• Like
  • Save
pitchaus_yritysesitys_myyntipresentaatio
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

pitchaus_yritysesitys_myyntipresentaatio

  • 472 views
Published

Spinno INSIGHT 4.5.2010

Spinno INSIGHT 4.5.2010

Published in Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
472
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • MAIN THESIS: One system for all multicultural argumentation
  • TOPICS SECTION: We go through the following 5 topics in this module: T1) Stakeholder adaptation + We’ll show you how to select the right communication style T2) Structure + We’ll show you how to create a transparent logical structure for your presentation T3) Flagging + We’ll show you how to make it easy for audience to follow your argumentation T4) Persuasion + We’ll show you how to convince an intelligent, sceptical audience T5) Visuals + We’ll show you how to get your visuals to serve the argumentation Link 1: Let’s start by looking at how power & influence impact communications
  • BACKGROUND ON TARGET-BASED CONCEPT: The Target-based approach has its roots in two deep traditions. First, it’s logic is rooted in the classical, ancient Greek methodology known as Socratic Method. Second, it’s stakeholder benefit orientation is based on the principles of utilitarian philosophy that we see in modern marketing theory. Target-based philosophy combines strong rhetorical structures, clear reasoning, good evidence and a stakeholder benefit orientation to get your message through in a way that your audience can easily follow your logic and concentrate their energy on judging your argumentation. If you are in fact in the right and have the reasoning and evidence to prove it, this approach will enable you to maximize your chances of meeting your personal targets.
  • TOPICS SECTION: We go through the following 5 topics in this module: T1) Stakeholder adaptation + We’ll show you how to select the right communication style T2) Structure + We’ll show you how to create a transparent logical structure for your presentation T3) Flagging + We’ll show you how to make it easy for audience to follow your argumentation T4) Persuasion + We’ll show you how to convince an intelligent, sceptical audience T5) Visuals + We’ll show you how to get your visuals to serve the argumentation Link 1: Let’s start by looking at how power & influence impact communications
  • THESIS: Expressiveness in communication is dependent on culture BACKGROUND: Low context cultures(Examples USA, Switzerland, Germany) High context cultures (Examples China, Japan, France, Spain) EVIDENCE: Slide: Neutral, Active and Controlled styles MESSAGE: If you can adapt the style of argumentation without making radical changes in the structure, you can cut through any ’cultural interference’. They will focus on your arguments, rather than on personality issues.
  • THESIS: Power and influence always limit the power of the argumentation BACKGROUND: Sources of power & influence: 1) capital 2) position 3) competence EVIDENCE: 1) Slide: Machiavellian strategic model MESSAGE: With the right strategy you can maximize your long-term influence. The wrong strategy can be disastrous
  • SUB-THESIS: Intelligent people respond to arguments that have clear, provable theses, reasoning that makes sense and hard data that shows that you are not just shooting from the hip.When you add a motivating message that appeals to their self-interest, you have a good chance of getting what you want. EVIDENCE: Slide: Target-Based model MESSAGE: An intelligent, reasonable person will accept an intelligent reasonable argument, assuming he or she is motivated by rational criteria. PROPOSAL: Design tight arguments with concise reasoning, hard data where possible and motivating messages.
  • This set of slides, which accompanies The Craft of Scientific Presentations (Springer-Verlag, 2003, ISBN 0-387-95555-0), is intended to help those of you who are trying to teach a design of slides that relies on a sentence assertion headline supported by visual evidence. You are welcome to project these slides to your students and to add or delete slides to suit your purpose. Url reference http://writing.engr.psu.edu/slides.html This web-site is the first Google listing for the topic of presentation slides (out of more than 10 million sites). Provided on this web-site are PowerPoint templates that follow this presentation’s recommended design and an argument for its use in technical presentations. This example slide occurred in a proposal presentation by Professor Karen Thole to Pratt & Whitney. In this presentation, she proposed a new idea for cooling turbine vanes in a gas turbine engine: using a fillet design. The purpose of this slide is to show the audience that fillets have been shown to reduce the same types of leading edge vortices that currently cause problems for the cooling schemes of vanes in gas turbine engines. This slide was instrumental in bringing tens of thousands of dollars of research funding into Professor Thole’s lab to perform a computational study on this idea (see next example). This fillet slide, which was shown later in a conference presentation, is discussed on page 126 in The Craft of Scientific Presentations. You might want to note that though I am projecting a slide with a different background in this instructional presentation, the background should remain the same in technical presentations. Also, students often ask about what is an appropriate background. That issue is discussed on pages 137-139 in The Craft of Scientific Presentations. Reference for Example Slide: Gary Zess and Karen Thole, “Computational Design and Experimental Evaluation of using a Leading Edge Fillet on a Gas Turbine Vane,” paper no. 2001-GT-404, ASME Turbo Exposition (New Orleans: ASME, 5 June 2001).
  • This slide is an example that shows the advantage of knowing the slide’s assertion before selecting evidence for that assertion. The purpose of this slide was to establish the importance of the presentation’s topic, which was power passive modules. Rather than just write down the word Importance or Motivation , the speaker, Julie Zhu, wrote the assertion that showed the importance. At that point, she was in an excellent position to come up with evidence for the assertion. In her lab, she had a power passive module and the discrete components that the module replaced. These she photographed on her lab bench with a ruler between to show the sizes. Then she placed that image onto the slide and added call-outs. With just the headline Importance or Motivation , she would not have been in as strong a position to come up with such cogent evidence. This slide begins the third section of the talk, which supports the assertion that this slide design leads to more persuasive presentations than the default design of PowerPoint. On this slide, support for this assertion is based primarily on logic. First, because the presenter begins the design process of each slide by first clarifying the main assertion of each slide, the presenter using this design is much more aware of his or her assertions. Because the presenter is more sure of his or her assertion, he or she is in a better position to come up with evidence for that assertion. For a dramatic example of how this awareness comes into play, look at the Morton-Thiokol discussion on page 129 of The Craft of Scientific Presentations . Also, unlike the PowerPoint’s default design, this design has a filter for when the presenter has a slide. In this design, if the presenter cannot think of an assertion for the slide, the slide is cut. For that reason, this design leads to fewer slides. In fact, observations of master thesis presentations at Virginia revealed that students following this design had significantly fewer slides (20-25) than students in the same field using the defaults of PowerPoint (about 45) for the same 50 minute thesis defense. With fewer slides, more attention is paid to the speaker, which means more opportunity for the speaker to build credibility ( ethos ) with the audience. Reference: Zhu, Julie, “IDEAS Simulation of Thermal Stresses Between Substrate and Copper Stripes with Different Widths,” Presentation (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech, 2 May 2002).
  • BACKGROUND: Argumentation and presentation are processes like any other. As such they can be rationalized. And like any other systematic process, that makes things easier while improving the quality of the process. SUB-THESIS: The structure of a Target-based presentation is logical, simple and completely transparent. Every element has a clear role. If information doesn’t fit one of these roles it should be excluded or kept in your back-up data file. EVIDENCE: Slide: Definition of elements in the total structure MESSAGE: A clear, transparent structure helps both you and your listeners. For you it makes it much easier to prepare and present your arguments. For those listening to you it makes it easier to separate relevant from irrelevant information, while it gives them a clear role as judge and jury rather than passive information receivers. IN OUR VIEW THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO GENERATE DISCUSSION, CONSTRUCTIVE INTERACTION AND QUALITY DECISION-MAKING.
  • BACKGROUND: The idea behind flagging is to send clear signals to your listeners that indicate where you are going throughout the presentation of your ideas, rather like signaling while driving your car. This is especially crucial in multicultural situations when language barriers make the perception and interpretation or verbal messages more vulnerable to misunderstanding. SUB-THESIS: Clear, culturally adapted flagging makes it easy for people to follow the basic structure and logic in the presentation of your ideas. EVIDENCE: Slide flags Example of arguments with and without flags MESSAGE: Good flagging frees your kistener’s energy to concentrate on critically evaluating your argumentation, instead of trying to comprehend your argumentation. If you succeed they will be with you. If you don’t, they will be lost.
  • CONCLUDING LINK: OK SUMMARY LINK: OK SUMMARY: M1) A well adapted presentation focuses the audience on the argument rather than on you M2) To accept your arguments people have to first understand them M3) Effective flagging makes you easy to follow M4) Intelligent people respond to intelligent argumentation M5) Good visuals support you, instead of getting in your way MAIN MESSAGE: Rationalizing this process with these tools will allow you to get your message through in any situation, anywhere. You just have to make sure that you are also right.

Transcript

  • 1. An Introduction to the Power of Persuasive Argumentation Intelligent Presentations for Intelligent Audiences! Preparing Great Pitches
  • 2. Always Be Pitching!
    • Two line summary / tag line
        • ” We are the leading…”
    • Elevator pitch
        • 9 floors to get the job done
    • Short Presentation
        • Use slides as support
    • Full Presentation
        • Full slide show
    • 5-10 s
    • 30-60 s
    • 5-10 min
    • 30-60 min
    A pitch is a verbal presentation of a notion, concept, situation, idea, or story. Pitch is presenting your business plan and business case.
  • 3. Topics Tailoring Your Argumentation to Audience Effective Persuasive Structures Presenting Convincing Evidence
  • 4. Persuasive Argumentation Hard-Sell Model + aggressive rhetoric + high transparency - weak substance Target-Based Model + active rhetoric + strong substance + clear benefits + high transparency + culturally neutral Informative Model + strong substance - low transparency - weak rhetoric - benefits
  • 5. Using Right Arguments CUSTOMER Product/Solution Arguments & Benefits Shareholder Value Arguments Motivational Arguments Process Arguments/Partnership Arguments SUPPLIER OWNER EMPLOYEE
  • 6. How VC Funds Look at Pitches
    • Financially return driven
    • GROWTH stories
    • How fast can I achieve EXIT?
    • Is the finance requested big enough?
    • Does it fit our investment criteria?
    • Does this fit in our portfolio?
  • 7. How Business Angels Look at Pitches
    • Does it appeal to their ”hot buttons”
    • Ability to add value through involvement
    • Favourably if the case is referred to them by a trusted colleague
    • Want capital appreciation (growth)
  • 8.
    • Different Styles For Different Audiences
      • cultural & personal differences
    Adapted from Fons Trompenaars, Tomoko Yoshida, Edward Hall Style Counts Active Neutral Controlled
  • 9. Choose a Strategy that Fits Sources: Macchiavelli, The Prince Aristotle, The Politics Plato, The Republic Relative Leverage Walk Quietly Assertive Argumentation Cautious Argumentation Walk Away Stylistic Freedom HI LO Stakeholder Interests
  • 10. Persuading Smart People It’s About Good Reasoning & Strong Evidence
    • Reasoning
    • Empirical proof
    benefits memorable interest Positive Neutral Negative Argument Positive Neutral Negative Message Proposal Supporting Evidence
  • 11. Rethinking the Design of Presentation Slides © Michael Alley Engineering Communication Penn State January 2007 [© Zess and Thole, 2001] Computations With Fillet
  • 12. Choosing the Evidence Argument: more readily understood [© Zhu, 2002] © Michael Alley Engineering Communication Penn State January 2007 Use of images to present evidence: more memorable Message to target group: more persuasive
  • 13. Convincing Evidence Use cases References Market analysis Sales Customer referrals
  • 14. Building a Clear Structure Greeting Background Opening Main Thesis Topics Presentation Length Question Policy Summary Link Summary Main Message Proposal(s) Closing Intro Link Concluding Link ARGUMENTS Reasoning Data Introduction Arguments 3-4 Conclusion Sub-Theses Evidence Sub-Messages
  • 15. Remember to Navigate
    • SUB-THESIS FLAGS
    • 1st I will show that (+-)
    • 2nd we will demonstrate that (+-)
    • 3rd I will prove that (++)
    • 4th we will argue that (+-)
    • 2nd it will be shown that (--)
    • SUB-MESSAGE FLAGS
    • The point here is (+-)
    • What I’m trying to say is (+-)
    • My message is (++)
    • This would suggest that (-+)
    • This means that (+-)
    Opening: The purpose of this presentation is... Topics: We’ll cover 4 topics in this presentation: Linking: Let’s move to our first topic... Background: As you may know... Main Argument: Today we will show that... Concluding Link: In conclusion... Summary Link: To summarize... / In summary... Main Message: Our point today is that... Proposals: We would like to propose that...
  • 16. Perfect Your Pitch
    • Assume short buildings
    • Put a tag on it (one sentence to remember)
    • Solve a problem
    • Lay out the benefits
    • Conclude with a call to action
    • Make it tangible
    • Show Your Passion
    • (Tips by Bill Joos, Garage.com)
  • 17. Persuasive Argumentation
    • Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse…
    • Only practise makes a master