At last – the first issue of Let’s Talk!

TL;DR

1. How Let’s Talk will benefit you

2. The two most important parts of a speech

3. The speech within the speech

How Let’s Talk will benefit you

Let’s face the fact honestly, that while everyone speaks, not all speech is worth listening to.

Let’s Talk is a newsletter aimed at talking about speech and speeches worth listening to.

Each week I’ll be talking about a current or classic speech.

Specifically, an aspect of the speech that I’m focussing on at the moment in my own speechwriting.

And along the way, there will be (I hope) a number of takeaways you can use in your own work…

…or start a discussion (you can always hit reply and chat, or comment).

And feel free to send in any suggestions for talks or speeches you’d like to see me discuss!

Why am I starting this newsletter?

Because I love speeches. And I love speechwriting.

When I was a child, I was given a book of ‘speeches that changed the world’ – and I read it cover to cover a dozen times.

Speeches worth listening to can change hearts, minds – and the world.

That’s why I’m writing this newsletter.

So let’s talk speeches.

The two most important parts of a speech

Let’s start with a speech close to home. It’s also a topic on a lot of people’s minds right now: AI.

The full speech can be found here. I will just be talking about the opening and the closing.

Why?

Because the opening and the closing are the two most important parts of any speech.

The opening is where most people decide whether or not you’re worth listening to.

It also needs to set the stage for the rest of the speech.

The closing, on the other hand, is the last thing you leave your audience with.

So it needs to be strong.

Punchy.

Memorable.

AND, as we’ll see a little later, they have an intimate connection.

The Opening

First, let’s look at the opening:

• “Existing laws likely do not adequately prevent AI-facilitated harms before they occur, and more work is needed to ensure there is an adequate response to harms after they occur.”[1]

This opening is strong because it starts with a quote and a provocative statement.

People like quotes, and they often get the conversation started, because it’s not you talking – it’s the person you’re quoting.

I’ll probably go into the ways of finding a good quote in the future, but for now let’s say there are three things to look for in a good opening quote:

1. It’s short. If it’s too long, people get lost, and forget it’s a quote.

2. It sparks thought, or surprise, or a smile. The quote should help your opening stand out, more than you could do without it.

3. It’s unexpected. The worst thing a speech can be is predictable. Avoid it like the plague.

The opening quote for this speech does all three. It’s short enough that people don’t get lost.

And it makes a provocative statement. The quote says plain and simple that existing laws aren’t adequate. This kind of bold statement makes people sit up and want to see where you’re going.

And that kind of provocativeness is unexpected.

The Closing

Next let’s look at the end of the speech.

• Bridging the governance gap means strengthening our current regulatory framework where it’s good, and shoring it up where it needs further development. But above it all, it means asking the right questions. And one question we should be asking ourselves again and again is this: “is this enough?”

The speech ends with a question – a powerful way to leave your thought hanging in the audience’s mind.

Why?

Because a question always wants an answer.

So if you leave it unanswered, it remains dangling in people’s minds…

…as long as you don’t ruin by saying something banal like ‘Thank you’.

Finish on the question, and let it hang.

It also works here because it returns to the main message of the speech – asking whether current laws are enough.

The speech within the speech

I also like the opening and closing of this speech because it does something that I’d like to see more speeches do (I don’t do this enough either):

The opening and the closing flow directly without anything else between.

Let me show you:

• “Existing laws likely do not adequately prevent AI-facilitated harms before they occur, and more work is needed to ensure there is an adequate response to harms after they occur.”[1]

• […]

• Bridging the governance gap means strengthening our current regulatory framework where it’s good, and shoring it up where it needs further development. But above it all, it means asking the right questions. And one question we should be asking ourselves again and again is this: “is this enough?”

Notice that you can put them next to each other and they still flow and make sense even without the rest of the speech.

Basically, the first and last paragraph form a ‘mini-speech’ on their own.

And that’s the way it should be.

That’s a good sign of a tight message.

And a tight message means a tight speech.

Now, obviously, if the rest of the speech went in a completely different direction, then the speech would be a bad one.

A tight first and last paragraph link doesn’t save an irrelevant middle.

But it can save a mediocre middle.

Though in reality I doubt you’d have such a tight opening and closing without a tightish middle.

Certainly, the middle of this speech stays on message.

But anyway, the point I want to make is that the opening and the closing should form a speech within the speech.

If you start there, then the rest of the speech is a lot easier – because you just have to ask if whatever you’re putting in the middle contributes to or takes away from that ‘mini-speech’.

---

That’s it for this week!

I’d love to hear any comments, takeaways, or disagreements – and don’t forget to send in any talks/speeches you’d like me to discuss!

Until next week,

Alexander

P.S.

Need #speechwriting, corporate training, or coaching? DM me on LinkedIn or send me an email at [email protected]