Malcolm Gladwell is a wonderful storyteller – and an indifferent speaker. You can see the result in his video on TED.com: http://tinyurl.com/axtvyy.
The video tells a great story about one Howard Moskowitz, an expert in food research. Gladwell hooks us with the claim that Howard has done as much or more than anyone in America to contribute to the general happiness by giving us the perfect spaghetti sauce. It’s a funny, fascinating look into food and food company thinking.
Indeed, as the tale unfolds, we learn that it is not in fact a perfect spaghetti sauce but rather sauces – and therein lies an insight. Chefs, cooks, and food industry executives have all been assuming lo these many years that there was one perfect sauce – just as there was apparently one perfect cake, one perfect balsamic vinegar, one perfect Merlot – but you get the idea.
Moskowitz’s insight was that people have preferences – some of us like cheesy sauces, some of us like spicy sauces, and some of us like chunky sauces. Same for coffee – we divide up into 3 or 4 groups of coffee preferences. And so on. If the food company can figure out what the groups are, and create products for each group, that company stands to make a fortune. It happened with spaghetti sauce. It’s why, when you visit the sauce aisle in your local grocery store, there are hundreds of choices.
This is great stuff, and Gladwell turns it into a lovely homily on diversity at the end. He can indeed spin a tale well.
It’s too bad he’s not a better speaker. He wanders the stage inconclusively. His introversion shows through in abrupt, awkward, self-protective hand gestures and spotty eye contact. He doesn’t know how to land a point effectively. His voice is flat and unmusical. All of this means that by about half-way through his talk our attentions begin to flag a little, because he isn’t connecting with the audience.
He’s not open, and fails to connect. His passion doesn’t shine through. And he doesn’t listen to his audience very persuasively. All in all, a lackluster performance. And that’s too bad, because his storytelling skills are so formidable. He could be a great speaker indeed.
Nick,
Having seen him in three presentations at conferences where i was also speaking and also when being interviewed I felt his introversion and halting style is, in part, a choice to not want to appear glib. See the settings in which he wants to be photographed, choice of clothing etc. He is highly self-aware so methinks this is part of the “image” he goes out of his way to cultivate.
Audiences today accept a wide range of personalities and appearances than in the past when traditional high-energy charisma was more prevalent. Yet, when a presenter does not demonstrate that they care about the audience and connecting with them, even the most insightful expert is, in effect, rebuffing “us”. In this Connected Age we all expect some kind of authentic interaction.
Nick,
Having seen him in three presentations at conferences where i was also speaking and also when being interviewed I felt his introversion and halting style is, in part, a choice to not want to appear glib. See the settings in which he wants to be photographed, choice of clothing etc. He is highly self-aware so methinks this is part of the “image” he goes out of his way to cultivate.
Audiences today accept a wide range of personalities and appearances than in the past when traditional high-energy charisma was more prevalent. Yet, when a presenter does not demonstrate that they care about the audience and connecting with them, even the most insightful expert is, in effect, rebuffing “us”. In this Connected Age we all expect some kind of authentic interaction.
Kare — thanks (as always!) for the great comments. I agree, essentially, with your analysis of Gladwell. I’m not sure how conscious it is, but he certainly affects the professorial/writerly archetype. I just don’t think it works very well. It’s true that audiences accept a wide range of personalities and appearances IF the speaker is authentic — if the speaker is open, connected, passionate and listening. The point is not to put barriers in the way of that connection with the audience. I think Gladwell’s personae puts some barriers in the way of great communication, and the alternative is not to be slick or packaged, but rather to be real and connected.
Kare — thanks (as always!) for the great comments. I agree, essentially, with your analysis of Gladwell. I’m not sure how conscious it is, but he certainly affects the professorial/writerly archetype. I just don’t think it works very well. It’s true that audiences accept a wide range of personalities and appearances IF the speaker is authentic — if the speaker is open, connected, passionate and listening. The point is not to put barriers in the way of that connection with the audience. I think Gladwell’s personae puts some barriers in the way of great communication, and the alternative is not to be slick or packaged, but rather to be real and connected.
Thanks for the information you provide, I really liked the topic you created. I hope this information can be useful for those who read it
Thanks for the information you provide, I really liked the topic you created. I hope this information can be useful for those who read it
I really appreciable blog/site that post great review with their honesty & sincerely . I really love those peoples who are honest & keep smiling & share information with everyone. Thanks
Enhancexl
I really appreciable blog/site that post great review with their honesty & sincerely . I really love those peoples who are honest & keep smiling & share information with everyone. Thanks
Enhancexl
unique & refreshing…I have already subscribed your rss & stumbled it too!
unique & refreshing…I have already subscribed your rss & stumbled it too!
unique & refreshing…I have already subscribed your rss & stumbled it too!
unique & refreshing…I have already subscribed your rss & stumbled it too!