There are two basic approaches to creating the content of a speech: (1) write out every word, (2) put down clear notes and amplify them during the speech. Both methods have their pros and cons. You may benefit from using a bit of both, then adjusting based on your personal style and experience.
In the first method, the speaker has the advantage of knowing exactly what the speech will be in advance. It can be studied and memorized until the speaker knows it cold. That minimizes uncomfortable pauses and builds confidence. When the speaker talks fluidly with confidence an audience gets the impression that he or she has command of the subject. They'll listen more intently.
But it can also lead to a dull, predictable speech. There's the danger that the speaker will simply read words off a piece of paper. Even if the speaker is the author of the words, it will come off as a 'canned' performance. The audience will be bored.
Using the second method gives a speaker wide latitude to judge the audience during the talk and adjust as needed. A humorous anecdote can be shortened when the speaker sees the audience drifting off. A point that didn't occur to the writer during the writing phase can be included in the speech on the spot. The speech appears spontaneous and can be more lively.
But unless the speaker is highly poised and experienced, it's possible for the speech to suffer using that method.
Running through a series of brief notes and adding nothing will create a live speech that lasts only a few minutes. Trying to improvise when that skill doesn't come naturally (either through personality or training or both) can be an embarrassing disaster.
It's also easier to go astray. Filling in or amplifying notes 'on the fly' takes skill and, often, practice. The speaker has to be a real expert on the subject and have a gift for fleshing out a basic point. Lacking that, the speech drifts off into a topic that may be more or less related to the subject, but is off the mark.
Using a combination of the two will benefit novice and experienced speakers alike.
Writing out the entire speech helps the speaker get clear in his or her own mind what the topic is about, which points deserve noting and what can be left out. Writing at least two or three drafts in this way is always a good idea.
For those with the personality, the experience and if the circumstances allow, creating notes from that more detailed writing can open up some of the advantages discussed above. However, except when just making an outline before writing, it's better not to try to do it the other way around. It's always easier to edit out than to improvise more content on the spot.
Some speakers, and some speeches or events, are by nature more formal than others. For those that are little more than a question and answer session with an expert, the 'just notes' approach will work fine. For most speeches, though, it's best to write out the speech in full, even if you just make notes from it for the actual occasion.
In the first method, the speaker has the advantage of knowing exactly what the speech will be in advance. It can be studied and memorized until the speaker knows it cold. That minimizes uncomfortable pauses and builds confidence. When the speaker talks fluidly with confidence an audience gets the impression that he or she has command of the subject. They'll listen more intently.
But it can also lead to a dull, predictable speech. There's the danger that the speaker will simply read words off a piece of paper. Even if the speaker is the author of the words, it will come off as a 'canned' performance. The audience will be bored.
Using the second method gives a speaker wide latitude to judge the audience during the talk and adjust as needed. A humorous anecdote can be shortened when the speaker sees the audience drifting off. A point that didn't occur to the writer during the writing phase can be included in the speech on the spot. The speech appears spontaneous and can be more lively.
But unless the speaker is highly poised and experienced, it's possible for the speech to suffer using that method.
Running through a series of brief notes and adding nothing will create a live speech that lasts only a few minutes. Trying to improvise when that skill doesn't come naturally (either through personality or training or both) can be an embarrassing disaster.
It's also easier to go astray. Filling in or amplifying notes 'on the fly' takes skill and, often, practice. The speaker has to be a real expert on the subject and have a gift for fleshing out a basic point. Lacking that, the speech drifts off into a topic that may be more or less related to the subject, but is off the mark.
Using a combination of the two will benefit novice and experienced speakers alike.
Writing out the entire speech helps the speaker get clear in his or her own mind what the topic is about, which points deserve noting and what can be left out. Writing at least two or three drafts in this way is always a good idea.
For those with the personality, the experience and if the circumstances allow, creating notes from that more detailed writing can open up some of the advantages discussed above. However, except when just making an outline before writing, it's better not to try to do it the other way around. It's always easier to edit out than to improvise more content on the spot.
Some speakers, and some speeches or events, are by nature more formal than others. For those that are little more than a question and answer session with an expert, the 'just notes' approach will work fine. For most speeches, though, it's best to write out the speech in full, even if you just make notes from it for the actual occasion.
About the Author:
For your next speech, think about using a new teleprompter to help make your speech entertaining and engaging!
0 comments: