Sherie Griffiths

May 27, 2010

‘Would You Listen To Yourself?!’

Babies start learning to speak even before they learn to live without nappies.  So why are so many adults embarrassed when they hear themselves?

I recently saw a very capable, confident man who, under normal circumstances, can happily chat away to complete strangers, look as though he was about to curl up in a cringeing ball when we threatened to play back the interview we’d just recorded with him.  He isn’t the exception that proves the rule – he is the rule!

I completely understand the feeling.  I avoided listening back to my earliest podcasts – so I was shocked not so long ago, when I ran across the very first and realised how unnatural it sounded! When I was told, several years ago (by a friend with years of broadcast experience) that I really had to listen back to a recording I’d made, I was horrified – I kept putting it off! When I eventually forced myself into it, it was very uncomfortable; but in time, I got used to it.  These days, it’s just part of my job.

Another part of that job is to help clients get over any fears they might have about speaking in front of people, recording and (often the most challenging) listening to the results.  Since watching that client go through the familiar reactions, I’ve been wondering: what is it that we’re actually afraid of in that situation?

The human voice conveys feeling better than anything else – which is why it’s such a powerful communication tool.  We pick up over five times more information from what someone says than what they write, because we can hear so much which is lost in the printed word – tone, inflexion, pace and so on.  All this speaks volumes about how they’re feeling.  Very experienced speakers, like politicians – and (dare I say it?) presenters – learn to convey the emotions they want the listener to pick up.  Unfortunately for those of us who talk for a living, plenty of people can also hear a fake a mile off.  So we have to believe what we’re saying – even if it means suspending disbelief.

To give you an example: I went into the studio one afternoon last year in turmoil because I was waiting for some personal news.  All I had to do was to record some fairly simple links, but when I wasn’t screwing them up – getting all the right words, but not necessarily in the right order – the tone was all wrong.  In the end, I had to push everything else aside and pretend all was fine.  At times like that, presentation is an acting job and, like an actor, you have to ‘believe in the role’ if you want to be convincing.

Less than ten years ago, I was terrified of speaking in public – let alone hearing the results!  For me before I overcame that fear, I suspect it was about revealing what I didn’t want to show – laying myself open.  I don’t suppose I’m alone there – so perhaps the fear of listening to ourselves has something to do with not wanting to hear what we’ve revealed?

I think it also has to do with the trouble so many of us have, looking at ourselves through someone else’s eyes – all too often, we’re our own toughest critics and all we see are the negatives.  We might not be mad keen on what we see in the mirror, but it tends to be a private discomfort.  When we look at a photo or video, we’re seeing what everyone else can see – albeit through thorn-covered specs!  It’s the same with the voice.

This isn’t something that automatically goes away because you turn pro.  Just watch the actors who sit steadily looking away from the screen in a tv interview while the audience watches a clip of their latest film; and I know of at least one highly experienced radio presenter who can’t stand listening to himself (I don’t know why because I think he’s fantastic – he obviously hears something I don’t).

The other side of the coin is that so many of us buttoned-up Brits are pre-programmed to self-deprecate – even when we secretly think we look or sound alright, we’re embarrassed to admit it – in case we’re seen to be ‘big-headed’!

I’m not suggesting you should learn to love the sound of your own voice – only make friends with it – which starts with learning to accept it, faults and all.  That isn’t to say you listen uncritically.  From my point of view, the easiest ways to help a client improve on their presentation technique is for them to spot where it needs improving.  It’s all about learning to be more objective and to give yourself constructive criticism, rather than being hypercritical.  I still don’t like my estuary vowels or the fact that, if I’m not careful, I tend to use ‘ok’ too much; but it’s ok – OOPS – see what I mean?! – provided I don’t lapse into broad ‘Essix-gewl’ and start ‘okaying’ in every sentence!

Seriously, for some people, learning to listen to themselves is just a matter of acquiring a new skill and practising it.  It can go deeper though.  The voice is so individual, so personal. It’s the product of our lives to date – where we’ve lived, where we’ve been educated, our families, friends etc.  So for some people, whether or not they can listen to themselves comes down to how comfortable they are with themselves.  If, deep down, you don’t really like who you are or where you come from, you’ll shy away from hearing the evidence, won’t you?

The power of speech, especially in business, is greatly underestimated.  As I’ve said before, 21st-century commerce is all about relationships and relationships in all their forms start with attraction.  One of the most effective and lasting ways of attracting people, in my experience, is by talking to them – engaging with them on a one-to-one basis, whether through conversation, live presentation or recording.  We wouldn’t send out a flyer, brochure or any other written communication without proof-reading – and yet so many people (I used to be one of them) deliver everything from elevator pitches to full-length presentations, even recordings, without ever having listened to themselves properly.  Becoming comfortable with hearing yourself opens up a whole new raft of possibilities – and I can tell you firsthand, it’s also very liberating!

March 17, 2010

The Radio Village

Extract from “On Sound Foundations”, Chapter 2, “A Proper Little Madam!”

“At their best, radio and TV create communities; they break down barriers, binding diverse groups of people together with a common interest, be it soap, news or music.

“I tend to think of radio communities as villages.  Some are large, some are small – some no-one outside has ever heard of; but within those groups, everyone knows the place so well, they can talk to each other in shorthand. They know every local landmark and become fiercely protective if any are moved or messed with (just check out ‘Feedback’ on Radio 4 if you don’t believe me); and they feel they know each other. 

“The names of listeners who write or phone regularly, stick with presenters – and other listeners can remember those names years later.  For instance, I’ve never forgotten Siobhan from Hendon, aka ‘The Duchess of North London’ or James – the young lad from Berkshire, who had more front than Blackpool and Southend put together (he’s probably in sales now) – yet I’ve heard nothing of either of them for more than twenty-five years.  Then, of course, the listener feels they know the presenter – and just occasionally, they do.

“There are elements of that in television, but it’s less intimate; less personal.  It’s one-to-many communication, rather than one-to-one.  If radio is a village, TV is a city.  When it works well, there’s still a sense of pride, of belonging, but you’re far less likely to know the neighbours personally.”

I didn’t know I thought that until I wrote it a couple of months ago; but since I put it down in writing and started talking to people about it, it’s met with a lot of recognition. 

The technology which has put ‘radio’ and ‘television’ into our hands – yours and mine – means we can now build villages or cities around our businesses.  The choice has nothing to do with size.  It’s about the ethos – especially the one-to-one versus one-to-many engagement.  Personally, I prefer to aim for a village, but what about you?

March 3, 2010

To Niche or Not to Niche

Marketing people are always telling us we need to know our niche – that we can have several different ones, but each needs to be approached individually. That makes perfect sense to me. Everything I do is based on knowing who I’m talking to and if I try to talk to everyone at once, chances are, no-one will listen.

I’m not sure if I should admit this as a sound specialist, but I start the day with “Breakfast” on BBC1. I enjoy a bit of quiet time before the working day gets going, catching up with the news while I eat my porridge. That said, it wasn’t very quiet this morning, because one item had me growling at the screen with frustration!

You might have noticed mentions in the news of the recently published review, commissioned by the BBC’s governing body, the BBC Trust. The report recommends a move towards a more disciplined, streamlined organisation, which makes more efficient use of licence-payers’ money. No, that isn’t what had the dog staring at me, wondering what I was growling at.

What frustrated me was the discussion this morning around one potential cut the corporation is considering – the closure of 6 Music. Now, I have to say up front, I’m not a regular listener – although all the publicity of the last few days and the passion of those who are regulars has made me curious, so I will be checking the station out very soon. My objection, though, is with the arguments put forward by the BBC representative – whose name I missed and can’t seem to find on the website! She said that if the closure happens, the innovative programming on 6 is likely to be absorbed by Radios 1 and 2, both described as “mainstream” networks. So what’s wrong with that?

Where do I start?

Firstly, 6 was set up to serve a niche market – people interested in new music and also some of the stuff rarely heard on the mainstream networks – and never on commercial radio. By definition, a niche audience is likely to be smaller than a mainstream audience

So, secondly, when the review says that 6 needs to grow its audience without losing its USP, I have to wonder about the measure of success the BBC is applying here. Yes, a small niche can be made bigger, by marketing, PR etc, but at some point, if it keeps growing, it stops being a niche and becomes mainstream.

That brings me to my third point – Radio 1 serves a niche – a young audience. Radio 2, on the other hand, tries to be all things to all people. Some individual shows try to do that, like the Chris Evans Breakfast Show; but the station does serve minority audiences quite successfully, by providing niche programming within its schedule. It’s certainly a very different station from the one my Dad used to listen to in the car when I was a kid, which was definitely targeted towards the “older” listener, but I would argue that it still has an image issue and trying to incorporate content currently carried on 6 into the Radio 2 format risks losing the audience, or a large part of it.

Fourthly, the saving made by the BBC by axing 6 Music would be around nine million pounds a year – very small fry in corporation terms. BBC3, which provides new comedy etc to a tv audience, costs eleven times that, but is apparently secure (at the moment) – reinforcing my belief that even within our public broadcaster, radio is the poor relation.

Finally, as a discussion on 5live asked recently, “What is the BBC for?” Personally, I thought it was to provide programmes which the commercial sector doesn’t or can’t. If that’s so, surely 6 Music is a perfect case in point. Commercial radio effectively has two customers – the listener and the advertiser – and both have to be satisfied. That’s not exactly the environment for innovation – quite the opposite. I’m not saying all commercial programming is bad, just that as everything lives and dies by the numbers, it can’t afford to take too many risks. The BBC, on the other hand, is supposed to serve licence fee-payers – you and me, in other words. The rights and wrongs of that system are a whole other discussion, but while it’s with us, shouldn’t we be able to expect it to provide us with services we can’t find elsewhere?

BBC Chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, says that if the review’s proposals prompt “massive public protest”, they will be rethought.

I’ll leave you with these thoughts: How massive is “massive” and can 6’s niche audience, deliberately created by the corporation, shout loud enough to be heard? Wouldn’t moving 6’s programming to Radio 2 be like uprooting a village community which is based on and loved precisely for its quirky individuality and dumping it down in the middle of London?

Hosted by Killer SEO SuperBlogs