The rule in business is to stay clear of religion and politics, because you risk alienating a chunk of your audience who hold different views to you. That is clear and sensible. What about other points of view (POV) however which are more related to business itself. This could be about government regulatory policy, industry trend predictions, marketing issues, quality control, your purported product benefits or any number of contentious items. When we are giving presentations, should we avoid stating our point of view or should we be open, even if it means being contentious? Is being contentious a strategy for gaining profile?
Our main objective in giving business related presentations is to gain a positive impression for our company and make ourselves top of mind and tip of tongue, when people are considering the need for our solutions. Most small to medium sized companies are basically invisible to their potential clients, because they don’t have the advertising or marketing muscle of the large corporations. Giving presentations, getting quoted in the media, engaging in content marketing in social media are all typical ways of overcoming that problem.
How much profile do we want? If we want to fly under the radar, we are not going to be giving highly opiniated presentations, commenting on issues of the day. On the other hand, we might do just that, to seek some opportunity to be controversial, so that we get talked about. I see there are some local entrepreneurs here, who have taken a strategic decision to offer opinions and viewpoints, which are designed to counter conventional, accepted wisdom. This is clearly an attempt to breakthrough all the noise in the marketplace and to try and court the media, which as we know, loves controversy.
I do six podcasts a week, of which five are my opinion pieces on what I think about in regards to leadership, sales, communication and presenting. My other podcast conforms to the normal arrangement of the guest supplying all of the IP and the host is just there to extract it. Nevertheless, putting five opinion pieces a week, every week, into the ether could be considered risky.
When I look back on what I write for my podcasts, there is always a distinct point of view on these subjects. When I reflect on the public presentations I have given, there is always a strong point of view on these subjects. The 1000 plus videos on our website are all brimming with my point of view too. Also, the four books I have published are all full of my points of view. So where is the line when we are communicating our point of view, that we shouldn’t cross.
I have written about Boris Johnson and Donald Trump in relation to their public speaking techniques. In both cases, I have sidestepped whether I agree or like what they are doing as elected officials of their countries and just focused on what we can learn from what they are doing as presenters. This was a conscious decision to avoid alienating my audience one way or the other. With politics and religion, it is easier to make these judgements I think, because you know the percentage split between their followers and opponents.
What have I done in regard to the Japanese Government’s handing of Covid and the myriad regulations that it has spawned, including shutting the border? Nothing. This issue doesn’t fit into the four areas I write about, even though the regulations have had a direct impact on my training business, as it has made face to face training extremely fraught. Whatever my personal views on Government policy may be, I have decided not to seek out advocating any positions at all because they are outside the scope of my area of coverage. Another factor is I am a migrant here and can have my visa not renewed and have to leave the country, so do I want to poke the beast which is the Japanese Government, specifically their Immigration Department? I judge that fight not to be worth it. I did cover ex-Prime Minister Suga’s presentation abilities though in Episodes #233 and #255 and was quite tough in my evaluations. I didn’t talk about his policies though, so there was a line there I thought I could walk without getting deported.
The point is to make a decision about how controversial you want to be, why you are deciding that calculation and what are the ramifications, both positive and negative for your positioning. You can have a clear point of view on subjects without upsetting your audience. Giving your viewpoint can be useful for your audience, as it helps them to think about their own position in the topic. As the President of Dale Carnegie Training Tokyo Japan, which is a business built around how to be really good with people, probably avoiding controversy would be an obvious authentic positioning.
How about your business and your company, are there natural limitations which will apply to how stridently or controversially you can pursue your point of view? Have you thought about it and decided where the line is located? Have you set out some points of view on where you stand on relevant topics? Probably this would be a useful exercise before you promulgate your views into the ether or at public presentations to business audiences.
