Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Presentation Review: Pavel Suchanek

Pavel Suchanek presented his company, ALAKARTE, at the latest Prague Networking Group meeting. It was an intimate and relaxed setting in a bar, The Office, with the audience standing directly in front of the speaker. Pavel was quite at ease as he presented and seemed comfortable in his role. However, there were some problems with his presentation. Below are some details and advice for future presentations.



Rating system: 1 = outstanding 5 = sucks

You can see a detailed description of my review criteria here


Message – rating: 4

Pavel finished his presentation and I struggled to remember what his main message was. A few days later, a friend asked what Pavel’s company did and what makes it special and I really couldn’t give a coherent answer.



Advice: Pavel needs to think about the ONE thing that he wants his audience to remember and make this the message that shapes the structure of his presentation. This message should be stated immediately after he gets the audience’s attention. Tell us why it’s important to listen! Tell us why we should care!



Content – rating: 3

Having an outline of what the audience can expect to hear at the beginning of his presentation would have made it easier to follow the content. And, I would have appreciated a much clearer content structure.



Advice: When Pavel creates his content for his next company introduction presentation, he needs to ask himself some questions: What is ALAKARTE? How does it work? What makes it different? Why is it important? Also, make each content point distinct from the others so it’s easy to follow.



Attention – rating: 3

Pavel started his presentation with a question for the audience – a good strategy. But, he didn’t follow this up by really listening to the answers. Some people answered the question, but weren’t acknowledged by Pavel so the effect was lost. Listen to your audience’s answers!

Also, there was a very weak conclusion (‘So, that’s our company. I don’t want to keep you too long’).



Advice: Keep asking your audience questions, but remember that our answers are important, too. Introducing each content point with a question is a nice way to keep your audience’s attention, as well. Don’t forget to give us a strong final statement so we have a good final impression.



Slides – rating: 5

There was only one slide up during the whole presentation – the homepage of his website. Eventually, an audience member asked to see how the website works and we saw a little bit, but this should have been a planned part of his presentation.

Even though there was just this one slide during his presentation, Pavel kept looking at it as if it contained something different (I’m sure it was just nervousness). Every time he looked at the slide, however, the audience expected to see something different and something related to what he was saying. It was confusing.



Advice: If you’re going to use slides, make sure they are related to what you are talking about. A demonstration of how your website works would have been the perfect way of helping us visualize what you do.



Presence – rating: 3

This was a hard one to rate because I had two different views. First, Pavel is a good public speaker. He had great eye contact with the audience and looked like he was genuinely enjoying his presentation.

BUT, he hardly showed any enthusiasm for what he was saying. Because this is HIS company, I expected him to be really excited about his business and to share this enthusiasm with us. It just wasn’t there and that was disappointing.



Advice: It’s your company, Pavel. If you don’t show any enthusiasm, your audience can’t either. If it’s nerves that prevent you from being excited, keep practicing until it feels natural.


Thanks for agreeing to the review, Pavel, and I look forward to seeing your next presentation!


© 2010 Jeanne Trojan. All rights reserved


Sunday, June 20, 2010

Presentation Review Criteria

To kick off my campaign of ‘Making Presentations Outstanding in CZ’, I put out a slideshow called ‘Presentations Still Suck Here’ (you can view it here). This has generated a buzz and even received ‘The Top Presentation of the Day’ from Slideshare.

The next step in the campaign is a Presentation Review series. I will be writing about presentations that I see and giving constructive criticism so that the speakers can improve and so my readers can look critically at their own presentation performance and learn how to get better.

I will always notify the speakers in advance before reviewing their presentations. My aim is not to embarrass people, but to give them the chance to show me their best and to offer others the chance to learn from their experience. I will never review a speaker who does not agree to it.

In order to give a fair review, I have laid out certain criteria that I will be looking for in each presentation. I will rate each one using the following scale and giving some additional information and tips for improvement.

Rating: 1 – 5

1 = outstanding 5 = sucks

Criteria:

Message
Is the core message of the presentation clear, simple and memorable?

Content
Is all of the information necessary and connected to the core message?

Is there a logical structure?

Attention
Does the presenter get our attention from the start and keep it throughout?

Is there a strong impression at the end?

Slides
Do the slides catch our attention and create curiosity?

Do they make us want to listen to the speaker to get more information or are they a distraction and too much the focus of the presentation?

Presence
Is the speaker clearly enthusiastic about their topic?

Does their presentation presence convey confidence and credibility?


I look forward to seeing your next presentation! If you’re not presenting at the time, look for me in the audience and give me your feedback regarding the presentation, as well. Let’s start working together to make presentations outstanding in the Czech Republic!

© 2010 Jeanne Trojan. All rights reserved

Tuesday, June 15, 2010