Chris Casacchia’s column in the Phoenix Business Journal on Friday, September 4 showed a striking contrast between a communicator who doesn’t know how to write a press release quote and one who does.

Alliance Bank of Arizona had great news about reaching a critical goal: $1 billion in total assets! The president and CEO, obviously excited by his bank’s achievement, was quoted from the press release sent to Casacchia: “Reaching the $1 billion dollar milestone in total assets, driven by our exceptionally strong deposit growth, continues to illustrate the value of having a strong capital position.”

Can’t you just see him spouting that gem while toasting his company’s success!

In another segment of the column, Jacob Gold was quoted in a press release about his book “Financial Intelligence: Getting Back to Basics after an Economic Meltdown.”

“You would think that with the abundance of readily available financial information, people would know which path to take with their money,” he said. “In reality, the exact opposite is the case.”

No, it’s not perfect, but at least it’s conceivable that those words actually came out of someone’s mouth.

So who cares? Both got the publicity they were asking for. Even the lousy quote from the bank got ink.

The problem is, many reporters will go out of their way to NOT use a quote like that. And even when it’s used by a journalist who doesn’t take the time to call to get something better, it bores readers. They either don’t understand it, or it they do, they’re so turned off, they stop reading.

At least I did.

I am in awe of those who use powerful analogies in their writing and speaking. When done well, an analogy can take a complicated concept and make it understandable to a lay audience. It can change an abstract idea into a concrete, visual and sometimes humorous example.

Ben Stein did this wonderfully in a recent article in the New York Times. The premise of his argument is that the Obama administration is taking on too many issues at once. It’s a theory I’ve heard often in the last few months.

But Stein brought it alive with the analogy of a plump man hit by a truck while crossing the street. Hospitalized in critical condition, the man has severe internal bleeding. The doctor, rather than just stabilizing the patient, decides that since the man is unconscious, he might as well also do a face lift, a couple heart bypasses, and stomach-stapling. Why waste a good crisis?

A good analogy never fails to bring for me an “ah-hah” moment. Back in my school days, I wondered why, in preparing for the SATs, I had to learn things like “idea is to crux as apple is to _______?”

Now I know: analogies rule!

We’ve all heard the old saw “practice makes perfect.” What it really should say is “the right kind of practice makes perfect (or at least pretty good).”

When talking about presentations or media interviews, the right kind of practice means saying the words out loud, not just in your head. If you’re getting ready for a media interview, pose yourself possible questions from the reporter, then answer them out loud.

The idea is not to memorize what you’re going to say, but hearing yourself say the words out loud helps you critique them and ultimately “own” them. Ideally, you could even tape yourself on a audio recorder or camera.

It’s the same with presentations. Some people talk into a mirror. That doesn’t work for me—it’s too distracting (Hmmm…my eyebrow sure looks weird when I talk). But at least stand up and deliver your presentation out loud, ideally with the slides you’ll be using, if any.

Again the idea isn’t to memorize your speech. It’s to let yourself actually hear how the words will sound when strung together so you can make adjustments if necessary.

Panel discussions are a popular format for conventions and meetings. Over the years, I’ve attended many. They aren’t my favorite form of communication, mainly because I think they are usually done poorly.

Recently, in one day, I attended two club meetings with panels. Both were okay — but one was better than the other, mainly because of the moderator.

Rarely is the moderator (or panelists, for that matter) paid for his participation, but that doesn’t mean he should take the assignment lightly. The moderator is the traffic cop who must actually “moderate,” by enforcing time limits and keeping panelists on topic. He or she should understand the audience’s needs and expectations. He should know the viewpoints of each panelist and how they fit into the overall topic of discussion.

A moderator who knows what she’s doing makes comments and asks questions that keep the conversation animated and moving. She needs to ensure that each panelist gets a fair chance to contribute, but also must control the time spent on each question.

Of course, choosing panelists is equally important. In my experience, there are usually too many for the time allotted. In an hour-long segment, three or four plus a moderator is plenty. Obviously, it’s best if they have diverse viewpoints and opinions. (Some personality would be nice as well.)

Just like the moderator, panelists have to prepare. They should know what they want to say and how to say it succinctly. Any answer longer than two or three minutes is inviting the audience to tune out.

Ideally, they should know the other panelists’ viewpoints. And if a panelist doesn’t know anything about a particular topic or question, he or she should shut up!

It’s up to organizers to choose panel participants wisely and make the guidelines clear. Otherwise, you just have more blah blah, and your audience would learn a lot more by networking with each other in the hallway.

Why can’t people give up their bullet points in PowerPoint presentations? One reason is they don’t know what to replace them with or what to do differently. Here’s a slide makeover that may give you some ideas.

The first slide below is not as cluttered and data heavy as many I’ve seen, but it still has too many words on it to be easily understood by the audience.

One guideline that can help improve a type-filled slide is to put most of the words in your notes (either on your screen or on paper) to remind you what you want to say. Also, include only one key point per slide.

Here the presenter is trying to do too much at once. She’s talking about the importance of a “meaningful difference,” and then also adds five examples. She’ll probably read them to the audience.

I think it can be more visual and therefore more understandable by spreading the info out on more slides. The presenter can also easily include the audience in the discussion.

The first new slide introduces the concept. On her notes page, the presenter can have the info she wants to say, the stuff that used to be on the slide.

“Strong brands stand out because they have something that differentiates them — what’s called a meaningful difference. They convey this difference consistently and constantly in everything they do.”

“Let’s look at some brands that stand out in this way and see if you can name their meaningful difference.”

“When we think of Maytag, what do we think of?”

“Yes, reliability. How about Michelin?

“Safety. All of their ads and communications to consumers convey their emphasis on safety.”

“What stands out when we think of Disney? What’s their differentiator?”

“Yes, Disney is known for providing wholesome family entertainment. Parents know that if they send their kids to a Disney movie, it won’t have sex and violence.”

And she can continue on with the other brands. This way of presenting keeps the audience from texting, twitting, or checking email. And it’s more interesting for the presenter too.

Advice on how to take advantage of social media is everywhere — articles, blogs, webinars, podcasts, etc.

Of course, much of the interest in Facebook, Twitter and the like is being driven by younger people. The message to companies and other organizations is clear — communication has changed. Audiences want simple, understandable, interesting messages or they’ll tune you out. They also want their voice heard and they’ll use it no matter what you do or say.

Then why are so many people who are tuned into social media still giving the same horribly boring, non audience-focused PowerPoint (and Apple Keynote) presentations? How long will it be before Gen Yers, Xers, and even Baby Boomers revolt by walking out on or even refusing to attend speeches that bore them with bullet points?

Often when I tell people their speeches would be much better if they dumped all their bullets, sub bullets and sub sub bullets, they’re shocked. They’ve always done it that way. How else would they deliver messages if they couldn’t fill their slides with words?

The answer, simple but not easy, is to fill slides with visuals — pictures, charts, and graphs — while using a bare minimum of words.

Chances are, if your PowerPoint presentation can stand alone without you explaining it, you have too much information on your slides. Your audience will either start texting and checking emails, or fall asleep as you drone on and on.

Here are five steps to help you make your slides — and your presentation — more engaging:

1). Plan your content before you ever start working on the slides to go with it. When we start with PowerPoint we often aren’t clear about what our important, overlying messages are.

2). Don’t put your company name and other information on every slide. Besides being unnecessary and boring, it takes up important real estate that you can use for conveying your message.

3). Plan on preparing three different presentations instead of trying to accomplish all your goals with one. The first presentation is your slides: visual, colorful and interesting. The second is your notes page at the bottom of PowerPoint or Keynote. Here you put all the bullet points that would have appeared on your slides. Finally, if you need a leave-behind or want to give your audience more in-depth information, prepare a handout.

4). Write a short headline that states the main point of your slide. It’s best to use a full sentence with an action verb. This immediately lets the audience know what you’re trying to convey.

5). Most importantly, present information in small chunks rather than a data dump. This means using only one idea per slide. So if you have a list of five bullet points, it might be best to convey the information in five different visually focused slides, rather than trying to put it all on one.

Yes, this is harder and takes more time. But what’s the alternative? Wasting your time and the audience’s on a presentation that makes no impact whatsoever.

I just came back from another conference. Ho hum. More mediocre presentations that sent me checking email on my iPhone for relief.

It’s not so much that the speakers were bad (some of them were), but their PowerPoint was awful. I’ve written about this before, and I’ve done presentations on the topic, but I just can’t understand how so many smart business and professional people can be so stupid about using visuals that aren’t really visual.

How can anyone actually think that a slide filled from top to bottom with words makes any positive impact? Granted, I’m less tolerant than most. In fact, I’ve become so intolerant that I can hardly stay in the same room with bad PowerPoint. It makes me want to scream.

I believe that it’s time for audiences everywhere to revolt. Stop the insanity. We’re wasting precious time and resources. When speakers turn on those nasty slides, get up and walk out of the room.  If only Obama had a bailout plan for those of us who have to suffer through bad PowerPoint.

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal’s chief of staff inferred that the reason his boss’s Democratic response speech got such bad reviews was because he followed the President. “It’s a challenge for anybody to follow Obama. The guy is one of the most gifted speakers of our generation,” said Timmy Teepell.

That’s probably true. The problem is, Jindal would have also looked bad following one of the least gifted speakers of our time, George W. Bush.

One pundit described the speech as “amateurish.” I agree. What’s surprising is that a state governor and someone thought to be the future of the Republican party could have performed so poorly.

Both the content and delivery were sub par. Yes, he told stories, but the stories were stupid and out of place. His arguments for less government were superficial and not the right message for the speech he was giving. He tried to be friendly and conversational, but it came across as forced. While the delivery got a bit better as he went along, much of it was sing song with repetitive, irritating gestures.

If Jindal aspires to run for national office, he’d better get some speech coaching.

Whether or not President Barack Obama can work miracles with the economy, health care, and all the other problems we’re facing, one thing we can all be happy about: once again we have a leader in the White House who knows how to communicate.

No matter what you thought about George Bush’s actions during the last eight years, you have to agree his way with words was often laughable and at times, embarrassing. Just Google “George Bushisms” and you’ll be reminded of some doozies, enough faux pas to fill 35 books offered on Amazon.com.

•    “Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?”
•    “They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the compassion of the commander in chief, too.”
•    “There is no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind that we will fail.”

And no matter what you think about President Obama’s political views, you have to admit that now we have a leader with speaking skills we can not only applaud, but also emulate. Bush won elections in spite of his ability to communicate. Obama won because of his abilities.

We’ve already seen plenty to showcase his talents. His first major speech, at the 2004 Democratic convention, made such an impact it rocketed him to national prominence and set the stage for his presidential run.

More recently, Obama wowed critics and pundits with his nomination acceptance speech and his speech on election night. His inauguration speech, though not a spectacular effort for the President, was far and above what many can deliver.

Content
So what does Obama do that makes him such a powerful communicator? First, of course, a good speech starts with how it’s written. Here Obama shines (with help from his writers). He knows how to phrase things conversationally, yet poetically and eloquently.

He effectively uses oratorical techniques such as repetition — “Yes we can.” He understands how to use contrasts — “…and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.” And he regularly employs the rule of three — “…our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”

Emotion
Obama knows that abstract ideas don’t register with audiences emotionally, so he uses specifics. Instead of saying, “We are lucky to have freedom of speech in this country,” he says “We can say and write what we think without hearing a knock on the door.”

He tells stories. This skill separates run-of-the-mill speakers from awesome ones, and Obama knows how to do it right. In his acceptance speech on election night he used a powerful anecdote about 106-year-old Ann Nixon Cooper, who grew up in a time when neither women nor African Americans could vote. Yet here she was in 2008 casting a vote for a Black man.

Delivery
Once the speech flows on paper, Obama delivers. He is cool, calm and confident, yet passionate when he needs to be. While many speakers underestimate the power of their voice, Obama makes skillful use of his. He lowers and raises his volume, speeds up and slows down his pace, and most importantly, he pauses.

Obama’s not perfect
While Obama reads the Teleprompter better than most, he could learn to be better. He does too many right and left motions too quickly and too predictably, as if he’s watching a tennis match. He needs to spend longer on each side. He also should expand his eye contact points away from the prompter, including the far left, far right, and middle.

Obama also communicates well without a script. But he has one annoying habit. He continually says “ah” when he talks. It’s only going to get more irritating as we hear more and more of him. If he can quit his smoking habit for wife Michelle, he can certainly break that verbal tic for us!

If you value communication and want to improve your own, the next four years will present plenty of opportunity to look, listen and learn.

A seven minute, 42-second-long answer. A six minute answer. Three and four minute answers. Even listening to the most powerful person in the world — and a verbally adept one at that — I (and much of the rest of America) just don’t have the attention span to listen intently to someone talking that long. (A 50-second answer was a welcome relief.)

Obama is refreshingly articulate (especially compared to our last President). He “knows his stuff.”  But he needs to answer more succinctly. Whether we like it or not, this is a soundbite society. No matter how long his answer, the media (and the public) will boil it down to one sentence or ten seconds — if they even understand the bottom line.  Better for him to boil it down for us so we can focus on the essence of his answer.

Obama is such a good communicator, I know he will figure it out: he doesn’t have to show how smart he is by saying everything he knows. One of the hardest things for knowledgeable people to do is decide what to leave out.

The good: Knowledgeable, transparent, friendly and conversational. And — He handled one of the first of many questions about loose-cannon Joe Biden effectively.

The not-so-good: Near the beginning of the Q and A, he repeated a negative while answering a question about bipartisanship. “I don’t think I underestimated it.” [How hard it would be to change the way Washington works]

But, here’s the best news: at least he didn’t say “misunderestimate.”