Cynthia J. Starks, executive speechwriter

Sometimes, just sometimes, events taking place around the globe remind me that speeches can truly change the world, as Nick Morgan titles his book, Give Your Speech, Change the World.

For example, in a speech given by Afghan Vice President Abdul Karim Khalili to mark the Afghan new year on March 21, he used these words in calling on militants to lay down their weapons because the nation will never return to the days of hard-line Taliban rule.

“We are going toward the light,” he told the hundreds who flocked to the celebration. “We are never going back to the dark.”

I love the use of “light and dark” as a metaphor for good vs. evil, modern vs. ancient, purity vs. corruption. The phrase is powerful and inspiring, especially coming from the vice president of a country embroiled in war with many countries over many years.

Khalili continued, “We are going to start a new chapter. The opposition should join the peace process to save the country.”  And so it should. I so want the forces of light to succeed in Afghanistan and everywhere in the Middle East during these times of upheaval.  

On another note, I read an odd little story yesterday on theatlanticwire.com about Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, of all people, getting speaker training.

The piece is titled, “The Zuck’s Speech: How the Facebook King Found His Voice,” by John Hudson.

The article details how Zuckerberg struggled to defend his company’s policies at a digital conference on June 2, 2010. According to the piece, he sweated and “rambled for minutes with vague conceptual answers to direct questions about Facebook’s privacy settings.” His performance “cemented detractors’ views that Zuckerberg was robotic, unfeeling and unready for primetime,” the article continues.

After this fiasco, it seems Zuckerberg got speaker training from Facebook COO Sherly Sandberg, who has spoken successfully at TED, and from his VP of Communications, Elliot Schrage.

Today, just one year later, Zuckerberg is a transformed speaker, “cracking jokes on SNL and speaking candidly on Oprah.”  His friend, Microsoft “technical evangelist” Robert Scoble says this about his transformation, “It’s like swimming in cold water. At first when you jump in you just aren’t able to think. It’s a foreign environment. Then, after doing it for a while, your system gets used to it and, indeed, starts having fun with it.

That’s what we all hope for our executives. But sometimes we wish they were urging people to move toward the light, instead of talking about the quarterly earnings report. Sigh…

{ 0 comments }

What’s the worst calamity you can imagine befalling your company or country? Perhaps you’re the president of a railroad whose high-speed, 36-car train has derailed in a populous metropolis, killing more than 200 people. The wreckage is spewing the hydrogen gas it was carrying, requiring the evacuation of everyone within a 20-mile radius.

Perhaps you’re the head of an airline whose plane has been hijacked and purposely crashed into the Senate Building, killing scores of senators. Perhaps you’re the chairman of a pharmaceutical company whose largest-selling product has been manufactured with a deadly flaw and is already responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people.  

As we think about the humanitarian and communications challenges inherent in these scenarios, we ponder the enormity of the challenge faced by the leaders of Japan. They are faced with a triple catastrophe – an earthquake, a tsunami and a nuclear meltdown – without precedent and almost beyond comprehension, as well as cultural norms which are not biased toward candor.  

Here’s what the New York Times of March 17 had to say, “Foreign nuclear experts, the Japanese press and an increasingly angry and rattled Japanese public are frustrated by government and power company officials’ failure to communicate clearly and promptly about the nuclear crisis. Pointing to conflicting reports, ambiguous language and a constant refusal to confirm the most basic facts, they suspect officials of withholding or fudging crucial information about the risks posed by the ravaged Daiichi plant.”

The article continues, “Evasive news conferences followed uninformative briefings as the crisis intensified over the past five days. Never has postwar Japan needed strong, assertive leadership more – and never has its weak, rudderless system of governing been so clearly exposed. With an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis striking in rapid, bewildering succession, Japan’s leaders need skills they are not trained to have: rallying the public, improvising solutions and cooperating with powerful bureaucracies.”

And finally, “The less-than-straight talk is rooted in a conflict-averse culture that avoids direct references to unpleasantness.”

If you were the manager of executive communications for the president of Tokyo Electric Power, which operates the nuclear plant, or for Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan, what would you have them say in the speeches and other communications they would be addressing to a panicked public?

{ 0 comments }

My favorite joke is this: Mushroom walks into a bar, sits down. The bartender turns to him and says, “Get outta here. We don’t serve your kind.” Mushroom says, “Why not? I’m a fungi.” Ba-da-bum.

When writing jokes for myself, I tend to the simple and silly.

When writing for a speaker, however, I take a different tack. A speaker’s humor should be self-deprecating and/or play off contemporary issues and popular culture – the zeitgeist of the day.

A good example of humor used in this way is the Gridiron Club Dinner held this past weekend in Washington, D.C.  The Gridiron Club is Washington’s oldest journalism organization, and in attendance were about 600 folks including network anchors, top media executives, the president, Cabinet secretaries, military and congressional leaders, governors, ambassadors and entertainment figures.    

My Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, the Republican speaker at the event, scored a lot of points from his humor, which was self-deprecating, played off of newspaper quotes about him and referenced something the audience would remember.

Daniels has been touted as a possible Republican nominee for president in 2012. New York Times’ columnist David Brooks has written several supportive pieces on Daniels, including a Feb. 24 op-ed called “Run, Mitch, Run.”

Here’s a sample of Daniels’ humor that night.

Daniels stands 5’6” and is often teased about his height. He said, “This is the point in the presidential process where candidates are hinting, and exploring and jockeying for position and, seriously, I like my chances. If anyone is built for jockeying, it’s me.”

Daniels continued about not letting the favorable press he’s received go to his head. “Just listen to a quick sample,” he suggested. “Small, stiff, short, unimposing, unassuming, uninspiring, understated, uncharismatic, accountant-like, non-telegenic, boring, balding, blunt, nerdy, wooden, wonky, puny and pint-sized.

“It all points to one inescapable conclusion,” he said as his right hand shot to the sky, “It’s destiny!” (as reported by the Indianapolis Star).

Daniels, whose arm is in a sling because of a recent operation, also got in “one of his best-received zingers,” according to the Star, when he recalled one of President Obama’s private musings to fundraisers during the 2008 campaign – that conservatives found refuge in religion and guns.

“I can’t wait to heal up,” said Daniels. “Until this thing comes off, I can cling to my gun or my Bible, but not both.”

President Obama also got in a zinger about Daniels, who’s having trouble in Indiana with Democrats who walked out of the statehouse rather than vote for a Republican “right to work” bill some suggest is union busting – including public employee unions – in disguise.

Obama said Daniels “tore into his filet mignon like it was a public employee.”    

Fletcher Dean, director of executive speechwriting for Dow Chemical Company, recently wrote a wonderful piece on the dos and don’ts of writing funny speeches.  

In it, Dean suggests four areas from which executive humor can be taken:

• Self-deprecating humor – poking fun at ourselves shows humility and openness.
• Funny quotations – short, humorous quotations allows us to be funny even when we may not be.
• Funny headlines – competing newspapers or news websites often have funny headlines or two different headlines that seem to say opposite things. Relating these kinds of personal observations can be a safe way to get people laughing.
• Personal anecdotes – brief stories about your speaker’s background, kids or pets plays well, especially if the humor is a bit self-deprecating or provides the audience with an insight into the speaker.

All this by way of saying a speechwriter has to be creative and clever and, hopefully, be working with a speaker who has a sense of humor about himself and is willing to use humor to “grease the wheels” of his remarks.

I guess I’ll keep my “mushroom walks into a bar” joke for my next cocktail party, not for the next speech I’m asked to write.

{ 1 comment }

The other day I was at our local library waiting to pick up my husband, who was teaching a class on social media there. Being early, I wandered the aisles into the biography section. I picked up An Actor’s Voice, a biography of actor Claude Rains of Now, Voyager, Casablanca and The Invisible Man fame, whom I’ve always loved; an autobiography of the Rev. Ellwood Keiser, the creator and producer of the old “Insight” TV series, called Hollywood Priest; and a thin book of love letters from Ronald Reagan to Nancy Reagan, called I Love You, Ronnie. Published in 2000, it’s not a new book, just new to me.  

In the introduction, Nancy Reagan writes that at first she thought she’d just donate the letters to the Reagan Library, where historians and researchers wanting to know more about the President could find them.

But as she re-read them one by one, she changed her mind. “I realized how valuable the art and practice of writing letters are, and how important it is to remind people of what a treasure letters – handwritten letters – can be. If only people could see Ronnie’s letters, I thought, they’d realize so much, including how wonderful it can be to take the time to write what you feel to those you love.”

The letters begin about 1950, when the couple was dating, and continue through the rest of Reagan’s movie career, his governorship of California and his presidency.

Nancy writes, “In the climate of today, I think it would be good for all of us to focus on the positive, the true, the things that really last, on character, humor, commitment and love…” The letters are at once sweet, affectionate, funny and genuine. They continually reveal Reagan’s happiness in his marriage and what his wife means to him.

What would we modern wives give for a few letters like these?

Writing from the New York’s Sherry-Netherland Hotel in 1953, Reagan tells Nancy that even though she’s in California, she “joined” him for dinner the night before. “I suppose some people would find it unusual that you and I can so easily span three thousand miles but in truth it comes very naturally. Man can’t live without a heart and you are my heart, by far the nicest thing about me and so very necessary. There would be no life without you, nor would I want any.”

From a movie set in 1954, Reagan writes that day one of shooting is like every other day one – hectic. “However, there is one golden glow warming my soul this first sunset – I’m twenty-four hours closer to you. Last night was just another one of those nights – just too beautiful to stand. So tonight I’ll probably be looking at the Moon which means I’ll be looking at you… I just see you in all the beauty there is because in you I’ve found all the beauty in my life.”  

In this letter from another movie shoot, Reagan writes, “Do you know that when you sleep you curl your fists up under your chin, and many mornings when it is barely dawn I lie facing you and looking at you until finally I have to touch you ever so lightly so you won’t wake up – but touch you I must or I’ll burst?”

On the 20th anniversary of their marriage, when Reagan was Governor of California, he wrote this, “My Darling Wife – This note is to warn you of a diabolical plot entered into by some of our so-called friends – (‘Ha!’) calendar-makers and even our own children. These and others would have you believe we’ve been married 20 years.

“20 minutes maybe – but never 20 years. In the first place, it is a known fact that a human cannot sustain the high level of happiness I feel for more than a few minutes – and my happiness keeps increasing.

“I will confess to one puzzlement but I’m sure it is just some trick perpetrated by our friends – (‘Ha’ again!) I can’t remember ever being without you and I know I was born more than 20 minutes ago.

“Oh well – that isn’t important. The important thing is I don’t want to be without you for the next 20 years, or 40, or however many there are. I’ve gotten used to being happy and I love you very much indeed.”

At Christmas 1977, Reagan writes, “If it truly is more blessed to give than to receive, then perhaps I should talk about what you’ve given me, because that makes you the most blessed person in these here parts.

“Your gift to me is uninsurable. No appraiser can put a value on it. How would he figure the market value of feeling a tingle of excitement and anticipation every time I start for home? Or the way I can’t help but walk fast when I get there, hurrying for the first sight of you? Just waking up becomes a warm glow because you are there – just as the whole house is haunted when you aren’t.”

These are not the most eloquent of letters. They don’t have the passion of Franz Kafka to his Felice, James Joyce to his Nora or Napoleon to his Josephine. But what they lack in ardor they make up for in frequency, sincerity and thoughtfulness. They seem very American to me — kind, sweet, optimistic. 

And they remind us, as Nancy Reagan writes in the book’s introduction, that “In our throwaway era of quick phone calls, faxes and email (and today’s Tweets, blogs and Facebook), it’s all too easy to never find the time to write letters.”                        

It has been said that if  I don’t write, how will I know what I think?

Theodore Dreiser, author of An American Tragedy, wrote in 1900, “Words are but the vague shadows of the volumes we mean.  Little audible links, they are, chaining together great inaudible feelings and purposes.”

If we don’t take the time that writing requires, how will we know what we think, or uncover even the “shadows of the volumes we mean?”

{ 3 comments }

In a year when The King’s Speech reigned, the speeches at last night’s Oscars could have used a little magic from the King’s own speech therapist, Lionel Logue.

Some thanked their moms, others thanked their cast-mates, a few acknowledged the importance of labor unions to their lives and films, one excoriated Wall St.

Designer Coleen Atwood, who has won two other Oscars, read her remarks directly from a piece of paper, making almost no eye-contact with the audience at all. Best Art Director for Alice in Wonderland winner Robert Stromberg commented first on his own weight.

Others gave speeches that will be remembered, but not in the way the individuals might have hoped. This morning’s headlines tell the tale: “Actress (Melissa Leo) Drops F-bomb on Broadcast TV;” “Actor (Christian) Bale Forgets Wife’s Name during Acceptance Speech.” 

Winner of the award for best original screenplay, The King’s Speech screenwriter David Seidler, made some of the nicest remarks of the evening. “My father always said to me I would be a late bloomer. I believe I am the oldest person to win this award. I hope that record is broken quickly and often.” As a child, Seidler suffered from a stammer and so was drawn to the English King’s story. He told the audience at the Kodak Theatre, “We have a voice. We have been heard.”

Even Colin Firth, winner of the best actor award for playing the stammering King George VI, who has known for at least the last six months that he was the frontrunner to win, gave remarks that were okay, but less than memorable. 

Firth said, “I have a feeling my career’s just peaked,” as he took the Oscar statuette. Nice. But then, “I’m afraid I have to warn you that I’m experiencing stirrings somewhere in the upper abdominals which are threatening to form themselves into dance moves. Joyous as they may be for me, it would be extremely problematic if they make it to my legs before I get offstage.” At the end of his remarks, he said he had other stirrings that he had to tend to backstage. I took this to mean he had to go to the bathroom. Yuk!

It wasn’t always thus. Some past Oscar winners have given truly eloquent acceptance speeches.  

Tom Hanks won his first best actor Oscar in 1993 for playing a gay, AIDS-stricken lawyer suing bigoted employers in Philadelphia. His speech crested with a powerful acknowledgment of the lives lost during the AIDS epidemic. “The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels,” he said. “We know their names. They number in the thousands for each one of the red ribbons that we wear here tonight. They finally rest in the warm embrace of the creator of us all, a healing embrace that cools their fevers, that clears their skin, and allows their eyes to see the simple, self-evident, common-sense truth that is made manifest by the benevolent creator of us all and was written down on paper by wise men, tolerant men, in the city of Philadelphia 200 years ago.”

In 2002, actor Sidney Poitier received an Honorary Oscar for his body of work. This is what he said:

“I arrived in Hollywood at the age of twenty-two in a time different than today’s, a time in which the odds against my standing here tonight fifty-three years later would not have fallen in my favor. Back then, no route had been established for where I was hoping to go, no pathway left in evidence for me to trace, no custom for me to follow.

“Yet, here I am this evening at the end of a journey that in 1949 would have been considered almost impossible and in fact might never have been set in motion were there not an untold number of courageous, unselfish choices made by a handful of visionary American filmmakers, directors, writers and producers; each with a strong sense of citizenship responsibility to the times in which they lived; each unafraid to permit their art to reflect their views and values, ethical and moral, and moreover, acknowledge them as their own. They knew the odds that stood against them and their efforts were overwhelming and likely could have proven too high to overcome. Still those filmmakers persevered, speaking through their art to the best in all of us. And I’ve benefited from their effort. The industry benefited from their effort. America benefited from their effort. And in ways large and small the world has also benefited from their effort.

“Therefore, with respect, I share this great honor with the late Joe Mankiewicz, the late Richard Brooks, the late Ralph Nelson, the late Darryl Zanuck, the late Stanley Kramer, the Mirisch brothers, especially Walter whose friendship lies at the very heart of this moment, Guy Green, Norman Jewison, and all others who have had a hand in altering the odds for me and for others. Without them this most memorable moment would not have come to pass and the many excellent young actors who have followed in admirable fashion might not have come as they have to enrich the tradition of American filmmaking as they have. I accept this award in memory of all the African-American actors and actresses who went before me in the difficult years, on whose shoulders I was privileged to stand to see where I might go.”

Just beautiful.

Clearly, it can be done. Why do you think most Oscar recipients have such difficulty saying something tasteful and touching and brief when they receive their awards? Why do you think it seems so hard for Oscar winners to be eloquent on one of the most important nights of their lives? What advice would you give them?

{ 3 comments }

Peggy Noonan has a wonderful column in this morning’s Wall Street Journal on the resurgence of important political speech and the Internet’s role in disseminating it. I think the points she makes apply to corporate executive speeches as well.

“In the past quarter century or so,” Noonan writes, “the speech as a vehicle of sustained political argument was killed by television and radio. Rhetoric was reduced to the TV producer’s 10-second soundbite, the correspondent’s eight-second insert. The makers of speeches (even the ones capable of sustained argument) gave up. Why give your brain and soul to a serious, substantive statement when it will all be reduced to a snip of sound? They turned their speeches into soundbite after soundbite, applause line after applause line, and a great political tradition was traduced.”

Noonan suggests the Internet is changing that and “restoring rhetoric as a force.” She sites two substantive speeches recently given at CPAC – one by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and one by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie – as examples. They were up on the web within hours. In fact, all of the CPAC speeches were quickly online. TED speeches are all over the net, as are people making speeches in town halls and town squares.  

She continues, “People in politics think it’s all about Facebook and Twitter now, but it’s not. Not everything is fractured and in pieces; some things are becoming more whole. People hunger for serious fleshed-out ideas about what is happening in our country. We all know it’s a pivotal time.”

We all know it’s a pivotal time in business too, don’t we? Employees hunger for those same, serious, fleshed-out ideas about what’s happening in their companies and industries. Studies suggest that engaged employees – that is, those who understand management priorities and are invested in company success – perform better and are more satisfied with their jobs.   

In conjunction with creative and thoughtful employee communications – news, interviews, blogs, video, podcasts and opportunities to talk back – executive speeches can also be a way to inform, motivate and engage employees.  

As Noonan concludes her piece, “A funny thing about politicians is that they’re all obsessed with ‘messaging’ and ‘breaking through’ and ‘getting people to listen.’ They’re convinced that some special kind of cleverness is needed, that some magical communications formula exists and can be harnessed if only discovered. They should settle down, survey the technological field and get serious. They should give pertinent, truthful, sophisticated and sober-minded speeches. Everyone will listen. They’ll be all over the interwebs.”

Indeed they will. Corporate executives take note. Now is also your hour.

{ 1 comment }

In response to a recent blog of mine, I received a very thoughtful note from a European speechwriter named Annelies, who wrote: “I always read all the postings in Quintilian (a speechwriters’ group on Linkedin) and enjoy them very much. As it is very USA-oriented, I tend to keep a low profile in the group.

“The same goes for a lot of Dutch speechwriters; they’re all in the group, but we never really participate. Maybe you American speechwriters should post a question: How are the European speechwriters doing? I think you would get a lot of reactions.”

Okay, Annelies, this is for you. I would love to know how our European speechwriting brothers and sisters are doing.

What are the speechwriting challenges you face? Who are your customers? How does the speechwriting process work in your situation? Do you find European speakers different from American ones you have heard? Are you freelance, government or corporate speechwriters?  

We are truly all one world these days; I invite you to join the conversation. I’m sure we on this side of the Atlantic can learn from you and vice versa. I look forward to hearing from you.

{ 0 comments }

As one would expect, conversations, blogs and news articles on IBM’s Watson computer taking on Jeopardy champs Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter have focused on the theme of “man vs. machine.” Or, as the New York Times put it, “Bambi vs. Goliath.” The Times’ argument is, simply, how could Watson not win – with 2,800 computers behind it, information from 13 million volumes and the ability to process data and ring in in nanoseconds.

However, I find my thoughts running on a somewhat different track. My husband and I, both former IBMers in marketing and communications, were chatting today about what strategic messages IBM might have hoped to deliver through the Jeopardy venue.

We listed the messages we took away from the three-day competition. They look like this:

• IBM is doing important/fascinating/grand things no other company is doing
• IBM “gets it” in terms of how to manage the data deluge and how information can be turned into actionable intelligence
• The technology IBM developed so Watson could win at Jeopardy can help my business succeed.
• Wouldn’t it be cool to work at IBM?

But were there other, less positive messages viewers might have taken away from the competition? How about “computers with the ability to understand and process “natural language” will soon take away my job.”

Just as ATM machines mean reduced need for bank tellers and online travel sites mean less need for travel agents, it’s not unreasonable to think that a computer with the power of Watson might soon do away with a variety of “human” work.

What do you think?  What are the messages you’ve taken away from watching Watson make mincemeat of its human competitors on Jeopardy?  Do you think those messages are what IBM intended?

{ 1 comment }

Last night, browsing through Elance speechwriting jobs, I came across a surprising job post:

“I am looking for a professional speech writer to write me a speech about peace and a possible solution for the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This is an intern and I am expected to speak in front of many people including professors, the press, etc… I am representing someone’s idea of an Israeli Palestinian confederation. The speech should focus on this idea and also speak about the importance of peace and between both sides. The speech should be no more the 10-15 minutes long.” Budget: Less than $500.

Talk about a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity! A conflict of Biblical proportions played out over centuries for which many have given their lives. A dispute over which scholars, activists, diplomats and heads of state have labored tirelessly to solve.

And I could have done it all with a speech on the cheap.

Forgive me for having fun with this posting. However, what surprised me on the Elance site was that this kind of request was not singular. Almost all the speeches advertised with budgets of “less than $500” for pretty significant work.

Here’s another: “I am looking for a Speech Writer to help me with a 30-minute speech. My audience is Women in Business, and the finished project will: Have a deep storyline as an intro; Discuss the problems women have in business, and How can I help solve these problems. The speech style should be engaging and entertaining, with a high feminine appeal, and somewhat edgy.” Budget: Less than $500.

Here’s one I like: “Need a speech about consciousness. First part should be about consciousness, how it works and what it is and then to follow up with that a person should do whatever they can to expand their own consciousness or mix in the message in the first part. I expect you to have an understanding of the subject and not just do the research.” Budget? Less than $500.

Hey, I’m just as conscious as the next person. I could do this.

This one sounds even more challenging: “I need to deliver a speech to a Catholic high school about my belief in God. The speech needs to be about 35 minutes long. I have written the bare bones of the speech, about 1400 words. I need someone to take what I’ve written and transform it into an attention-getting, inspiring and memorable speech. Speech will be given to high school students. You can interview me for further content after you get the job.” Budget: Less than $500.  

Perhaps not.   

How about this? “I need comedy dialogue for a roast I will be attending in a couple of weeks. My friend is celebrity status, he is rude, crude and nothing seems to offend him. I can give many more details, like what he does for a living, nicknames, etc. Please contact me ASAP.” Budget: Less than $500.

These ads give me a chuckle, but seeing them reminds me just how undervalued speechwriters and their skills often are. Little do many people realize the time, energy, creativity, thoughtfulness, craft and out-and-out writing talent it takes to research and compose a compelling and engaging speech. Not to mention the confidence and easy-going personality required to work with diverse clients.

Less than $500? Keep it.

{ 4 comments }