Life After PowerPoint!

I came upon a blog — I can’t find it now, I’m looking for it — that asked the question: Is PowerPoint evil?

That’s not the question.

There are actually three questions that need to be asked:

1. Is PowerPoint a good tool?
2. Is PowerPoint a well-used tool?
3. Is PowerPoint the right tool?

I’ll address all three questions in future posts. But in brief I think it’s an adequate tool that can be used well (though it is most often used poorly) and that is the right tool for a limited number of applications (though it is frequently used for every sort of presentation.)

Before I say more, what are your thoughts?

In my last post, A Speech Is Like a House, I compared various aspects of designing and building a house to creating and delivering a speech. And I compared delivering a speech to painting the house. I think I would change the analogy a bit to say that delivering a speech is like decorating the house. (Painting is part of the decor, of course.)

Ugly decor — a bad paint job and a poor choice of window treatments and the like – can make a great house ugly and unappealing.

And a poor delivery — a lifeless voice, a gazillion ums and ers — can make an otherwise terrific speech fall flat. So delivery is important.

But if a house has no foundation, if its support beams are termite infested, if its walls and floor and ceilings are caving in, no amount of paint can save it. 

If a speech has no goal, no concern for the audience and what it wants to learn, no clearly developed core idea, no unifying structure, no regard for language and style and logic (what used to be called rhetoric), a masterful delivery can’t save it. It’s rotten and it should simply be torn down and thrown away.

But, in my not so humble opinion, delivery is the last thing to work on. (Notice, I did not say the least important thing.) What do you think?

Photo courtesy of Wonderlane at Flickr.

A speech is like a house. And building a house is a lot like building a speech.

• A builder starts with a design.
  A speaker begins with a strategy. Why are you speaking? What is the purpose of your presentation? What is your goal? What do you want to accomplish? Who is the audience and what do you want them to do with the information you’re presenting? What’s the lay of the land — the event, the schedule, the room set-up?
• A builder pours a foundation.
  A speaker builds on an idea. What is your central idea, policy, or proposal? Is it a good idea? Is it sturdy enough to build a speech on? Is it clear? (Can you sum it up in one sentence?) Is it coherent? Is it logical? Is it supported by the evidence?
• A builder creates a structure.
  So does a speaker. Does the introduction create interest in the idea you’re going to develop and provide an overview of how you’re going to talk about it? Does the body of your speech flow logically from one main point to the next? Does the conclusion sum everything up and give your listeners a reason to take action?
• A builder adds support material.
  So does a speaker. What evidence supports your idea? How can you illustrate it? What images, stories, demonstrations let your audience see — either with their eyes or with their imaginations — what you’re talking about? What words, phrases, and sentences best give your idea form?
• And finally a builder paints the house.
  A speaker polishes his/her delivery. Where do you stand to have the most impact? How do you integrate your body language and vocal modulation and pitch with your message? Do you use pauses effectively? Do you convey a sense of confidence and command?

What do you think? Does my analogy make sense? What would you add to it?

Photo thanks to MVI at Flickr.