I was brought up in the full-spin generation.  I was taught to make the strongest possible argument in the strongest possible way for my idea, product, or service, and let the buyer beware.

Under no circumstances, they told me, should I reveal any weakness in the product.  To do so was to open a door through which the audience or the prospect could drive a truckload of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD).

Suppose you’re writing a letter of recommendation.  Is it more persuasive to sing the praises of the candidate to the Nth degree, or is it better to sing her praises but also provide an insight into her shortcomings?

It turns out that the latter is more persuasive.  It has more credibility.  Nobody walks on water.  If you want to get the girl a job, it’s better to be fair and balanced.  It’s also ethical to practice full disclosure for the next employer.

This does not mean that you bash the candidate.  It simply means that you describe your experience, good and bad, in a way that does the greatest good.

Think of the current Direct to Consumer (DTC) ads for pharmaceutical products on TV.  We watch the images of couples sitting in separate lion-paw bathtubs gazing at the sun set, while we listen to the sound track whizzing by at almost inaudible speed mentioning horrors such as sterility, madness, seizures, and cardio-myopathy syndrome, which we don’t know anything about (I made it up) but it sounds scary.

Of course, the fine print makes us think twice about taking the drug, but what would we think if we took the drug without being told about side effects?

I’ll tell you how I’d feel.  I’d feel like unleashing the wrath of hell on the manufacturers.

So even if you’re selling consulting services, or elective surgery, you gotta be honest about your shortcomings—about what you can and cannot do or promise. You may lose the business this time, but you will definitely earn their respect for being honest, and that means you live to fight another day.  If you take the job and screw it up, the client is unlikely to hire you again.

Even worse, when you screw it up they’re likely to tell a whole bunch of other people, and slowly but surely your karma circles in on you, like a pride of lions 0n a wounded wart hog.

Sims Wyeth is a speech coach in Montclair, NJ specializing in presentation skills and public speaking training in order to give accomplished people the knowledge and skill they need to become accomplished speakers. Learn more public speaking tips at www.SimsWyeth.com.

Robert Zajonc (pronounced ZYE-unts) was an American social scientist who explored the interplay between feeling and thought—between emotion and cognition.

He was interested in determining which influenced the other more strongly.  On balance, he came down on the side of emotion.

In one widely reported study, he found that smiling or frowning can alter blood flow to the brain as facial muscles relax or contract.

This in turn affects the parts of the brain that regulate feelings, helping induce happy or sad emotional states.

Could smiling help speakers with stage fright?  I think so.

The Buddha is depicted most often with a slight smile on his face—and he had true inner peace.   Little Orphan Annie knew that, “You’re never fully dressed without a smile,” and now we have the work of a renowned scientist to confirm the fact—on balance, it’s better for us when we smile.

Asked to describe a speech, I think most of us would say, “It’s a guy standing at a lectern on a stage reading from notes, a script, or a teleprompter.”

Asked to describe a presentation, we would say, “It’s somebody standing in front of a room with a screen behind her, where she’s showing visuals to explain something to the audience.”

So what’s the difference? 

First, the similarities are pretty obvious.  Both involve one person talking to a group of people.  The people listening are sitting down, facing the speaker, and passively listening.  The person speaking is working hard to say something to the listeners, and has probably worked hard to prepare her thoughts and materials.

The first difference is that we don’t see visuals in a speech.  The speaker strives to paint a picture in the mind of the audience, but he’s doing it with words, not with images on a screen.

The next difference is the degree of formality.  Speeches are more formal than presentations.  They date back to 500 BCE and maybe even further, beyond our historical record.  Great speeches have rocked the world.  They are about (or should be) about big ideas, values, and concerns. 

Presentations are more informal than speeches.  We associate them with more technical, mundane circumstances.  They have their roots in education, the military, and the practical trades, such as building and engineering.  They tend to be about facts and figures.

Speeches are given to larger crowds, and therefore must to appeal to the emotions.  The larger the crowd, the less complex the material should be.

Presentations are generally given to smaller groups, and therefore can be more detail-oriented.  The smaller group should always be given a chance to discuss the material, ask questions, and engage with the speaker.  This is not possible when thousands are listening to a speech.

Speeches are made in suits and tuxedos,  presentations in shirtsleeves and slacks.   Speeches require broad vision, whereas presentations often require a deep, narrow focus.

Speeches can be made to persuade or entertain, but not to inform.  Presentations can do all three — inform, persuade, and entertain.  Occasionally, someone gives a presentation that accomplishes all those goals simultaneously. 

Just because you’re good at one, it doesn’t mean you’re good at the other.   Speechmaking is a different muscle, requiring development.   Likewise the informality and accessiblity of  presenting can be hard for those accustomed to the lectern and the teleprompter.

CEOs and thought leaders give speeches.  Managers and technical experts give presentations.  Of course this is an oversimplification, but it evokes the distinction I’m making. 

Someone once said ( I forget who) that the only reason to give a speech is to change the world.  That’s a tall order, requiring the speaker to ratchet up her degreee of intention. 

Presentations require clear thinking and organization, but do not often demand that the speaker light the world on fire–just throw a little light on the subject at hand.