As a guy who works with lots of big corporates, writing speeches, rehearsing speakers for big pitches and presentations, I'm forever coming up against the "Template Trial". The corporate PowerPoint template which everybody must use when creating presentations but which creates real problems for the speaker who wants to use them in support of their speech.
Of course, the corporate template provides "brand synergy across all communications". I respect and understand that, but the problem is that most of them are rubbish as visual aids. Most of them are designed as templates for written documents, and as Nancy Duarte or Garr Reynolds, or me might say: "Good hand-outs always make poor visual aids, and good visual aids always make poor hand-outs…"
If you want to present a written document, why not just hand it out and let the audience read it for themselves, at their own pace? Then your presentation will consist of 3 lines:
But you couldn't do that, could you? Instead people tend to do "supervised reading". Project the written document, read out the slides to the bemused listeners, who simply start reading for themselves and ignore the speaker if they can.
I've nothing against the corporate template. Just rubbish ones. So here are two arguments for the idea, and two against. I'll let you make up your own mind.
Presentation planning and design can be an enormous time drain. It's understandable that businesses concerned about easily distracted staff would want to save time by giving them a template to work with. Having set color schemes, layouts and fonts also means that presentation designers will have to spend less time re-designing presentations in line with their managers' vision of how things should look.
Branding recognition is hugely important for businesses, and presentations to external parties benefit from using the corporate colors, fonts and themes. Undoubtedly, ensuring everything which a company is released has the same look and feel helps to build their brand identity and give the business a sense of unity, no matter what it’s size.
Some companies believe that branding their presentations also provides them a level of protection from anyone who would attempt to steal their slides.
No matter how many variations and options you give them, template users will feel restrained in their creativity, and uncertain of the kind of changes they are allowed to make. It's impossible to provide a template for every possible slide idea a person may have, and if they don’t see an example like the one they have in mind within the template, they may assume their design is off-limits.
Hampering the creativity of your presentation creators might save hours in the preparation of slides, but it will cost you hours of staff time if it results in presentations and pitches which are so unimaginative nobody gets anything out of them.
If every presentation given within and by a business looks exactly the same it won't be long before the audience switches off, zones out and ignores what the presenter is saying. This becomes a vicious circle; as presentation makers become more lazy and reliant upon the basic PowerPoint template, their presentations become more boring, audiences pay less attention and so presentation makers feel more lazy.
Remember this -- you can make presentations look branded without creating a prescriptive template. Sure, get everyone to use the same color schemes and fonts. And even brand certain slides if you don't want them copied. But leave enough flexibility so that when you present to the same audience twice, they get two entirely different presentations.
Whatever way you choose -- make sure you have different templates for the visual aid than for the hand-out. The visual aid should have a minimum text size of 32 points. A maximum of 3 bullet points per slide (preferably presented as boxes not bullets), and only 3 types of slides: Title, Image alone and Image with bullet.
you hvae create a wonderful work.I got benefitted a lot from your post.Your suggestion to find Powerpoint template regarding corporate is very beneficial resource.
If you are interested in some more valuable resources Click Here
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 | February 2017 |
Microsoft and the Office logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.