Skip to main content

Watch your facial expression when on TV (Greenspan trips up)

Alan Greenspan was on Meet The Press on Sunday and said something that, to date, no one associated with the USA's economic policy has said. Basically when asked about the downgrade to double-A status, Greenspan said the downgrade was silly. His reason? The US can print money therefore it can never default.

Or put in common speak, the US will never fail to pay off its credit card because it is the credit card company, ergo, if it's credit card is maxed out they can simply raise the limit on the credit card and use the increased limit to pay off the interest owed on that very same card. Hence they should be triple-A rated because a default is impossible.

This was a HUGE faux pas on Greenspan's part (it might be time for him to hang up the media interviews), essentially admitting that despite the trouble in the world being a direct result of unrestrained spending, their ultimate solution if it comes down to it is MORE printing of money and unrestrained spending (ie. debt).

As big a faux pas as this was, the video clip of this emphasizes an important element of PR, which is that messages aren't always verbal or text-based. Austin Goolsbee, who recently left his position as President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers chairman, was on the panel and said more with his body and facial language that words ever can.

It's not pronounced (so you should watch the video in full screen mode), but you can clearly see him take a restricted breath, his eyes widen and his jaw slightly clenches (mark 1.05 in the video).

You can almost see the thought bubble over his head thinking "Did he just say what I think he said? Argh, this is not good."




While the body language was very subtle (Goolsbee is well trained at media interviews) and the clip only two seconds in length, on a 40+ inch television trust me THAT was the message viewers received.

The message being that printing money and increasing debt to pay off debt is not a good thing and as such is a very touchy subject and must be talked about only with the greatest of care (something Greenspan clearly forget for a moment).

Little things like that, when they happen in front of a national audience, can play a huge role in eroding your messaging strategy.

In many ways, when Bush didn't react to 9/11 when he was in front of the kids, I think a lot of that was simply his media training kicking in. That when something shocks (and their are cameras around) you don't let it show in your facial or body expressions. You can see he is told the news at around the 1 minute mark and remains totally composed.



It's easy to control what you say when you are taken by surprise, it's much more difficult to control your non-verbal reaction. Just the slightest change in your breathing pattern can tell the audience everything they need to know.

The best strategy to use when presented with shocking information during an interview is to simply remember that interviews are a give and take process. That you don't have to jump in and respond instantly. As such, you can remain calm and collected and simply wait for your turn to talk and make whatever verbal corrections are required to control the damage.

The urge to react immediately is what gives rise to expressive body language. The act of holding yourself back gives off a wide variety of non-verbal queues. But if you are in a state of mind in which no matter what is said, you know you'll have a chance to respond, then you won't get that urge to react immediately to things (and your non-verbal body language will remain constant).

It's like a game of poker where you suddenly find yourself with four aces, the urge is to get excited over the fact that you are clearly going to win the hand presents itself. Yet, a good poker player has the same body expression whether they have four aces or a hand that's a bust. They remain calm and collected until after the game is over because they know, any body language they express on any given hand may be used by their opponent to judge future hands.

So no matter how taken by surprise you are, if you are in the mindset that you'll 'react' when, and only when, it's your turn to talk, you'll be in far greater control of the message your audience ultimately walks away with. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Featured Post: Where Can You Buy My Books?

Interested in purchasing one of my books? Below are the links that will take you to the right place on Amazon. A Manufactured Mind On Amazon On Kobo On Barnes and Noble On iTunes Obey On Amazon On Kobo  On B&N  On iTunes  The Fall of Man Trilogy Days of Judgment (Book One) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes System Crash (Book Two) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes A Fool's Requiem (Book Three) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...

More evidence of the Internet Revolution

Bell ushers in new era with CTV deal  So Bell has purchased CTV.  Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it... Driving convergence this time, the Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones and computer tablets are threatening home television’s lock on viewers. Bell, like its rivals, wants to offer more content to its subscribers, however they receive the signal. Viewers are increasingly interested in watching their favourite shows on their phones while they ride the bus or sit in the park, and the cable and phone companies that have served as middle men between viewers and broadcasters were in danger of being marginalized. You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content. When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As ...