Jim Endicott is an internationally-recognized consultant, designer, speaker specializing in professional presentation messaging, design and delivery. Jim has been a Jesse H. Neal award-winning columnist for Presentations magazine with his contributions to the magazine's Creative Techniques column. Jim has also contributed presentation-related content in magazines like Business Week, Consulting and Selling Power as well as a being a paid contributor for a number of industry-related websites. In this conversation, Jim discusses the results of the 2010 Annual Presentation Impact Survey conducted by his company, Distinction Communication, Inc.
Geetesh: Tell us about your 2010 Presentation Impact Survey, and what do the results speak about -- what are the reaffirmations, and the surprises?
Jim: The goal of our annual impact survey has always been pretty straight forward – to better understand the needs, issues and concerns of active presenters. They are group of people we talk a lot about and make assumptions about, but too seldom do we ask them directly about their needs. Probably one of the more challenging parts of doing a survey of presenters is that they are so diverse but there were some data points that hardly wavered from the previous year.
This year, 86.0% said "Communicating with a solid level of clarity and confidence directly impacts my career and income." (2009 results – 86.1% chose this option). It seems this is the one thing we can all agree on. The skills associated with delivering a presentation (face-to-face or virtual), are ones that impact us all, both personally and professionally, and at every level of our careers.
Also for the second year in a row, people continued to rank "Presentation technologies don’t always work predictably" as their greatest frustration ahead of creating slides, time to practice, getting feedback and collaborating with others. As far as things have come in the technology area, this area continues to bubble to the top every year. More questions need to be asked about their out-of-box experiences because there still seems to be a lot of angst.
On the slide creation side of things, more people thought they were doing a better job. 36.8% believed their presentations were "High-caliber and well-designed visual tools" (26.1% in 2009) and 30.8% believed their presentations were "too simple or too complex" (58.5% in 2009). Then there were the 32.2% of people who thought theirs were "just average" (15.4% in 2009). The big question for all presenters probably is…. would their audiences agree?
Geetesh: You conduct this survey every year -- and looking back through the years, you must have witnessed trends in presentation patterns that eventually became mainstream -- tell us about some of these trends.
Jim: I’ve been in the service support side of the presentation industry since 1984 and have seen the progression from acetate overheads created in photocopiers to presentations delivered off of smart phones. But in reality, the vast majority of presenters change very slowly. A few of our largest client companies (Fortune 500) are still using PowerPoint 2003. And if you saw the vast majority of visuals that are being created, most still struggle with how to create good ones. (I have not seen 36.8% of our clients creating "high-caliber" presentations).
I believe trends fall into several categories; the tools we use and the approaches we take. There are some very progressive companies that have been making compelling progress in the art of presenting. And within many other companies today, there are some shining stars who are elevating the caliber of their company’s presentations - often fighting corporate cultures that are very slow to change. My advice to them… make the corner of the world you own better and others will follow.
In considering changes & trends in the art of presenting, the challenge most of us will struggle with has to do with what we believe the "end game" is for our efforts. It is all too easy to become preoccupied with the mechanics of "giving" a presentation (technology, software, add-in, conversions) at the expense of coming up with new ideas and approaches that actually help our audiences "get" our messages and remember them later on (compelling messages, confident delivery, understanding how to cause people to think more deeply about a topic).
As long as the art of presenting advances both the tools and approaches we are using, I think we’ll see more memorable presenters supported by dynamic visuals. Distinction will continue to do these surveys every year because they give presenters a voice. And in a world where the stakes are so high, we need to better understand the things that keep them awake at night before we can offer relevant resources. More results can be found at our website.
See Also: Distinction’s 2010 Annual Presentation Impact Survey: Conversation with Jim Endicott
Categories: interviews, opinion, powerpoint
April 2003 | May 2003 | December 2003 | January 2004 | February 2004 | March 2004 | April 2004 | May 2004 | June 2004 | July 2004 | August 2004 | September 2004 | October 2004 | November 2004 | December 2004 | January 2005 | February 2005 | March 2005 | April 2005 | May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | August 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | June 2006 | July 2006 | August 2006 | September 2006 | October 2006 | November 2006 | December 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | April 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | August 2007 | September 2007 | October 2007 | November 2007 | December 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | May 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | August 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | November 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | April 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | September 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | October 2011 | November 2011 | December 2011 | January 2012 | February 2012 | March 2012 | April 2012 | May 2012 | June 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | September 2012 | October 2012 | November 2012 | December 2012 | January 2013 | February 2013 | March 2013 | April 2013 | May 2013 | June 2013 | July 2013 | August 2013 | September 2013 | October 2013 | November 2013 | December 2013 | January 2014 | February 2014 | March 2014 | April 2014 | May 2014 | June 2014 | July 2014 | August 2014 | September 2014 | October 2014 | November 2014 | December 2014 | January 2015 | February 2015 | March 2015 | April 2015 | May 2015 | June 2015 | July 2015 | August 2015 | September 2015 | October 2015 | November 2015 | December 2015 | January 2016 | February 2016 | March 2016 | April 2016 | May 2016 | June 2016 | July 2016 | August 2016 | September 2016 | October 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | January 2017 |
Microsoft and the Office logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.