On Background Research, and Why Speakers Should Limit It
How much should a (keynote) speaker research the client and the audience before giving a speech? This might sound like an innocuous question, as well as one where the correct answer would be some variation of “as much as possible, within reason”. I will argue that particularly the latter isn’t true and that limiting the knowledge one has about one’s client and the audience can have positive effects. In other words, this is yet another post (the first in a while) that almost certainly will have some speakers protesting wildly, whilst simultaneously giving unwarranted succor to others in the field.
The reason I say this is because background research is one of those things that really divide the field, with some ignoring it completely and others being complete fiends for it. What I will contend is that there isn’t only the obvious issue of marginal utility at play here — at some point doing more background research simply doesn’t pay off any more — but also that doing too much background research can hinder you from reaching excellence in speaking. The reason that this is a contentious claim is that background research is one of the things that many speakers see as setting apart true professionals and mere dabblers, so claiming that one should limit it could be interpreted as me promoting unprofessional behavior in keynote speaking. I am not, and I will get to why that is in a moment.
First, let us address the fact that there are speakers of whom no-one demands background research. Superstars such as Jim Collins or Rita McGrath can get away with barely knowing which country they are in, as they are engaged specifically because they are stars. If Obama is speaking at your event in Frankfurt, and mistakenly says how much he enjoys visiting Hamburg, only very few will really mind. Such stars can of course impress their audiences with even the slightest reference to something related to the company they are speaking for or the context they appear in (making a witty reference to local weather, food, or sports is always appreciated), but it is strictly speaking not needed.
The situation is different for keynote speakers that may be headlining but who still aren’t stars, as well as for what we might call ‘journeyman’ (or -woman) speakers who might be one of several keynotes at an event (what group you feel you belong to may differ, sometimes from event to event). Not being stars, such speakers have to rely on their speech and content alone rather than star power, even though they may be pitched as such to the audience. Here, making an impact becomes important, and many speakers feel that one way of achieving this is to study the client and the audience in detail, so that they can pepper their speech with relevant references and call out things or even people in the organization. If executed well, this can be a great way to impress both client and audience, but people often underestimate how difficult it is to actually nail this execution.
On the other hand, there are of course speakers who without having the excuse of being superstars do no background research at all. Sometimes this can work well, as many such speakers do what I often refer to as ‘canned’ speeches (i.e. speeches that they’ve written beforehand and memorized, giving the same speech to varied audiences, over and over again), and do not even try to customize it for every audience. Here, not having done background research doesn’t need to backfire, unless of course one has an unfortunate Spinal Tap-moment and starts by saying how much you appreciate talking for an audience of salesmen if the audience consists solely of actuaries. Here everything hinges on the quality of the canned speech, and I’ll be the first to admit that a very good such, expertly delivered, can really wow an audience.
However, most speakers attempt to customize their speeches at least a little, or deliver speeches that contain some in-the-moment material. Even in the case of canned speeches, there are often elements that can either ‘land’ with an audience or miss it completely, or parts where the speaker allows for some small variation — if only in the opening patter. Here the issue of background research comes into play. No speaker wants to turn up to an event, start a speech, and suddenly realize that they do not know what industry the company is in. As previously stated, some references to e.g. the industry people are in are often welcomed as a courtesy if nothing else. Further, if one can connect to real issues in the industry, this can make the speech sound a lot more relevant. As a result, the mistaken belief that deep and detailed background research is essential for good keynote speaking (unless one is a superstar).
Do not misunderstand me, a degree of background research is essential for a professional speaker. You should know the name of the client and the client’s representative, the industry or industries they are in, and the general makeup and knowledge/experience level in the audience (Are they managers? Are they all in the same industry? What might be their average level of education and proficiency in the language the even is conducted in, if applicable?). Yet I contend that going deeper than this is rarely necessary and can be counterproductive!
To explain what I mean, let me use an example. Let us assume I’m to keynote on future trends for an audience of bankers — something I have done on several occasions. You might think this would require that I really study what is happening in the financial sector, and what technologies are most interesting in the future development of the same. WRONG! I am not there to be a specialist in banking, and to pretend I am would not only be arrogant, it could backfire spectacularly. If I go and speak in an animated fashion about digitalization in finance and the promise of blockchain applications, I open myself up to the very real risk that I am talking about things that this audience already has thought long and hard about, have heard about a number of times, and may well be more knowledgeable about than you. In other words, my desire to enmesh myself in background research can make me look like an idiot, and an arrogant one to boot! Speakers should never underestimate audiences or assume that they do not know their own business and their own industry, and paying too much attention to background research can quite easily lead you down this path. Far better, in such a situation, to talk about e.g. issues that the retail sector is facing, or discuss cases where an entertainment company has missed an obvious trend. The audience is smart enough to connect the dots and see how this relates to their own businesses, and you don’t end up talking about things they know better than you do.
Overeager background research can also lead to a speaker looking like he or she is desperately trying to please and to fit in. Like the new kid in school who tries to get in with the cool kids and thus looks even more like an outsider, speakers who try to ingratiate themselves by dropping lots of assumed “in” references can look clueless and needy. Neither is a good look on a keynote stage. You are not on that stage to be one of the audience, you are there to be yourself, and preferably your best self. Don’t let background research blind you to this.
So, do your background research, by all means. Learn the basics, the things required to show respect to the event and to the client — you don’t want to work blue if this doesn’t work with a specific audience. At the same time, you have to understand the point of background research. It isn’t there to help you patronize the audience. It isn’t there for you to namedrop things you think relate to the audience here, there, and everywhere. It’s there to make your keynote the best it can be, and unless you are sure that connecting to the audience industry is the best move, don’t do it.
In my own work, I make a point out of not using cases that are too close to the industry of the audience I’m speaking to. If I speak to heavy industry I use cases from retail, and vice versa. I do this to not seem arrogant and patronizing, and I trust the intelligence of the audience to make the necessary connections to their own work and business. Sure, I sometimes namecheck a CEO or make an allusion to something in the industry, but I always try to show the audience that I respect that they are the experts in the same and that my expertise is elsewhere.
That said, if you are an expert on mining technologies, speaking to people in the mining industry, all of the points above are moot. Then again, if you truly are an expert in the industry you are talking to, you shouldn’t really need to do background research either…
For most of us there is a balance, a sweet spot where you know just enough about the client and the audience to make your own keynote brilliant, but not so much you get too caught up in someone else’s business. Finding that sweet spot isn’t always easy, but it is worth finding, and reflecting on it can make you a better (keynote) speaker.
