Hello. This week, we're going to talk about the beginning and the end to

relatively minor parts of the presentation compared to the big middle part,

which of course, consists of the problem part on the solution part.

So introduction, what do I begin with?

Seems like a very important question which causes lots and lots of anxiety.

Sorry for the stock image.

But the Internet is full, of course,

of things like five killer ways to open up a presentation or

either grand view of audience in three seconds, stuff like that.

But the pragmatic approach that we're talking about here forces us to first ask,

why we need introductions in the first place?

Why don't we just go straight to the beginning,

straight to the motivational part, straight to the problem?

And this is actually what many people recommend,

and I would agree with them,

and sometimes you don't need introductions.

You have to start with the motivational part of

the presentation number three at the moment,

a TED, Simon Sinek's How great leaders inspire action.

The key idea that is,

start with why, and this is actually what he does.

He just gets us no introduction,

just goes straight to the problem, straight to the question.

Why is Apple so innovative?

This is the question which bothers him and should bother us because,

well, it's a mystery.

So sometimes you don't need introductions.

The latest, at this moment,

presentation by Elon Musk that I've seen just a month ago,

the first thing that comes out of his mind,

"Global warming is becoming a serious crisis and we need to do something about it."

Straight to the problem.

And then he proceeds to tell his big idea

that solar roofs should become like electric cars.

So why do we need the introductions?

Introductions solves communication problems.

There are problems that we need to solve before we

explain the big problem of our presentation to the audience.

What are those problems?

Well, I guess you would need to make

your own list because it really depends on the context.

Generally speaking, presentations tend to be boring,

confusing and unconvincing, and these are the problems that we're trying to solve.

I don't think introductions solve any problems of interest.

I think this is the job of the motivational part.

But I think introductions can solve problems related to the ease of understanding,

and, of course, presentations should be convincing right from the start,

right from the get go.

So I think these are two things that we should mostly worry about.

So how do I make my presentation easier to understand with introductions?

And the dominant approach is, "Okay, second slide.

This is the agenda slide.

These are 16 things that I'm going to talk about today."

And I think it works.

It works for discussions,

and it works for reports.

If you have 16 disjointed items on your agenda,

well, okay, put together the agenda.

But what happens in the audience at the moment?

People start nudging each other,

elbowing each other, saying,

"When he comes to item four,

wake me up because this is the only thing that is really interesting for me.

This is why I'm here."

So when you show the agenda slide as your second slide of your presentation,

this is you saying,

"I don't have a story, I'm sorry."

And I think you should. So, move that agenda slide to after the problem part two,

after the motivational part.

People would care much more because this would become the process of your solution,

of the problem that you've just outlined.

So I think the rightful place of this bit is there, not up there.

So I think that having agenda is probably okay,

but it shouldn't be the second slide in your presentation.

It should be somewhere in the middle.

So we're trying to make our presentation easier to understand.

What needs to be cleared before we proceed to the problem.

And sometime the rules of communication are unclear.

Should we ask questions as they arrive or should we wait until the end?

Sometimes the topic is ambiguous.

Sometimes there are things about context, assumptions, terminology.

I think you will have to make your own list.

I think you have to sit and think what is unclear and what

should be explained before you get to the problem part.

As a relatively experienced speaker,

I like to receive questions as the audience comes up with them.

I think the audience shouldn't be waiting for an hour and a half to ask their questions.

So this is probably the first thing,

one of the few first things,

that I say in the beginning.

Go ahead and ask your questions.

I have a friendly user interface.

Raise your arm. Don't be afraid to interrupt me.

This is what I typically say to the audience,

unless I'm under strict time control.

If I have 500 people in 15 minutes talk,

this wouldn't probably be the case.

But if I'm talking for a half an hour or an hour and a half,

I think it's unfair to the audience.

They should have the permission to ask questions if something is unclear.

And secondly, if you want silence,

if you want mobile phones switched off,

go ahead and make this slide.

I mean, it helps especially to unexperienced speakers,

especially if you think that, well,

this mobile phone might interrupt your smooth train of thought.

Secondly, sometimes the topic isn't clear.

Sometimes you need to clarify the topic.

I'm going to talk about Tolstoy but not about War and Peace,

so go ahead and do this.

At this moment, few people in the audience would go,

"Oh, this is what we came for."

But you will not get that question in the end of the talk, and that will be okay.

So people will not be waiting for

an hour and a half to get to the topic they were waiting.

They will know right away that,

well, today is not their day.

This is Steve Jobs.

Today, I'm going to introduce to you a breakthrough digital device,

and hint: it's not a Mac.

He didn't clarify the topic.

He made it even more obscure.

And then for 10 minutes,

he talked about Apple's digital hubs strategy.

And only after that,

he proceeded to explain the problem.

So very long introduction, deliberately obscured.

Sometimes it's a reasonable thing to do.

Obviously, he's not solving the problem of confusion here.

He is solving the problem of interest.

Another example from Steve.

This is the first iPhone presentation.

This is the day I've been waiting for,

two and a half years.

Sometimes a revolutionary product comes along which

changes everything and Apple was lucky.

We were able to introduce a number of those products into the world.

In 1994, we introduced the Macintosh.

In 2001, we introduced the iPod.

Today, I'm presenting not one but three revolutionary products,

a wide-screen iPod with touch controls,

a revolutionary mobile phone,

huge applause here, and a breakthrough internet communication device.

Are you getting it? These are not three separate devices.

This is just one device,

and we are calling it the iPhone,

and this is what it looks like.

Huge laughter, of course,

and then he proceeds to tell about the problems currently,

at that moment, associated with what they were calling smartphones.

This is where competition comes on stage, etcetera etcetera.

So what he did, he created this context,

he created this sense of importance before he introduced anything important.

So what could be confusing?

What would you need to clarify in your presentation?

I guess you have to go and make a list.

The beginning and the end

Presentation skills: Speechwriting and Storytelling

Conheça os instrutores