Posts Tagged 'television'

Blowing Your Own Trumpet: Vuvuzela Etiquette

‘Seventy-six trombones led the big parade
With a hundred and ten cornets close at hand.
They were followed by rows and rows of the finest virtuo-
Sos, the cream of ev’ry famous band’ (
76 Trombones from ‘The Music Man’)

Vuvuzelas

The start of the 2010 World Cup has brought a new and unexpected celebrity to the world’s attention: the vuvuzela. This South African trumpet-esque instrument is blown at matches (in England we’d have a claxon) by the spectators. It’s caused television viewers to complain, as they’ve been unable to concentrate on matches due to the din of thousands of vuvuzelas; when all blown in one constant stream they do sound like a swarm of wasps.

The argument for not banning the vuvuzelas has been that people have free will and as they are not harming anyone then why should football’s governing body, Fifa, intervene? Then of course there is the ‘when in Rome’ argument: the vuvuzelas are a native instrument to South Africa and by banning their use would be a snub to the host country.

So what to do? Utilitarianism would say that we should worry about the greatest good for the greatest number, and so the opinions of the worldwide television audience would take priority over the spectators at the stadiums, and thus the vuvuzelas be banned. However, the ‘when in Rome’ counter-argument is, in my opinion, equally as worthwhile. When we are visiting other countries we should respect their customs and cultures and not just march in and expect it to be England abroad: we have to adapt. But then of course the TV audience is not in South Africa, they are in their own homes… it’s a tough one, but the tournament only goes on for a month (I never thought that I’d ever say ‘only goes on for a month’) and so we should probably just put up with it for the time being… or do what I’m doing… and not watch any of the matches at all!

William Hanson
Tutor, The English Manner

Business Dress on The Junior Apprentice

Last night we had the third installment of The Junior Apprentice, the spin off of Lord Sugar’s The Apprentice. The programme is identical to the main show except that the candidates are ages 16 or 17 and are competing not for a job with the business tycoon but for a business bursary. A lot of the hopefuls have had experience running their own businesses or being involved in some way with the art of making money.

Jordan - he of the shiny suit

However, I have been continually taken aback at the poor standards of dress that most of the candidates have. The first person to get fired was a boy called Jordan. He wore possibly the shiniest suit imaginable. Such suits only look good on Saturday night television and if your name is Graham Norton – for some reason, Graham seems to be the only person able to get away with such an outfit. However, Jordan’s suit was a business/lounge suit and this made it look very cheap indeed.

But for this blog I shall focus on the third episode of the series.

Zoë

There was one shot in the programme that showed Zoë, who clearly takes pride in her appearance (if a little too much), writing. As it was a close-up of her hand with a pen we could see her nails clearly. She was wearing nail polish but it had chipped and cracked and so it looked messy. If nail polish is going to be worn (whether in a business or social environment) then make sure it looks good and is perfect at all times. Regarding make-up, Zoë has a tendency to wear a bit too much (especially for a 16-year-old). She has pale skin and wears striking red lipstick, which set against her blonde hair does cause people to take note of her. In a throw-back to the 1980s, Zoë is clearly a big one for power-dressing, but more-often-than-not she just looks like she’s about to serve us drinks and tell us how to put on our life-vests.

Rhys

Last night’s fired hopeful was Rhys. From episode one he was wearing shirts with collars that were far too big for him, and probably would have been too big for Pavarotti. Although many people complain that they feel restricted when wearing a collar and tie, if you are measured properly by any half-decent men’s outfitters for shirts then this will never be a problem. Rhys also committed the crime of colour-on-colour (in the case of episode 3, black-on-black). He wore a black shirt and a black tie. Never do this! Black shirts look awful full stop; black ties should be reserved for funerals – but really one should never wear the same coloured shirt as the tie (i.e. a plain pink tie would look silly when against a pink shirt).

Tim

There are so many things that annoy me about this candidate’s dress. He has clearly never heard of a razor. Beards are fine, however, Tim’s facial hair is not quite a beard. I would suggest that business people are clean-shaven (unless they are opting for a proper beard). Designer stubble (as he had yesterday – he had given his facial hair a minor trim) is not suitable for the boardroom. Tim also seems not to have heard of a top-button. He is an advocate of the loose-tie-open-top-button look, which, again, should not be found in business. It looks sloppy and lazy (although some may say this is a reflection of the boy’s attitude to business). Last night we saw a close up (for some reason) of Tim’s shoes and socks. He had chosen to wear a pair of green striped socks. You may expect me to slate this choice, but I actually condone it. I am a big fan of colourful socks and I feel that if done tastefully, a man can say a lot his personality through his socks: they give one a chance to show a bit of personality. That said, I have seen all too often people wearing white socks with business suits, which is something that just isn’t done. Socks (if plain and traditional) should match the colour of the shoe or of the trouser.

Adam

Finally, a word about Adam, who also left Lord Sugar’s boardroom last night. His tie was dreadful. The knot was too big, but also too loose. He was trying to go for the big footballer knot, but even so, it should have been tighter. Being able to tie a good tie is a life skill that sadly many are lacking. He also needed to make sure the tie was pulled up to the very top of the shirt. As you can just about see from his publicity picture, you could drive a bus between the top of the tie and the top button of his shirt.

The English Manner offers training in business protocol, which includes dress & appearance. To find out more, please contact us.

William Hanson
Tutor, The English Manner

UK Leaders’ Debate No. 3: The Last Word

The last of the three UK leaders’ debates was always going to be about policy rather than performance. Both the politicians and the audience had got used to the format of these new debates and so, thankfully, we could all look past the smoke and mirrors and focus on what the parties were offering.

That said, the chairman of IPOS Mori said yesterday that a large majority of people do make their mind up as to whom to vote for based on style rather than substance: a reflection perhaps on the shallow times in which we now live.

So on that basis, here is my take on the performance and protocol from the final UK leaders’ debate.

The first gentleman we see is the chairman, David Dimbleby, who handled the proceedings much better than Messers Boulton and Stewart. However, Dimbleby had his jacket fastened incorrectly and it may be appropriate to just recap the rules when it comes to suit jacket buttons. If it is a three-button suit, just the middle button; if it is a two-button suit, just the top.

If the ties were competing last night, David Cameron’s would have won. It was a block colour (a strong blue – probably a conscious metaphor on his part) and worked well when set against the lurid pink and orange backdrop. A bold and strong colour always works best – power dressing: slightly retro, but in this case it worked. Nick Clegg’s orange number wasn’t working for me (although he had the better knot of the three leaders). In my opinion, orange and green ties never work. Gordon Brown’s tie was a muted purple with fine dots, and this would have been okay for day-to-day business but for such an important event, I did think that he (and Clegg) could have found about a thousand better ties to wear.

When the debate started, Clegg called his opponents by their full name ‘David Cameron and Gordon Brown’, there was no faux-chumminess here, like there was in the first debate. Nick Clegg probably used this tactic to separate himself from the others.

David Cameron was the first person to use an audience member’s Christian name, and it became obvious that he was emulating the tactic used by his Liberal rival from the first debate of looking directly into camera to address the audience at home, rather than in the chamber. Clegg did the same thing too, but used his hands much more, moving them towards the camera, drawing us into his way of thinking.

Language-wise, Gordon Brown used much more ministerial language, rather than the other two who went for more down-to-earth speech. Brown often used imperatives, such as ‘let’s be clear’, before addressing a point. This is something similar to what Tony Blair did during his premiership: he was very fond of saying ‘look’ before he addressed a question – but in the latter’s case it was often seen as patronising the audience or questioner.

Linguistically, Clegg used a trick of providing a layman’s explanation of some of the more complicated economic jargon. He told us “capital gains – that’s income to you and me”, this puts him on the level of the audience, a very clever tactic.

Where I felt he did slip us was his determination to address the camera. He would switch a bit too quickly from replying to the questioner from the audience to looking down the camera to the home audience. He did this a lot and it began to look phoney. Clegg also fell down during the economic part of the debate – he started to get a bit hot under the collar and this showed on his face.

Cameron used a minor expletive (‘damn’) to express one particular point; this did add emphasis. What a lot of people were saying on Twitter last night was that there were too many anecdotes from the leaders (Cameron and Clegg in particular) that started, “I recently visited a… ”.

So far in these blogs we haven’t referred to each of the leaders’ makeup. Particularly in the first debate, lots of people commented that Cameron was wearing lovely make-up, and it must be said, he did look the best out of the three of them. I don’t think Brown had very much on; he probably prefers to go for the grittier, natural man sort of look. Cameron’s chin could have done with a touch more powder – it did shine more and more as the debate progressed.

Last night, Cameron clearly won: the polls agree. He also wins our prize for best improvement. Clegg clearly won the first debate – wooing everyone with his charm and naturalness (the heir to Blair is how one Twitterer described him). The second debate had no clear winner but in the final one, Cameron pulled out all of the stops both politically and performance-wise. It will be interesting to see how the three parties do on Thursday.

William Hanson
Tutor, The English Manner

UK Leaders’ Debate No. 2: It’s not what you say it’s the way that you say it!

Communication is made up of three parts: the words we use, the tonality of our voices, and our body language. We use all of these traits everyday to let the people around us know how we feel and think.  55% of our communication is through body language; approximately 38% is based on tonality of the voice and 7% on our actual words.

So with this in mind, ding ding, round 2 of the election debate, and they’re off…

David Cameron leans into the podium to show us he is ready for action his tone is slightly aggressive and his brow is knitted. He starts by using the audience members’ name, great for rapport building, whilst maintaining eye contact. The wording David chooses is reflective initially and then he uses BUT; this changes the direction of his answer, allowing him to change the subject. As the debate progresses the hand gestures, a softened fist with the thumb running along the side of the index finger conveys a middle of the road speaker. By the end of the debate David has been adopting the precision grip, hand turned upward pinching fingers together. This implies that he will attend to the smallest details and can be trusted to get it100% right.

Nick Clegg begins in an up right posture, chin in a neutral position, ready to take on the question. He begins with an anecdote about chocolate, adds a pinch of humour and then backs it up in the language of the audience with facts. The words, his tone and body language are all congruent. The hand gesture of palms facing, shoulder width apart, fingers splayed and pointed towards the audience. This is an attempt to connect with them and close the gap.

Gordon Brown starts well with a smug smile, very small hand gestures, strong-planted feet, which give him balance and make him, appear comfortable. The tone and use of language made the audience sit up. The humour card is played with Gordon comparing David and Nick to his two squabbling children. This is quickly followed up with an embracing gesture, arms out in front, drawing the audience toward him. Gordon is using this to say I will keep you safe, very fatherly, whilst influencing you to his way of thinking. The final gesture that seems to appear most frequently from Gordon is the palm down, generally associated with authority and directive behavior. A type of ‘I am in charge and that’s final’!

I hope that when you watch round 3 you will start to notice these gestures and by doing so, get a clearer picture of what is actually being said.

The fantastic thing about all the speakers is that they have been coached brilliantly! I think they will all need to pull something very interesting out of the bag for the next debate.

The poet and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “What you are doing speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you say.” Too true!

Louisa Miles
Echo Motivational & Life Coaching
www.echomotivates.com



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers