV viewers in the U.S. tuned in to watch Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Republican Vice President Richard Nixon go at it in a televised presidential debate, the first ever. This first-of-four debates centered on domestic issues. The results are legendary, perhaps creeping into cliché.

In this relatively new medium, candidate Nixon fared poorly. He was underweight from illness, and his trademark five o’clock shadow was in full bloom. By comparison, Kennedy — only four years younger —was tanned, rested and poised, seeming much younger. Nixon seemed discomfited by his princely opponent, and while radio listeners thought he was the winner, the 70 million viewers were impressed by what they saw. There were three subsequent debates, which most observers of the day believed that Nixon won. But you know what they say about first impressions — Nixon never recovered, and that probably created his losing razor-thin margin.

According to writer Erika Tyner Allen, “The impact on the election of 1960 was significant, albeit subtle…. At election time, more than half of all voters reported that the Great Debates had influenced their opinion; 6 percent reported that their vote was the result of the debates alone. Thus, regardless of whether the debates changed the election result, voters pointed to the debates as a significant reason for electing Kennedy.”

When Kennedy ran for president, he had served in the U.S. Senate for little more than one undistinguished term. Nixon was a sitting two-term vice president with a reputation for fighting communists at home. Fast forward to today, and we have a relatively inexperienced senator winning primary elections because of his preternatural oratorical skills. He may be going against a war hero who is in his 70s. Despite the much-vaunted power of the World Wide Web, the Internet is still mostly a fund-raising tool. After nearly 50 years, TV is STILL the medium that familiarizes candidates. And it is still speaking skills that make that connection. If they face off in November, how will the seasoned senator with the respected resume fare against the acolyte orator? Is it style over substance, or is style actually substance in this case? Is the talent to move people, to motivate them to action, what the American Presidency really needs? My biases tend more to the former. I believe that certain Presidents in the latter part of the 20th Century showed us that substance is critical.

What do you think? I would like to know your thoughts on this, and I would like to keep this topic up-to-date as we move together through this historic election period.

Hear My Interview with Ryan and Bo

I was pleased to take part in an interview with Ryan Levesque and Bo Bennett on their Internet radio show, The Talking Toastmasters. Ryan and Bo called to discuss my recent Toastmaster magazine article, "Speaking of Business." They are a couple of fun and irreverent guys who really know how to lighten up the topics surrounding public speaking.

The show is already posted on the web, and you can find it here:
http://www.igroops.com/igroops/publicspeaking/blog/VIEW+00000012+00000122#00000122

I hope you enjoy hearing it as much as I enjoyed doing it. I also encourage you to listen to Ryan and Bo's other weekly broadcasts with a wide variety of interesting people.

Ratcheting Up the Rhetoric

Is it official yet? Are John McCain and Barack Obama the candidates for President of the U.S.? Senator McCain seems to think so. Last night, in his victory speech after the Wisconsin primary, he said that he may not be the youngest candidate, but he is the most experienced. Thus, he took on Senator Obama, ignoring the continued presence of Senator Clinton. But most striking was his stab at soaring rhetoric. He denounced the “eloquent but empty” calls of Obama. He derided war critics as taking a “holiday from history,” and called dictators like Fidel Castro “moral monsters.” Alleluia for alliteration! Nice catch phrases, but do they make a speech inspirational?

On the other hand, Obama took to the podium last night to give his victory speech after it was apparent that Clinton would not congratulate him during her concession. (A bit spiteful? Is that beneath him? I contend that public figures need to keep to high standard for class, which Obama generally does. See my posting, “Poise under Super Pressure.”) A commentator on MSNBC announced that his speech would be “impromptu.” Hardly. I heard him give essentially the same speech a few days ago at a rally.

So is McCain trying to rise to a standard set by his main competitor? Has Obama begun to run out of fresh phrases and resort to the oratorical equivalent of leftovers? Is Clinton still in the picture at all, or can she use her own skills to make a fresh case for herself? Keep watching. We are again reminded of the power of presentation, even in a Web 2.0 World.

Attention Toastmasters - Check Out My Article in February 2008 Issue

If you are in Toastmasters International, please check out my article titled "Speaking in Business: Five lessons in corporate communication." You'll find it on page 8 of the February issue. It's about my decades of experience in corporate communications and how they benefit me as a speaker and speechwriter. I'll put a link on this blog to the article when it is posted on the Toastmasters.org

There’s a Craft to Online Social Networking

I recently attended a seminar on LinkedIn. Okay, I’m a little late to the party on this one. In fact, I was already in LinkedIn, but I wasn’t making those most of it. I know the benefit of it. You can reach out to a number of people and build your personal brand equity. This sort of networking fits my personality pretty well. I relate to a large number of people, and I certainly like to talk about myself (hey, if I didn’t, I would be marketing myself as a speaker and communicator).

Since joining LinkedIn, I reconnected with people with whom I lost touch. Cool. I like hooking up with old friends. I’m also looking forward to create new contacts, too. It’s a great way to expand your influence. LinkedIn has 17 million people on it, so many of them are bound to pay attention to me. Also, I am always looking for new information, so this should be a good way to research.
I am struck with how important good communication is to the effective use of LinkedIn. The most obvious skill needed: Succinct writing. You want to have just the right amount of detail in your profiles. Not too much, not too little. You also want the paragraphs to be short. Bullets are nice.

There is also the tone. First person is more inviting. But as a video guy, I can see that it’s important to SHOW your value. As some of my speech idols have advised me, don’t tell them, TAKE them. Use web links. Add documents. Make people feel. And it all goes back to staying on message, so keep your goal in mind. It’s a lot like the skills we need in speaking, isn’t it?
But the most important point is that, like speaking, you have to connect. Don’t be buttoned up; participate. Having these sorts of connections can have many so many benefits that you can’t even imagine right now.

I’ll be interested in your thoughts on LinkedIn and other social networking. What works for you? What could be improved? Let those of us on this blog know.