obagoudya.info

There are still presenters who, when introduced and take the platform, will start their presentation by telling a joke or a story that bears no relationship to their topic. In this article I want to share ways for presenters to develop strong and effective “Signature Stories” that will succeed in getting the audience’s attention.

Personal “Signature Stories” about Other People’s Experiences

• These can be motivating stories about an historical person — please, not Thomas Edison! Do your factual research about the character, the times in which he or she lived — what they wore, what they ate, and other details you won’t use, but need to know yourself. Then craft a story that has meaning and pizzazz.
• These can also be stories about someone you know or have known — be sure, if they are still living that you have permission, even if you give them a different name. This type of story — because it isn’t about you — can tell of accomplishments and triumphs. Just remember that you never want to tell a story that you wouldn’t feel comfortable telling if the person it is about is a member of the audience.

Original, Traditional Stories with a Twist, or Fairy/Folk Tales

• I fear that many presenters feel that “Signature Stories” must have been something that actually happened. Not necessarily true! I have a cockroach story that is based on the “Pied Piper of Hamlin” that I have told for years. I have also heard excellent presentations based on Aesop’s Fables — they offer a plethora of plots and morals, of course.
• If you love stories and go both ways — as I do as a speaker and storyteller — use the fairy or folk tales that mean something important to you. It will add such a good change of pace to your presentation, your listeners will sit up and take notice. And, love you for it too!

Ingredients to Use When Developing Your “Signature Story”

• I would be remiss at this stage not to mention some of the ingredients that help you develop, prepare, and tell an effective, compelling story. A good story has a beginning, middle, and end. It must include conflict or crises, and a climax or resolution. It is not merely a descriptive anecdote. It must have plot.
• Make your stories short, punchy, and meaningful. Include pauses, drama, suspense, and not too many details. Think in images and create those pictures for your listeners.
• Finally, have fun creating your stories. And, practice, practice, practice them on friends, family and even strangers!

I guarantee that the next time you present, you will WOW your audience with your “Signature Story.”

A number of years ago, I represented a shipping company which was negotiating to build new ships in a Chinese shipyard. The shipping company had done its due diligence and was satisfied that the shipyard in question could build the ships it wanted at an acceptable price and deliver them in a timely fashion. For its part, the Chinese shipyard was eager to land this contract, as it would represent an expansion of its business to commercial customers beyond China’s border. It was an attractive deal for both parties.

Preliminary discussions between the shipping company and the shipyard proceeded favorably, so well in fact that the shipyard sent a team of representatives to Portland in order to put the finishing touches on a shipbuilding agreement. The Chinese contingent consisted primarily of design engineers and vessel operation specialists and their efforts involved working out the technical specifications for the new vessels with the shipping company’s engineering department. The shipyard’s delegation was led by a business executive who also served as interpreter. She was plainly a person of some experience in the shipping business and had obvious status within her own delegation, as she was treated with particular deference and respect by the rest of her team and, of course, by the shipping company as well. We had previously provided the shipyard with our proposed shipbuilding agreement which included the standard terms and conditions customarily included in shipbuilding contracts throughout the world. We had heard no objections from the shipyard as to our proposed contract and when we inquired of the lead negotiator she politely deferred any discussion to a more opportune time. Or so we thought.

Our Chinese visitors worked diligently and enthusiastically with our engineering folks, and the technical specifications and other design features of the new vessels appeared to come together rather seamlessly. Such was the rapport between the shipping company’s engineering folks and their visitors that the shipping company hosted an elaborate lunch at a local Chinese restaurant for the two teams where our visitors delighted in challenging their American counterparts to sample some particularly hot and spicy Chinese dishes. Meanwhile, the shipyard’s lead negotiator kept her own counsel and remained somewhat in the background. If there were any business issues she wanted to discuss, she wasn’t mentioning them. Insofar as we knew, we were smoothly sailing towards an agreement.

Things were going so well that the shipping company scheduled a contract signing ceremony for 5:00 p.m. on the day prior to our guests’ planned departure. The corporate boardroom was reserved for a catered meal for members of both teams. We planned on presenting gifts to each member of the shipyard’s delegation, as tokens of our expectation of a long and harmonious business relationship.

A few hours prior to the appointed 5:00 ceremony, the shipping company’s chief executive officer summoned me to his office. There he sat looking a bit flummoxed along with the shipyard’s lead negotiator who appeared, well, something less than cordial. I was then told that the shipyard had “serious concerns” with our proposed form of contract. Interestingly, the issues in question had nothing to do with the price to be paid for the ships or their scheduled delivery dates or their technical specifications. Those major deal points were of no moment. Instead, the shipyard had objections to many of the standard boilerplate terms found in the contract and the shipyard’s negotiator proceeded to walk us through the draft agreement one item at a time. Thus ensued a marathon all-night negotiating session. Needless to say, the 5:00 signing celebration was postponed and rescheduled many times that evening. The special celebratory meal became a buffet night lunch for those who remained to work.

In retrospect, the Chinese negotiator’s last-minute objections were part of a well-considered strategy made well in advance of her journey to Portland. Her plan, I now believe, was to wear down her hosts by a long night of bargaining in order to achieve her negotiation goals by simply exhausting the other side.

In any event, we bargained for hours. Midnight came and went and still we discussed, explained, bargained and compromised where we could. We made the concessions we could live with and held the line on others. Finally by 2:30 a.m. we had come down to the final sticking points which, I suspect now, were the main issues for the shipyard all along. As in most shipbuilding contracts we had inserted a provision which required any disputes between the parties to be resolved by arbitration in London, England. Although this is a standard provision in such contracts and, in fact, was insisted upon by the shipping company’s underwriters, it seemed like kryptonite to our visitor. We explained to her that we could not change this provision without compromising our insurance coverage on the new vessels’ construction process and we simply weren’t going to go there. Either she did not believe us or thought, wrongly, that we wanted the deal enough that we would yield on this point. As it was, the entire deal seemed on the verge of tanking. Just then, however, a rather happy fortuity and a shrewd play by the shipping company changed everything.

At about this time, our vice president of engineering walked into the room holding a two inch thick binder which he said contained all of the agreed upon technical specifications for the new vessels. He sat down at the negotiating table and he listened patiently for a few minutes as we explained to the shipyard negotiator again why we could not budge on the last sticking point. Perhaps from sleep deprivation, or inattention, our engineering guy opened the binder of specifications and he began to initial each page in the lower right-hand corner. Engineers like to do such things. At least, they do that in the shipping business. He was well into this exercise in penmanship when our CEO, exasperated, told him to stop what he was doing and to put the book down. The engineer seemed a bit stunned and the Chinese negotiator immediately recognized what was happening. Our CEO politely explained to her that we were at the point where we would or would not have a deal, but we were not making any further changes to the contract. Whether a deal would happen was now in her hands. She left the room for a few minutes and when she returned she accepted our dispute resolution clause. We finally were able to close the deal.

The signing celebration took place at about 3:00 a.m., and it was as well attended as any gathering I have made at such an hour. We presented each of our Chinese visitors with tee shirts bearing our company logo, with large Chinese characters emblazoned on the front of the shirt which spelled, I am told, “teamwork”. For my participation, the Chinese negotiator presented me with a pair of porcelain harmony balls, which chime when being handled. I still have them. Every now and then when I see them in my office bookcase, I remember one tough negotiator. I also remember how the shipping company’s willingness to walk away from a deal it wanted was crucial to accomplishing its objectives. It eventually turned out that we purchased one or two ships from that shipyard. All in all, it worked out well for the shipping company.

Sometimes you have to be willing to walk away in order to get what you wanted from the beginning.

© 9/16/2015 Hunt & Associates, P.C. All rights reserved.

The lists of bank and savings accounts that are available to most people are bewildering. A quick look at a comparison site like Moneynet or Moneyfacts will reveal thousands of different products. Unfortunately many of these accounts are not accessible for anyone with either a poor or even no credit history.

Research carried out for the National Consumer Council (NCC) reveals “that the poor pay more, or get less, for essential goods and services… having a bank account can be a gateway to other products and services, such as affordable credit and insurance”. To help counteract this problem of financial exclusion, the government has tried to initiate the introduction of basic bank accounts for the least well off. The NCC has however warned that, “the current model of basic bank accounts, introduced by government in 2000 in an attempt to enable all low-income consumers to access banking services, is not delivering.”

The new basic bank accounts were introduced as part of a wider push towards ‘universal banking’ and corresponded with the introduction of direct payment of social security benefits to bank accounts as well as the Post Office Card Account (POCA). The plan was that these accounts would also help their users by letting them set up direct debits to pay their utility bills, and so keep better track of their finances from week to week.

The accounts were originally designed to let people save and withdraw money, but in an effort to prevent extending any existing debts and stopping the accounts from becoming overdrawn, they don’t offer cheque books, overdrafts or other credit facilities. The accounts were intended for those with no credit history who might not meet the banks’ criteria for opening a standard current account. The accounts features typically include the ability for payments, for example pensions and benefits, to be credited direct to the account, withdrawals by plastic card through cash machines and the facility to pay bills by direct debit.

The problems experienced seem to be partly because the accounts do not always help those with a small weekly income to deal with the unpredictable gaps which can occur in wages, benefits or spending. Automated monthly direct debit payments for goods and services can prove of little use to many on low weekly based incomes. Those paid on a week by week basis, expressed a preference for weekly cash based, rather than monthly direct debit, budgeting options and felt that bank accounts with direct debit facilities would not provide them any advantages. By using cash instead of a bank account, they found they could juggle payments easier, and avoid punitive additional bank charges if they did not have the funds to hand, to cover an outgoing debit payment.

Another problem experienced was that the holders of these basic accounts are also liable to be those on low incomes, with low (if any) savings and are more likely to be in arrears paying their household bills than those without them. This vulnerable group are less likely than most to be able to deal with unexpected additional expenditure, such as an unforeseen bill for home repairs, but without recourse to any credit facilities, they may be forced into resorting to high interest loans to cover temporary setbacks.

The NCC found that “people on low incomes who use accounts to manage their money are more likely to be in arrears with household bills. They are also more likely to have outstanding credit commitments, partly because they have wider access to credit”, than those without accounts.

The government has set a target of halving the number of households which do not have access to a bank account by 2006. The banks state that they currently face a lack of demand, however more than two million applications, in excess of the government’s expected take-up, for the POCAs have been made. The banks are claiming that reaching the targets will be difficult, as they are being impeded by various barriers to opening basic bank accounts, such as the identification requirements in money laundering rules. Some of those on low incomes may not possess either a full driving license or full passport, and so find difficulties setting up new financial accounts. The banking industry has also been widely criticised for failing to actively promote basic bank accounts and, sometimes, for actually discouraging people from opening them.

The NCC proposed that basic bank accounts need to be more flexible. Suggestions to make the bank accounts meet the needs of consumers included offering weekly, rather than monthly, direct debit facilities where payments are only triggered if the money is available in the account, occasional payment holidays, and small free ‘buffer zone’ overdrafts.

Whether the lack of interest is due to the banks, the government, or the product itself, something needs to be done if there is to be an increase in the take-up rates. Half of those surveyed by the NCC felt they do not really need an account. An even more damning indictment of the current basic bank accounts was that a similar proportion of account holders preferred to withdraw all their income, rather than leave it in the account, and then manage it as cash. An inclusion policy may be a laudable idea, but it is no use if people do not want to be included, and it should not disadvantage those it is meant to help.