I thought long and hard about what direction to take an article for today (and believe me there are almost limitless ways to frame these topics). As I read more deeply into the analysis and looked at the overall reactions from both expert and civilian respects, I found one angle to be most interesting. And this is the idea of presentation of message.
Both men yesterday wanted to convey similar messages.
Jobs was intent on promoting the latest Apple salvation machine, the unfortunately named iPad. He carefully crafted a presentation to hit on all the features and benefits of this new device. He showed demonstrations with various applications and brought on third party developers to show the potential. He also dug deeper in the technology inside the machine hitting on all the critical specifications (ie. screen size, storage space, processor speed). The entire presentation was geared to portray the iPad as a complete device which will be affordable and desirable, the next step in the Apple-ification of mobile electronics. More simply, the presentation was to make you want an iPad and believe in the Apple brand.
President Obama was intent on promoting his latest strategies for the American nation, the Obama administration's playbook moving forward. He carefully crafted a speech to hit on all the hot topics of the day with accompanying strategies to tackle the issues. He told of stories from all over the country and world of how his plans will, and have, worked. He tried to bring in both parties to show the potential of bipartisan support. He dug deeper into the details within his plans (ie. tax cuts, military strategy, job creation). The entire speech was geared to portray Obama as a man with a plan which will help the nation reach its potential and get out of the current mess. More simply, the speech was to fuel the fire which once burned for candidate Obama and create the same passion for President Obama.
At the core of both presentations was the idea of passing on a positive message, wrapped in the details of reality, to the general public. This is the most important part. Apple junkies did not need to hear much more than the familiar tapping of Mr. Jobs' famous tennis shoes on the stage than to be sold on whatever the impending product unveiled was. On the opposing side, Apple-haters were sharpening their fangs as soon as they heard any details so they could begin a mean spirited blog post. Two these groups the keynote was meaningless for the most part. President Obama was in a similar situation. Deep Blue Democrats have been on-board with the President since day one of his candidacy. Many Republicans have already passed the point of listening to the President. These groups are set in their ways and are not going to be swayed by one hour of political speech.
The importance lies with independents, both politically and technologically.
Message? Similar. Task at hand? Similar. Audience diversity? Similar. So what can we look at? Well, almost a full day has passed for analysis and I think one thing can be clear. While the iPad might not have been the best product release Apple will ever have, I have yet to find someone who misunderstood the message. Most people understand the details and features of the iPad. Most even came away with the more nuanced understanding of how the iPad fits into the broader electronics marketplace (as Jobs put it, between a smart phone and a laptop). We all know the price, what apps will look like, how data will work, the coolness of iBooks, etc. Good work, Steve, another very effective presentation, let me introduce you to a friend of mine who I think could benefit from speaking with you. Oh, the name? Just call him Mr. Politician.
This is not an indictment of President Obama's speech giving ability. I find him to be fantastic and think he really does generate energy and passion when he speaks. The problem is not the person in the role, its the constraints of the role itself. Why is it that every presentation given in the business world, the educational environment or the technological sphere is accompanied by some sort of visual aides? Because it helps us (the audience) understand the message. It has been proven time and time again. We are not slow, we can mainly understand complex speeches. What the graph, charts, pictures help us do is to retain and refine your understanding of the message. We will never know what a graphic-less Apple presentation would look like, but my guess would be that most would leave with a confused look on their faces.
Unfortunately, politicians must only use a podium and hand gestures to get their point across. Why!? Political decorum? Huh? We have proven that presentations are better with additional sources of information but we handcuff those with the most important messages to get across. Where are our shiny health care slides which will help us all understand what will happen? Where is the video of how we got to this point in our financial markets? Why can't we put some bullet points together for a President's speech to the entire world?
If we want more people involved in the political process, politicians must welcome them in. I do not need Obama to be sitting in a faux-living room, but give me something to hold on to. We are a faster paced people now. Our attention spans are two minutes long. No longer can you expect the independents to listen to you stand at a podium for over an hour and list the problems and solutions for the country. Politics has many problems, but this is one that can be fixed right now.
Mr. President, you seem like a pretty hip guy, stop giving the same type of speech that Rutherford B. Hayes gave in 1880. Go talk to Steve about getting a message across in a modern way. Just don't let him convince you to start using an iPad, they look useless.
GRM for RAL
