40 second pitch

[rockstar.esq]

Today I attended a local business networking meeting as a guest of a colleague.  The aim of the group is to generate business referrals that actually end in sales for members of the group.  "Giving is getting" was a central theme of their efforts.  Neat stuff, they seemed to be doing good work, and there was a great atmosphere of helping one another.

The meeting was very structured, with timed agenda items to keep everything on track.  I got to see a lot of diverse business people talking about what they do, what the group does, where things are headed, etc.  It didn't take long for me to realize how the time limits effectively revealed more about the speaker, than what the speaker actually said.

Now this was a group of 30 or so people, and the majority were obviously not entertainers basking in the spotlight.  The collegial atmosphere was supportive enough that it was clear most of the members got plenty of practice honing their 40 second business pitch because they do this at every meeting.

The majority of the members conveyed who they are, what they do, and what separates them from competitors within 40 seconds.  

 About half of the remainder struggled through everything except for what separates them from their competition.  

Then there were a few that obviously lacked clarity of purpose.   There were a few interesting things about them.  First off, they all had plenty of experience in their line of work.  Second, public speaking skills/comfort had nothing to do with it.  These people appeared to be perfectly comfortable as they spoke.  And third, they were only excited to 

One was a life coach who spoke about teaching her clients about enforcing personal limits as a way to manage stress.  She spent her 40 seconds giving away her salable product, without saying her business name, or articulating what her business actually does.  

Another was some kind of HMO insurance agent who was given a full seven minutes to give a deeper presentation on his business.  What followed was a tirade on social security, Medicaid, and his prediction of an inexorable collapsing hope that retirees will ever afford medical treatment.  He repeated "There is no free lunch" at least a half dozen times as justification for his firms constantly increasing premiums.  His pitch seemed to suggest that everyone should lower their expectations, but only fools question rate increases.

There were actually several who went off into a 40 second sales pitch which were obviously condensed versions of their current marketing stuff, holiday gift deals being the most common.  

Those pitches were so unfocused that I really don't have much to refer them for.  More to the point, I'd be concerned about embarrassing myself by sending a friend to some incompetent joker.

I'm glad I went because the whole thing got me thinking about refining my perspective, and my pitch.  

 

[George N. M.]

The same thing happens in the legal/governmental area.  Often, you are given a time limit to speak and you have to condense what you want to say to fit it.  I recently commented to the County Commissioners about some changes to the County Zoning Regulations and had to limit myself to 5 minutes.  This was not too hard because I am used to making arguments at appellate courts where there is a page/word limit for briefs and a time limit for oral arguments.  In Colorado the time limit in the Court of Appeals is 20 minutes for each side and at the Colorado Supreme Court it is 30 minutes for each side.  If you are the appellant you can reserve a portion of your 30 minutes for rebuttal.

Where it gets interesting is when the Justices start asking questions, which counts against your time limit.  You need to be able to distill your arguments down to a couple of brief bullet points if your time has been eaten up by questions and answers.

There is also the problem of the attention span of your audience.  If you go too long or are not a particularly engaging speaker your message can be quickly lost to boredom or distraction.

To keep this related to blacksmithing, you need to do the same with your sales pitch at craft shows or making a pitch to potential commission customers.  You have a few moments to engage with customers.  Being entertaining helps.  I have attracted folk walking by who might not have otherwise stopped by telling  them "We have bright shiny things and sharp pokey things!"

"By hammer and hand all arts do stand."

[Chenier]

2 hours ago, George N. M. said:

The same thing happens in the legal/governmental area.  Often, you are given a time limit to speak and you have to condense what you want to say to fit it.

Yep. I used to testify a bunch to the City Council, where there was a 3-minute limit. I thought I got pretty good at it. Then I wound up actually on the Council itself and found that 95% of the time I could figure out the speaker's essential points in under a minute, even though they took their full time slot. Brevity is a blessing.

[JHCC]

My professional work (fundraising) often involves lengthy discussions and complicated negotiations. However, a potential donor often makes a split-second decision about whether or not they want to even start that process, so I have to have my initial approach honed down to two or three sentences max. 

(The very shortest version is "Would you be interested in having a conversation about how you can make a meaningful difference at [my institution] through your giving?")

[Frosty]

"TMI" isn't just a buzz phrase abbreviation.

Frosty The Lucky

[rockstar.esq]

George,

Wow, what a test of your ability!  I can imagine how questions could really disrupt the flow, leaving loose ends and little time to address them.  

I once worked for a guy who would interrupt management meeting reports with what sounded like offhand or even off topic questions.  He was like a shark smelling blood whenever the response wasn't complete, composed, and authoritative.  This rattled a lot of my co-workers, which only made it worse for them.  You could have a situation where there was no mistake and there was nothing going wrong, and this guy would rattle off all the reasons that your answers led him to question your competence.  

I would imagine judges pressed for time are similarly hard to impress.

[George N. M.]

Appellate courts will have a number of oral arguments scheduled for a morning or afternoon and want to keep on schedule.  They expect to move on to the next case on time.  And the attorneys and parties in the next case are in gallery.

It actually isn't as bad as it sounds.  You have submitted your briefs weeks ahead of the oral arguments setting out the legal arguments for your case and the judges/justices have read them and usually base their questions on them.  There is an expression that you tell the your "why" they should rule for your side in the brief and in oral argument you tell them what persuades them that they "should" rule your way.

That said, it is frustrating to have prepared a killer oral argument and carefully rehearsed it and then, as soon as you have said, "May it please the court . . ." the next sound is from the bench saying "Counselor, can you tell us why X controls or shouldn't control."  Hopefully, you know all about X and can briefly and persuasively respond.  Sometimes X is very problematic and you have to be good to answer it and sometimes it is a softball question from a sympathetic judge which allows you to give a good answer.

Although I am admitted to the bar of the US Supreme Court I have never argued a case there but state Supreme and Appellate Courts are more than enough fun.

"By hammer and hand all arts do stand." 

[rockstar.esq]

George,

Thank you for filling in some gaps, it certainly puts my mind at ease to hear that a lawyer's case wouldn't be completely hobbled by judicial interruptions during the lawyers allotted speaking time.  All the same, it sounds like a formidable challenge that goes well beyond simple debate or public speaking.  

[gmbobnick]

On 12/10/2021 at 7:05 AM, JHCC said:

so I have to have my initial approach honed down to two or three sentences max. 

I am on the same page as JHCC. 

Making a point usually competes poorly with the listener’s focus on judging the speaker.  Tactics are necessary to prevail over judgmental musing.