Avoiding the Presentation Wince Factor

Having worked with presenters to craft messaging for a broad variety of audiences, I’ve experienced a lot of “back of room” time. Hovering at the AV table at the back of the house is the final stage of the process devoted to successful delivery.

This investment of focus explains why it’s painful when, after assuring solid creative development, presenters (even seasoned ones) shoot themselves in the foot during delivery. I call these “wince inducers.”

Sadly, wince inducing comments have become woven into corporate speak, thanks to presenters parroting statements they’ve heard peers casually tossing out in similar situations. This somehow makes them seem “okay.”

But from an audience vantage point, they’re not. Wince inducing statements are an attempt to gloss over lackluster preparation. What they actually connote is lack of preparedness, coupled with lack of appreciation for the audience's time.

We’ve all heard (and perhaps uttered) some of these. Ponder them now as if you were the attendee:

“I know this slide is a bit of an eye chart …”

So why include it? If I can’t see it or read it, what’s the point?

Being fair, I have occasionally seen effective versions of using a deliberately complex image to contrast against a more streamlined version. Otherwise, heavy-duty graphics should be shared as handouts, or broken into multiple slides.

“…we can just skip these slides – they’re not important …”

Not important – meaning not important enough for just us?

It’s a major wince-inducer to simply click past slides during a presentation. Attendees are provided a glance at content they’re somehow not privy to. This also breaks up delivery and message continuity. Considering it takes mere minutes to delete or hide slides, this one is easily avoidable.

“…let’s move on and we’ll come back to this if we have time …”

…which means we’ll probably never see it again. Having gotten a peek, it would have been cool to know how it related…

Akin to skipping slides, accompanying an image with a thin, abbreviated narration sends a confusing message to attendees. If you’re not sure a concept can be woven into the broader message within the allotted time, delete or hide it.

“…um… well, I guess (designer name) didn’t make my edits …”

Wow. Did he/she just throw the designer under the bus? Nice.

I'll admit - I’ve been on the receiving end of this one a few times. Double wince factor for both audience, and event producers. This speaks to lack of preparedness with a taint of arrogance for good measure. How's that level of audience engagement now? An outdated version of a presentation loaded is often the result of last minute edits not being communicated clearly. It’s a mystifying as a developer to hear yourself called out for missing edits you know you never saw. That sentiment of finger-pointing tends to linger.

“Since we’re short on time, I’ll run through these last slides quickly …”

Great. Hope the remaining content isn’t anything important since I likely won’t retain it.

Crushing slides into waning minutes of a time slot is the ultimate way to indicate lack of familiarity with content. A good rule of thumb for time per slide is 1 ½ to 3 minutes. Any slide that takes more than 3 minutes to effectively discuss (assuming you’ve rehearsed delivery) should be broken into separate slides. Do the math to calculate the total time for presentation delivery (including modest Q&A time), versus time allotted. If it’s tight, streamline. Better to finish a couple minutes early than fly through remaining slides.

“This isn’t my deck, so bear with me …”

So, who’s is it? And why are you presenting it instead of them?

Confessing you’re relying on someone else’s materials says you (a) didn’t devote time to crafting something specific to that audience, or (b) you’re a subordinate presenting a higher-up’s message that you're not fully familiar with. In either instance, the undercurrent is one of recycled materials without effort to refine for the specific use. There’s nothing wrong with sharing impactful messaging from senior leadership through various levels of an enterprise. The wince inducing tone comes from generic re-use, assuming every presenter can deliver with the same level of clarity. I see this far too often - a presenter inserts graphics from another deck to add sizzle to their own. However visually intriguing a presentation might be, if it's accompanied by thin narration it simply confounds itself.

Are wince inducing statements really that big of a deal? Having seen dozens of good and not-so-good deliveries, I can say little things add up and can easily become big things. Another commonly heard piece of corporate jargon is “death by Powerpoint.” Little distractions undermine credibility. They quickly drain the perception of value versus time invested. Soon the audience is multitasking to fill the time - taking furtive glances at mobile phones and checking e-mail on laptops.

Methods for avoidance, while simple, take commitment. Adding readiness steps prior to final delivery assure presenters are ready to make the most of each opportunity. These include double-checking content prior to final loading. Rehearsing (numerous times while gauging timing) to confirm delivery style and pacing. And assuring technology details for projection, audio, etc. have been defined.

Done religiously, these combine to position the presenter in a very positive way as truly an expert, personally engaged, and effective, thereby assuring the ultimate payoff of heightened audience engagement and greater message retention.

A firm believer in the power of a well-delivered presentation, Dane Miller is the Senior Presentation Graphics Designer for Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers, based out of the Dallas, Texas area. Dane has extensive experience helping speakers maximize their presence on a variety of technology platforms, and for audiences ranging from Fortune 500 enterprises to aggressive startups.