Patti Sanchez: Communication Thought Leader, Author, and Storyteller

Here's something remarkable and not in a good way. Disengaged employees cost US companies almost $1.9 trillion a year. That's a lot of zeros. Why? Because when teams lack the right skills, productivity declines, turnover increases, and strategies stagnate. But it doesn't have to be that way. At Project Management Institute, home of the PMP and globally recognized certifications, your people can learn to collaborate, deliver on time and actually get things the cost of not upskilling way higher than the investment Project Management Institute. Find the answers@pmi.org the Remarkable People is.

Now officially part of the HubSpot Podcast Network family. Something that I love about the HubSpot Podcast Network is all the shows and hosts dedicated to inspiring professionals like you to dent the universe. You see the world a little differently and want to make the world a better place. And if you love remarkable People and are looking for other shows like mine, I recommend checking out My first million. I Digress, the Salesman and Entrepreneurs on Fire. You can check out all these shows and more@HubSpot.com podcastnetwork. I'm Guy Kawasaki and this is Remarkable People. Our guest today is Patty Sanchez and she is the Chief Strategy Officer at Duarte Inc. The Silicon Valley consultancy that makes good speakers great and great speakers amazing. She helps leaders craft engaging narratives and storytelling to craft powerful and persuasive presentations. How do you like that for alliteration? Patty has her Bachelor's degree in Public Relations from San Jose State University. She is the co author of the award winning book Ignite Change Through Speeches, Stories, Ceremonies and Symbols. Her latest book is so relevant to the times, it's called Presenting Virtually. It's the basis of most of this interview and I highly recommend it. Patti has worked with corporations such as Apple, Cisco and Nike, as well as higher education institutions such as Stanford and Rice University. Her work has been honored by the International association of Business Communication, bma, Vital Speeches of the Day and Axiom. Additionally, the Harvard Business Review has featured her writing. There are few episodes of Remarkable People that are more practical and tactical than this one. If you want to learn how to become a better communicator, keep listening. I'm Guy Kawasaki and this is Remarkable People. And now here is the remarkable Patty Sanchez. So, you ready?

Yeah. Let's go.

How can people stop saying, you know, well, etc. The filler words? How do you train them to stop saying those words?

Slow down. Think before you speak. Let your mouth catch up with your brain. That's the number one reason people use those filler words. It takes practice. We have a speaker coaching business at Duarte and our coaches will work with a person to give them the feedback, help them see where they're actually using those filler words, and then work with them to strip them out.

I have interviewed more than 100 people for this podcast and absolutely stellar, remarkable, famous, award winning, professorial, leading edge, blah, blah, blah. I will tell you that in many episodes I use a product called Descript, which will identify and you can search for a word like and replace it with silence. For a typical interview, it's 250 times of the U.S. you know, as in Wells, it's 250 times in a. Oops.

That was my exchange. Sorry about that.

That's okay. Shows, it's live, so 250 times in one hour. I am just amazing. I do it too, don't get me wrong. Oh yeah, but, but it's amazing.

I do as well. AR is AI is pretty great at identifying that now. Pretty soon it all it'll speak for us.

I listened to a show on NPR where a stutterer can talk into this software and it comes out without stuttering, which is truly amazing. What are the characteristics of top communicators?

We've identified that the best speakers are comfortable, so they know what they're talking about. They feel confident in their abilities. They're also dynamic, so they use their voice and their body to bring ideas to life for people. And they're empathetic. That is a quality that I particularly value and think is critical. If you want to persuade people, I think you have to understand them before you can move them.

So then how do you coach empathy? So you got this. Let's not be too stereotypical, but let's. You have a male, probably white, highly educated, arrogant, without reason to be arrogant. And now you're going to tell him, in order to improve your speaking, you need to have a greater sense of empathy.

I'm going to speak hypothetically because I've never worked with anyone like that. Wait a minute. White males, older and so my whole life here. Arrogant. Yes, absolutely. You describe them all really well.

The.

Feedback from audiences, feedback from someone they trust is an entry point and, and sometimes that's not me, that's not the consultant. Even though I was paid by someone who believes that that executive needs to get better at this exact thing. Feedback from audiences, feedback from their teams about whether they actually are communicating in an empathetic way. That data makes an impact.

I don't want you to think that I'm not gonna let this go.

But.

But my experience with the previously mentioned typical CEO is he or she typically has an entourage. Where there is the PR person, there's the personal assistant, and if you're important enough, the personal assistant has a personal assistant. And you add to that security. And you're telling me that they're going to hear feedback and change their speaking style?

Well, not immediately. Just like we were talking about getting rid of the yums and the ahs. I'm most likely not going to transform you on one conversation. Right. I don't think it often happens that way. But Duarte, and in my work as well, I've put a lot of effort into creating tools, creating frameworks that help people plan their communication, and they always start with empathy. And so I make it part of the workflow, part of the process, to ask some questions like, who are you speaking to? How do they feel about that idea that you're trying to persuade them to accept? And nine times out of 10, that powerful executive will admit that, yeah, actually, people aren't fully bought into my idea, but it's simply because they're stupid, their brains are too small. It's a very unsympathetic view of the audience. Yet when I probe further on the kinds of pushback they're getting about that idea, it starts to reveal that there are absolutely reasonable concerns, questions, objections, sources of resistance. And the more I follow that train of logic, more often than not the leader will realize, ah, they might have a point. I might need to approach this differently if I want them to actually accept my idea.

Does empathy naturally lead to storytelling?

They're linked inextricably because I think stories are a way that we understand ourselves, and they're a way that we can understand other people. But that is also a practice that I have to lead executives to. Like a horse to water or a dog to food or whatever analogy you want to use. I have to many times convince them that storytelling is actually effective and important.

I use the top 10 format for my speeches, and every one of those top 10 has a story that goes with it. But just to push back, really, on myself, I also know that a story is not necessarily statistically scientifically valid. Right? So. And in fact, David Aker, who has been on this, tells people, don't argue about facts, tell stories. Because no one can say, no, you're lying. That didn't happen. That person, that situation didn't exist. Whereas a fact, as we've learned in the past five years, there's no such thing as a fact. The fact is what you want to believe, right? So I'm telling you all this. So is there some kind of ethical challenge here? That, yeah, you can tell one story about this customer who loved your product or this great development you've done, but that's not statistically valid, and most of the times it's not true. So if Elizabeth Holmes says, yeah, we pricked your blood and we discovered this disease with one drop of blood for that one time, that's a story. That doesn't mean Teranos is for real. So how do you handle the ethics of good storytelling?

In storytelling, in the cinematic sense, the literary sense, there is the concept of an unreliable narrator. And that means that you actually have to establish the credibility of that narrator first. And very often humans are flawed, and there are good reasons not to believe them. But that doesn't mean that stories themselves are inherently lies. I'm not talking about storytelling as fiction, as just something dramatic you do to make a point, but stories rooted in actual experience. And I think stories and facts are friends, like rice and beans. They can go together, present the facts, then use a story to illustrate the point. Yes, this story is about one of those 200,000 customers, and I can prove the source. But you do have to believe that I'm a trustworthy person. And that certainly is also a challenge for some leaders.

I have to tell you that as a storyteller, in my speaking, I am cognizant that I am not statistically valid. In a random sample with control, I often say, listen, I tell Steve Jobs stories, right? And I often preface this with, I'm going to tell you Steve Jobs story. And this is how it worked for him. This doesn't mean that it'll work for you, and probably you are no Steve Jobs. But here's the story. I don't lay awake at night about it, Patty, honestly. But I do think about it. Do you think that great communicators are born or made?

I believe they can be made. Now, I grew up in a family of charismatic people. My father was a salesman, and he could sell anything to anybody. And he was also a great storyteller. I was not that person. I'm an introvert. I'm uncomfortable being in the spotlight. And so storytelling in particular, was not something that came natural to me or that I felt comfortable doing. I had some skills, but I needed to build more skills and using my own self as an unreliable narrator. You don't know who I am or whether you can trust me, but my own story is. Is evidence that you can build communication skills. And I've seen it in other communicators and other leaders that I've worked with over the years. I've worked with some executives who are really bad at communicating for various reasons. I'm sure you have no experience with that. I mean, not everybody is Steve Jobs, right? Everybody wants to be.

Nobody is Steve Jobs.

Yeah, never will be another one. There are a lot of leaders who are terrible at it. I've seen them though, with commitment, with humility, actually get better at communication. Now that charisma is a hard thing to manufacture out of thin air. So some people are naturally charismatic, but that doesn't mean you have to be that to get an idea across clearly.

When you encounter someone that says, I'm a natural, I don't need to practice, I'll rise to the occasion after you throw up, what do you say?

Everyone can get better. Nobody is the perfect communicator. There's always something that you can work on. Maybe you're naturally comfortable, maybe you've given enough presentations that you don't sweat when you get on stage or fire up the camera. But that doesn't mean that you're automatically naturally empathetic, meaning able to relate to the audience, willing to hear their questions and feedback and engage in a real two way dialogue. Maybe very dynamic, engaging, large personality. But it doesn't mean that you can get to the point quickly. There are a lot of qualities that are necessary for effective communication. A lot of techniques. Everybody can work on something.

Let's suppose people are listening to this and say, yeah, I want to be a better communicator, so I have to make a speech. What's my workflow for delivering a great speech?

Well, where I always start is planning. It's one of the chapters in the book that I just wrote for a reason, because I'm a writer and a strategist and I always begin with what is my goal and what do I need to say or do in this talk to achieve that goal? To me, that next leads to a little work I have to do to understand my audience. I've talked about it before. How do they feel about this idea or this objective that you're trying to achieve? And what do you need to say or do differently in this talk to convince them of that which can surface specific messages you have to communicate or ways that you should communicate? And you need to do all of that before you open PowerPoint or Google Slides or Canva or whatever tool you're making your visual aids in. Start first by having a clear goal, knowing how you're going to achieve it through analysis of your audience in the messages that will land with them, Then you can start writing.

Are you suggesting that one should write out word for word, what you're going to say?

Well, now you can start generating ideas about things you want to say. So I'm a girl that started out working in long form as a writer, so I do open word, and that's kind of a. No, no. I guess if you want to be a visual thinker from the start, but thinking in terms of chunks, main ideas, not writing paragraphs, and certainly not writing word for word if you're writing for the spoken medium, because those will trip you up. So write an outline or. What Duarte teaches in our workshops is put ideas on sticky notes, work in analog. Essentially, this is an idea. I want to communicate. Here's another idea. I want to communicate. Here's another idea. And then organize them into clusters, group them into topics, and now you have a skeleton that you can start to build on.

There are two parts to your book that I truly enjoyed. Not. Not to say I'm no, that. Don't take that wrong. It's not like that's the only two, but I'm just highlighting two.

Well, that's very kind of you.

So the first is, I thought you had a very good analysis of the negatives associated with virtual appearances. So let's first talk about the negatives. What goes wrong or is harder with a virtual talk?

There are a lot of challenges with the technology, and some people, even 18 months into this pandemic, are still struggling with that. And that kind of thing frustrates audiences really quickly. You just struggle to figure out how to share the right slides or unmute yourself. And those are small barriers. But I think the technology itself disintermediates our communication. And that's one of the first things we have to realize about virtual presentations and how they're different than in person. There's this wall between us, the screen. That is a challenge, but it's not an insurmountable one. Just learn how to love the technology, how to use it to your advantage. Another is distraction, the fact that people would be watching your presentation on a desktop, laptop, or on a mobile device where there were other things open, there are other apps open, and so their attention can easily wander. They're just highly distractible. And it's harder to get caught not paying attention in a virtual presentation than it is when you're in a big room together and the speaker can Tell. You're all looking down at your phones and. And it hurts their feelings. Don't do that.

When I'm looking down, I'm taking notes, okay? So don't, don't. I'm not checking my email. I said, look, I got this piece of paper.

I wasn't trying to call you out. I trust you.

I'm just so. Any other negatives? Any other negatives?

I think those are two of the biggest challenges. And just the difficulty in creating what I would call intimacy between people as a result of just the way that this medium works is another challenge, in my opinion, one that I really tried to lean into in the book and provide strategies to overcome that, to essentially create the sense of presence even when you're not physically together, which makes it harder for you to connect with your audience for them to feel. Feel like they can relate to you and to your message. But I also think it's a hard world to live in when we're all staring at our devices all the time. We need more human connection. It's on us to try and build that.

I love the negatives, but I really adored the positives because most people don't write about the positives. So what are the advantages of a virtual presentation?

Yeah, well, you already touched on one of them, which is the reach and the access that this platform gives us. So I can be speaking to people in several different regions during the course of a day. I can reach a much bigger audience than I could before. So that's more convenient for me. It's faster and easier to get my idea out there. And the other advantage of that, that was really mind blowing to me that I learned in talking to other companies that moved their events to virtual, which is inclusion. It's another benefit of reach and access. People who would not maybe normally have been able to afford going to your conference or traveling to hear you speak could actually log online if they had a reliable Internet connection, which certainly doesn't exist for everybody in the world still, but it's better than the access that they might normally have gotten. So that's. That's one of them. I think it's really powerful and especially important these days to make sure that more people get access to useful information and capabilities. Another one I've touched on a little bit, which is the actual technology, the medium that itself and the way that we use it. It's more like television or more like radio than it is a typical stand and deliver presentation. If I learn how to really fix my eyes on the camera, I'm trying so hard to stare deeply into your pupils right now, guys. If I really learn how to make the camera my friend, I can actually feel closer to people. It can build a sense of intimacy. And you probably saw this if you watch late night shows and you know, if any of your favorite television hosts had to host from home like Jimmy Fallon or Stephen Colbert, the camera was just a couple feet away from them. And it felt really different. It felt more personal and more immediate, more real, which I love personally. Big fan of that. And then finally, the technology lets you do things, lets you show things that you couldn't show before, lets you put yourself in virtual environments that you couldn't easily be projected into before.

I have a thought and I've told this to event planners, especially when they say, you know, we really want you in person. Because I won't do in person yet. Let's say you're speaking at a Fairly large venue, 5000 People Ballroom in Las Vegas. It seems to me that the first 20 or 30 rows they look at you on the podium. The rest of the audience is looking at your IMAG and the graphic, Your Canva or PowerPoint or Keynote Slide. And so for most people there isn't a lot of difference between looking at an IMAG and slides, whether it's virtual or in person. Or am I misreading that?

That's true as an audience member, as I've experienced it. Or I love going to concerts too, and usually I'm in the cheap seats. Back in the day when you could actually go, right? Yeah. I might as well be at home watching on television. What's the point of being there physically? I. I have been really excited about the second screen experience and what it can do, how you can actually use it to be more present with your audience in a way that you can't when they're just looking at you on a big screen.

You ever think we'll go back to a basic non hybrid or non virtual world for speeches?

All the data tells me we won't. Everything that I've seen from the industry, what I hear from our customers is hybrid will continue. There will be still some echelon of event where people will expect the intimacy, the exclusivity of it being just purely you all together right now. But companies have learned the ROI is a lot better when you can also stream to an online audience. Again, back to the Reach benefit. It makes me sad a little bit because it's certainly challenging. I don't know anybody who's figured out how to put on A really great hybrid event. People are trying and experimenting with lots of things, but that's also what's exciting. We're probably doing it terribly right now, but we're going to do it magically at some point and it's going to be better than we thought. And I think the future is always better than past anyway.

Someone listening to this is a speaker and is saying, I'm having the hardest time making a transition from in person to virtual Patty. What can I do? How can I make this transition?

I. I really think that practicing camera work, practicing how to use this medium so that you can actually enjoy it, so you can actually embrace what's unique about it. You have to let go of some things though, especially if you're a speaker who's very comfortable on a stage or in a large room full of people. You hate this format because you don't hear a lot of people laughing. You don't see all the heads nodding, especially if it's a very large session. Right. You don't even see your audience video. You don't get the feedback that you need. So if you're that extroverted performer who, people pleaser, it's going to suck. It's going to be really different for you. But it also can be really amazing if you embrace what's unique about it. That camera, the intimacy and closeness that you can get and the opportunity to, to play, to experiment. I didn't talk much in the book about the actual technology tools because they're changing all the time. It would have been out of date in a week. But the things that you can do with prezi video, with obs, with teams now has reporter mode. It really is turning us into broadcasters. And that gives you new ways to express your ideas, to add a level of polish but also just fun to your presentations that slides alone often don't do unless you have a really big.

Budget as a speaker. Again, I feel like there's been a giant reset and just the top tier of speakers, the quarter million dollar speaker. Maybe there's only 50 of them in the world, but basically everything was burned down and everybody starts again. So whether you're Michelle Obama or your guy Kawasaki or you, Joe shit the Ragman, everybody has to figure out virtual speeches at the same time, starting with nothing. It's a great equalizer. I have truly enjoyed this.

So absolutely. That's why I talk about in the conclusion, the, the idea that anybody now can have a bigger platform than they ever had before, that you could record an amazing virtual presentation, post it and, and reach more people than you ever could. And that's exciting. I've been working in Silicon valley for over 30 years, working with lots of tech companies, and we've often used the word democratizing, overused it. It was part of somebody's pitch all the time, and it felt like BS most of the time. But it's true. It's true. With this, I can get a good microphone, I can get a good camera, I can get a good laptop, and I can make some really good content that people can watch and be moved by. That's exciting. That's why I say the future is better than the past. I do believe in progress, and technology is more helpful than not.

Amen. Amen. So if you look at my setup, and I hope you think my setup is good, if you look at my setup, what I have going on here costs roughly $1,500 for everything. And I am constantly amazed whether I'm watching CNN or whether I'm watching a company event, like how crappy people's audio and video are.

Yeah.

And that same executive would not hesitate to buy a $10,000 first class ticket to fly across the world to make a one hour speech. But he or she or the company won't spend 1500 bucks to get a camera and a microphone and a light and a soundproof acoustic tiles. I don't understand that at all.

No, not at all. But the good news is it's affordable enough that you can buy it for yourself anyway. Expense it as some kind of, I don't know, boondoggle, bury it in your budget and, and get it. It's a productivity tool, just like the subscription to the software that you use and the printer that you had to get at your home office so you can get your work done like you used to. So it's worth the investment. And at minimum to do that is to be kind to your audience so they don't have to understand you. Plus your voice, the dulcet tones coming through that, through that microphone, it's worth it.

So now I'm going to ask you questions that are really short.

All right, lightning round. Bring it.

No, no, this is not a lightning round. We're coming to that. This is not. This is more like, I guess, lightning at the speed of light. So this is a thunder round. It's at the speed of sound, not light, just the thunderbound. And basically I'm going to ask you what you think of these ideas or your recommendations about each one of these topics.

Okay, Sounds good.

Digital backgrounds in virtual calls.

Gotta say, I'm not a fan of fake backgrounds. They're very hard to pull off well. And our research says that audiences don't really appreciate them either. If you got to hide the dirty laundry, you know, for the team meeting that you're joining. Yeah, it's, it's for a casual everyday meeting. Yes. I'm, I'm not going to tell you that you have to be ashamed in front of your co workers, but for a formal presentation where you're really trying to persuade somebody. No, don't do it. Find a better location.

How about literally buying a physical analog green screen so that at least you don't get all the digital vestiges as you move. Especially if you have white hair, for sure.

Which. Right. Which I do too. And the only reason I didn't go straight there is because it was a struggle for me. The way that I'm made just isn't friendly to green screens. Unfortunately, my light and I become one because I'm so pale. But yeah, if you invest in better quality green screen technology and you have somebody help you light it properly, then yeah, it could look a little better.

Next question. Maximum optimal slash. Whatever. Good. Length of a virtual talk?

It depends. Sorry to say it, but it depends. It depends on what type of talk it is. So in the book I talk about there being different kinds. There's the linear monologue which is appropriate sometimes. There's an interactive session that's appropriate sometimes. And there's a collaborative session that is appropriate sometimes. Those can be different lengths. In general, people don't like to listen to anything pre recorded longer than 30 minutes and that's asking a lot. There's a reason why TED talks were shorter than that. 16 to 30 seems to be something that people prefer based on our research.

So let's say the scenario is it's a keynote speaker. So it's not a, you know, staff meeting. It's not an update, it's not an internal communications meeting where everybody has to be heard. You brought in an outside speaker to talk about innovation or communication or the threat of social media. And you have. The event planner is thinking, how long should I give this guy or gal? What do you tell them?

On average? I would say 30 minutes. That doesn't include a lot of interaction. So Q A can be extra if you're going to do a lot of polls and interactions with the audience, add.

More time for that, which is roughly 50% of what we gave in real life.

Right, right, right, exactly. Everything used to be 60 minute slots. People don't have the same attention span. I know there's a lot of debate about that, but my experience is that we're getting more impatient, especially online.

Obviously I'm sitting, but I have also given virtual keynote standing. Do you feel strongly that whether you're standing or sitting can affect the quality of your speech?

Well, very much so. When you're standing, you're more likely to have an upright posture, which means that your airway is more open so your breath can flow more freely, which means that your voice can be stronger. I do sometimes sit. I'm sitting right now maybe because I'm lazy. It's a casual conversation, so I felt it was appropriate for a keynote. I stand for those reasons. One, that my breath can be stronger so my voice can be stronger, which is necessary for me with a softer voice, but also so that I can have more energy. In general, I project myself more fully through that little camera and microphone when I'm standing. And I've seen that to be true with other people as well.

So in a perfect world, as people are setting up their home broadcast studio, they should try to make a situation where at least you could have both. You could sit for some like zoom calls, but you can stand and give a speech.

Yeah, that's right. I either have two setups or you can have a standing desk or like I do, so you can go up or down as the situation requires.

That's very useful. I will implement that. Next question is picture in picture where the slide is big, your face is small, side by side or alternate what style? Up next on Remarkable People, what do you think is the most effective way to explain innovation as a keynote speaker?

With those choices, I think that the monologue won't be as effective.

Now that Remarkable People is officially part of the HubSpot Podcast Network, I wanted to take a moment to evangelize the ways that the HubSpot CRM platform helps businesses big and small grow and thrive. With the end of the year, employee holiday travel and forecasting for 2022 well underway, staying connected has never been more important and HubSpot is consistently releasing new features to make your CRM platform more connected than ever. With improved forecasting tools and custom report builders, you can see how your quarter is going, inspect new deals and use customizable data driven reports to improve team performance as you grow. With custom behavioral events, you can track site behavior and understand your customers buying habits all within the platform. And if you're looking for cleaner data with a centralized system, the all new Operations Hub Enterprise gives your ops Leads the ability to curate data sets for all users, meaning even faster and more consistent reporting. Learn more about how a HubSpot CRM platform can help connect the dots of your business@HubSpot.com welcome back to Remarkable People with Guy Kawasaki. Next question is picture in picture where the slide is big, your face is small, side by side, or alternate? What style?

I'm gonna say it depends again, but I would favor, well, depending on the situation and really what you're trying to get across. I sure hope you don't have really dense slides. If you do, the slide should be bigger and your face can be a little smaller, but the audience is going to lose something in that situation. The standard slidesharing format in Zoom and other apps does make the slide bigger and the video smaller, unless you make some, you know, changes to your settings to change that proportion. And that's not best, in my opinion. When you're trying to create that virtual presence, you want the audience to be able to see your facial expressions, so your slides shouldn't be dominant. Picture in picture. That whole idea, what I call fused. In the book, it's like the television style of broadcast graphics overlaid next to the speaker is ideal, and it's becoming easier to do with the changes that are coming with virtual communication platforms. But it's ideal because it lets your audience both see your slides and you at the same time, and they can feel more connected to you as a result of that. But you can also interact with your graphics in a way that makes it easier for them to relate to the information you're sharing. Make sense of it.

Let's suppose that you want to communicate an idea. So you're evangelizing an idea. And not that this will ever happen in real life, but you have been asked to suggest the format of the speech. So you could do a keynote. You could be a Fireside chat with a host, or you could do open Q and A. And what do you think? I know you're going to say it depends, but what do you think is the most. What do you think is the most effective way to explain innovation? As a keynote speaker with those choices.

Am I talking to a room of people who believe in innovation, who think they can do it?

Let's say it. Let's say it is all hands meeting of a tech company.

I'm gathering that in that situation, I'm trying to convince people in the company that we need to be more innovative. So it's not just innovation as a concept, but we need to innovate more. Yes, I think that the monologue won't be as effective in achieving what you're trying to achieve. That total embracing of an innovator's mindset. If you don't have more audience interaction, so could be a Fireside Chat, could be more of an interactive presentation, because I want to know how people are responding to the ideas I'm putting out around innovation, whether that's that we are innovating or not as a company, that there are certain ways to innovate that I think we need to embrace. I want to bring people along with me with those ideas, and I can't gauge whether they're really buying in if I don't have some way to interact with them.

So how are you interacting anyway, if you're talking head 3,000 miles away?

It depends. Again, you said keynote, but in my mind, there are still many kinds of keynotes. I can pose a question, I can pose a poll to the audience, and I can get their reaction to an idea that I just shared. And so in that way, I'm having some kind of interaction with them, and I'm learning, are they for or against my idea? Are they. Are they starting to move with me or not? One of my favorite examples of this was not even a virtual presentation, but it's one I wrote about in my last book of Steve Jobs addressing developers who were pissed off. And I'm sure, you know, this might have happened more than once.

That is the understatement of the world. Okay.

But he knew that developers were going to be very frustrated about moving to the next version of Mac OS and decided to address their concerns in more of a Fireside Chat kind of panel conversation format. And I think that was a really smart decision because it allowed him to tackle the resistance head on. And so if. If you think that's why I was asking you, are people on board with innovation or not, who am I talking to about this? I'm always going to go back to the audience and say, how do they feel about this talk topic that you're discussing with them? And if they're likely to be far away from you, if you're really disagreeing with each other, then you should involve the audience more in your presentation and not give purely that monologue. I'm going to tell you 10 things and then I'm done. Because I don't think you can expect you've actually changed the way they think by the end of that.

But it would take a particularly enlightened and bold speaker to go into the valley of death. There Knowing that it's going to be hostile and open up for audience interaction. Besides Steve Jobs, who would do it that way?

I've seen other leaders do it. And if they're motivated to actually cause the change, then they're willing to do it. Because you can't get anybody to embrace an idea they totally disagree with without facing some attack and resistance. And the attack and resistance won't go away on its own. Just because you don't talk about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

In this scenario where it's a hostile or semi hostile audience and you're now going to do a fireside chat, how do you select and what is the role of the host? So with Steve's example, who was the shill? Walt Mossberg, Katie Hafner, Kara Swisher? Who was the other person?

I don't remember. It's a really good question. You probably know better than I do, but yes, you definitely need a buddy, you need a moderator who's going to field those questions for you, is going to filter them. This kind of goes back to trust, though. That needs to be somebody that the audience trusts that is going to give you the real questions and not hold back the tough ones. We do this a lot, even in just our tiny little company of 100, 115 employees. We do. Anas, take off on Ask me anything, but it's ask Nancy anything. And it takes guts to let your employees ask you anything about anything. But it is the quickest way to diffuse rumors, to address resistance, to build trust. And so more often than not, it's better to involve your audience in some way. Don't be afraid of those hard questions. You should have answers to them anyway. Aren't you in charge?

I probably know the answer to this already too, which is I have delivered several keynotes pre recorded, and that's because the host did not want to take any chance in a live speech. So now let's make the assumption that I can be charming and enthusiastic and appear to be live even if I'm recorded. Okay, make that assumption. Not a good assumption, but let's just make that assumption. So what are the pluses and minuses of live versus pre recorded? Because the difference between live and pre recorded virtually is not as great as the difference between live and pre recorded in person. Are you adamantly against pre recording?

No, not at all. And as a speaker, I like it a lot because it's more convenient for me. Probably half of my virtual keynotes in the past year have been pre recorded. The other Half have been live. And what I like about pre recorded as a speaker is it's convenient for me. I can give the talk whenever I'm free and ready to give the talk. Also, I can do it over as many times as I want. Just like you can edit this podcast episode and edit out my the alerts from my updates. So I like that. That's good. It's very speaker friendly. The challenge is that audiences don't love it as much. According to our research survey that we did this year just a few months back, people far more prefer the live session because they really want to interact with the speaker. They want to have a connection and pre recorded, it's easier for them to tune out. Certainly you can do something else while the pre recorded thing is running. But why do they want to hear an expert talk in the first place? Because they want to learn from that expert and they don't get a chance to ask questions to shape the conversation in some way to influence the direction it takes. Then they're not as likely to learn as they would have if you've fed them pre canned messages. So it's not that I'm against live, it can be a little more technically challenging too. But people are missing connection, especially right now. And I feel more connected to an audience when I'm presenting live to them and they do too.

Wait, but how do you feel more connected to an audience if you're presenting live to them but virtually you're not seeing them, you're not hearing them, and let's say you're not taking Q A. So this is you got a 20 minute slot, you talk about innovation, you're on at 8, 40, you're off at 9, slam, bang, gone. What's the difference?

Well, I know that there were actually people watching me through that camera lens and my heart responds differently because of that. I perform better in that higher stake situation. Even if I'm not taking Q and A or I'm not doing polls, sometimes the the organizer could choose to have chat off, but a lot of times chat panel is still open and I'm watching that. I'm absolutely watching that and just seeing how people respond. Even if I don't have the time to answer their questions or work it into my talk, I do crave that feedback. It's like I said earlier, speakers struggle to stay alive in this virtual medium because they're not getting that feedback. So going to suck it up however we can.

I'll tell you what I have done and it's worked very well at an extreme. I have done things like. So I'm always in this room and I always wear the same thing because of. I don't want to have to think about is this shirt having Moira or not, or is this clashing with whatever's behind me. I always wear a gray mock turtleneck every time. So what I've done is I have come on live no matter what time of day it's necessary for the greeting. And then at some point the MC says, all right Guy, take it away. Do the art of innovation. And then they play something that's been pre recorded, usually weeks before, in the same room wearing the same shirt that ends. And I come back live wearing the same shirt in the same room. And that has worked very well. Now the reason why it works well is obviously the same shirt, same room and all that. Not dependent on daylight and all that, but also because the host has the peace of mind that in the worst case, if the Internet is down, the host just says, and now we have Guy Kawasaki. They don't go into the live introduction and the live Q and A. No one is expecting that.

Yeah.

So is that a viable technique? Is it dishonest?

No. Oh, well, maybe wearing the same shirt is a little bit of a trick, but I get it. I've seen other speakers do it and it's absolutely viable. If it's a platform and the organizer lets you have that kind of interaction and access to the audience before and after, then by all means. I've lurked in the chat room while people are watching my pre recorded talk and had interactions with them and I enjoy it. I think they enjoy it too. I know they're going to be distracted, so why not be their source of distraction instead of letting them do it on their own?

Next question. So do you believe in dark or light backgrounds for slides?

I personally don't have a strong opinion either way. It depends on the content that you're sharing in the environment that you're in. And I know in a ballroom sleep setting, when you're physically in a room with people and you alternate between dark and light, it's jarring, it hurts the eyes. Dark slides are, you know, more friendly in that low light environment. And so that matters in that setting. In virtual, in my opinion, it doesn't matter as much as how you look relative to your background, making sure that there's enough contrast between you and what's standing behind you.

I got all my tactical questions answered now. Going to go slightly higher for this subject, which is I read a couple articles from you about the necessity of recording corporate folklore. And until I read those two articles, I had never thought of that. So let's talk about corporate folklore. Fun, why it's good and why you should do it.

Stories. That's what folklore is in a cultural sense, a sociological sense. It is the way that cultures pass down knowledge and experience and about identity and values, what. What people have in common with each other. That's what folklore is. It's the tales that we tell around the campfire with the kids when they go to bed, at our family gatherings. And we have the same kind of stories in a company. We might not label them that way, we might not recognize them, but companies do have folklore stories about how the company came to be, how the values were formed, who makes it here and who doesn't. There are all kinds of stories that companies can tell about its culture and its values and its history and its future. That's folklore. And it's important to identify those structures, stories, to write them down or record them in virtual presentations so that people can learn from them. The people who are in your company today and the people who will come after them. It's a way to align everyone around a shared understanding of who you are, where you came from, why you do what you do and where you're going.

And just to be clear, you. You are literally advocating that there is a position of the folklorist, whatever the word is. This is a job, right? There is someone who records the stories?

Yeah, why not? Does that sound so crazy?

Not at all. Not at all. In fact, when I read those two articles, Patty, you'll be so proud of me. I sent it to the CMO of Canva and I said, I don't know if we're doing this, but we should. This is a really good, really good idea.

Mission accomplished.

Mission accomplished.

Absolutely. When I was writing about that, I. I was researching companies that do that well, and. And often it's consumer brands, they recognize the value of folklore. I'm thinking Coca Cola, I'm thinking Levi Strauss. Companies that have a long history that they realize is worthy of archiving. And story is part of history, the word is in it, and they actually invest in that position. It might have a different title, you know, company historian or archivist or librarian, but they actually make it their job. Nike has one, too. To capture the history in story form so that people can relive it. It's really powerful.

Since we're on the topic of stories and recording stories, please explain the structure of a good story.

It's old, but it's also simple. And essentially it is organized into three acts. Act 1, Act 2, Act 3. You'll find this in novels and films, even television shows are written this way. The first act, we meet a hero. The hero is, you know, the protagonist, the focus of the story. And they're just doing their thing, they're living their life. And then something happens and that is called an inciting incident. The inciting incident is often something external, something that happens to them that throws their world out of balance, forces them to essentially go on an adventure. Which is this three act structure I'm describing is taken from the hero's journey, which is much longer in the middle. The second act of the story, the hero encounters obstacles, which is essentially they're trying to do something. They're trying to go somewhere and achieve something. But it's hard. In fantastical stories they battle monsters. In real life stories, they meet bad people or they, they try to do things and fail at them. And usually through the help of a mentor, they actually overcome those obstacles. And in the third act of the story, they emerge transformed. Often they go back home, but they're different than they were before. They have some new skill, some new insight that because the experience changed them.

That's it. That's all I have to do for a good story.

That's the structure. I think you asked me what the structure of a story.

Fair enough, fair enough. Okay, that's good to know. My last big question and then we'll do a speed round. The last big question is become a futurist. For me, in this segment of communication, storytelling, speaking, all this, what's going to happen in the next five years?

Well, that is the hardest question you've ever asked me.

It depends.

It depends. There you go. No, no, no, no. Now the future, the future is inconclusive. That's true. If we're talking about communication, we're talking about virtual communication. The technology will only become more prevalent in our experience of interacting with each other. And so I've played with VR. We are experimenting with VR and it will be a bigger part of our everyday interactions. Love it or hate it, we. We might look like avatars when we communicate with each other. And what's cool about that, just as a sidebar, you know, thinking about inclusiveness, anybody can be anything when they have an avatar that they've created. And so now it doesn't matter what we actually look like in real life. We can project our ideal selves into a space and interact as ideal selves. That could Be kind of cool. I think it could take us to different places as human beings, as a species. That could really make us better. Could also make us worse. That's my worry, too. Technology is. Has a dark side too. We'll see technology being used to change the way that we actually communicate with each other and even manufactured ways. In terms of storytelling, I don't think it's good going anywhere. I don't think new technology again will emerge. And now we love Clubhouse and what's the next thing? Who knows? But it'll still be a vehicle for us to relate our experiences to each other and connect on an emotional level.

So I'm looking at my Lightning Round, and I have 10 of them, and I'm looking at it, and Patty, honestly, I'm looking at it, and I'll tell you, it doesn't do you justice. The list I created doesn't do you justice. I'm not going to ask you this. Lightning round. So we're going to end here? Well, unless you insist on doing it. But I.

This has been a workout for my brain, I'm gonna say, so it would be fine with me if we ended here. It's been incredible. Yeah.

You know, I mean, I just. I. I don't do lightning rounds often, but when I do them, I really wanted to show, like, absolutely penetrating force, hard decisions, kind of insight into the soul of the guest. And I'm looking at my list, and it just. It just doesn't cut it, this list.

Well, what's. What's the most penetrating question on that list?

Okay.

And I'm gonna hate.

You sure you want to do this? Okay. Okay. If I only had one.

Yeah, sure. Yeah.

Jobs or musk?

Oh. Oh, wow. This one might get me fired. What do you mean?

Ah, you can punt. Well, if you punt, Patty, I know what the answer is.

Say the answer, Guy. It depends. Right.

I think we should leave it there. That. That way people will be more curious and they'll buy your book, which is the whole point. Right.

Love it.

All right. Patti has declined to answer my only Lightning Round question. To her credit. To her credit. And that's why she's a remarkable person. There you have it. How to be a better communicator, Especially virtually. Our thanks to Patty Sanchez for spreading that wisdom to us. I'm Guy Kawasaki. This is remarkable people. My thanks to Jeff C. And Peg Fitzpatrick for their remarkable assistance in producing this podcast. My thanks to Luis Magana, Alexis Nishimura, and Madison Nismer for their transcription, research and writing skills. Also to Shannon Hernandez for his amazing sound design. Now, I don't want you to feel any pressure, but I want to read a review of this podcast by Bob Williams. Quote, this is by far the best podcast in the world. Go subscribe and learn from the most remarkable people. Thank you, Guy Kawasaki. You have brightened my weeks since the early days of the pandemic. Keep on surfing and podcasting. Thank you, Bob Williams. Until next time, mahalo and aloha. This is remarkable people.