I’ve got some big important presentations coming up – three for National Geographic and one for TED’s Mission Blue, and I’m determined to do a good job. Apart from a bit of rowing, these are possibly the biggest events in my 2010.
But I’m having a quandary about which way to go with my visuals. Yesterday I watched these two TED videos in search of inspiration:
They have two very different styles, and I’m not sure which one works best.
Lewis’s style is more like what I’ve done in the past, keeping the speaking and the video as two very separate components. This is how I’ve always used video – as an opportunity to take a break in the presentation, and allow the video to do the speaking for me.
But National Geographic have suggested that they want me to do their presentation more Ben-style, with me commentating over short clips of video, and keeping the video fairly raw, without captions or music.
In favour of the Lewis approach is that at the moment it is more like what I am used to.
But in favour of the Ben approach is that it is more similar to what National Geographic want, so I will be rehearsing that style more over the coming weeks, and it may be less confusing for my brain if I use a similar style for both presentations.
Another factor is that the National Geographic presentation is significantly longer – around 60 minutes – compared with a strict limit of 18 minutes at TED. So you could argue that different approaches would work better in the different contexts.
So I’m opening this for comments. Which you think is more effective? If you were coming to either of the presentations, and I hope that some of you are), which would you prefer to see?
P.S. I hear that the National Geographic presentations in Seattle are nearly sold out – 2,500 tickets per performance. So move quickly if you plan on coming!