Hawking Product: A Cautionary Tale That Has Nothing To Do With Birds

Nobody will argue that having “product” as a speaker or entertainer isn’t important. It’s a great way to make your message stick, plus it’s an important diversification of revenue streams (and other smart sounding phrases I never thought I’d say).

And we all know that blatantly selling from the stage is second only to getting the company name wrong in the presentation. Think “Thank you Des Moines!” in Wichita.

But is there is a way to take your product too seriously?

Consider this recent public review of a very (very) well-known speaker/author/cultural icon. Names have been changed to protect the over-zealous product pusher.

“(He) is more of a salesman than a speaker. His hairbrain ideas have been almost completely discredited by medical science. He is not a doctor as much as he is a salesman. Every speech comes with the opportunity to buy lots of books, tapes, and conferences. He even has a fruit drink he is now hawking … that costs $30 a bottle! (He) is nothing more than a product salesman masquerading as a shaman. Please don’t inflict him on your audience!”

How much is too much? Is there a way to have a warehouse full of revenue diversification streams (see: product) that won’t make the audience feel like they’ve stumbled onto the set of an infomercial?

Ari Hershberg • Speakers material are to help inform and enhance a talk, not to be a snake oil salesman.
Great write.

Joe Tye • I once had Laurie Beth Jones speak at a conference I put on, and she gave the most effective sales pitch I’ve ever seen. She simply put one of her books on every other chair and for one of the exercises, she asked people to share with their neighbor. She asked people to take good care of the books, because they needed to go back to the conference bookstore after her talk. That was it! At the break when she’d finished, I had to send someone down to the local bookstore to buy more of her books to prevent fist fights between the “neighbors” who were fighting over who got to buy the one book they’d been sharing. It was elegant, it was classy – and it worked!

Ed Primeau • Since most of what is sold product wise these days is downloaded media, give your audience a link (easy to remember) to download something for no cost (to get them to your on line store) OR use Twitter and ask them to Tweet to @YourAddress and set up an auto reply code for a discount from your on line store (or Amazon). Back of the room sales are dead unless the client orders in bulk for their conference store OR as a gift for every audience member. There is a lot of bulk sales going on right now. Plus this is a good concept for negotiating your fee.

Carol Scofield • Thanks for the input, ideas….all are truly appreciated from this speaker.

Shawn Ellis • One thing I would add to the conversation: no matter how carefully/tastefully you offer products/resources/materials, SOMEONE will always complain. It sounds like the speaker in Christa’s example may have gone over the top to get that kind of feedback, but I’ve seen some pretty harsh criticism even when a speaker did all the right things. In those cases, you just have to have confidence that you’re sharing products that will help to improve someone’s life/business — and you’re actually doing them a disservice if you DON’T share what you have to offer (more on that here: http://goo.gl/Cu0KE).

Killing Price-Point with Kindness

After the past few years of tighter budgets and negotiated talent fees, how do we recondition the buyer to pay rack rate?

This just in from a prospect for one of our speakers:

“Thanks for the info but I have spoken with my board and we cannot afford $10,000. I am being told that in prior years we have been able to negotiate much lower rates from national speakers that usually charge even more than $10,000.”

Now, I know who they used last summer and I know they’re priced around $10k. And they were even a ‘national speaker’ (whatever that means).

This email leads me to believe that we’ve conditioned the buyer to expect a lower price point no matter what is quoted.

Now what?

Here are some opinions, and varying ones at that…

Don Jenkins • I have been saying for months that one of my biggest concerns (regarding our industry) as we come out of this recession, is the precedent some may have set when we were in it. This mainly applies to having speakers at events or having events at all.

That said, it is not too late. Negotiating a fee while in a recession cannot reasonably be considered common practice as we work our way out.

We also cannot worry about those who are willy nilly in their fees, (yah, I said it, willy nilly) and they will continue to be those people we cannot work with.

Paul Bridle • The buyer may have been conditioned to expect a lower price point for what they previously expected…..so now our job is to show that the new value is higher than what they previously expected. We need to provide perceived added value.

The recession always revalues things in people’s minds and they will often downgrade what they valued before the recession. Our job is to show that the value being offered is significantly higher now (and be prepared to prove it)

Think of it like a car. Prior to the recession, people needed a car to get from A to B and back. The color, shape, badge, gadgets, etc became valuable and so they bought it. The the recession came back and they remembered that what they needed was a mode of transport to get from A to B and back. Now they want it to do this and do it cost effectively (fuel efficient). What was important before in the way of gadgets, color, etc. is coming back with fresh eyes though.

So it is with meetings. People need content. The range of content and methods of delivering it were all important before the recession. Since the recession they went back to finding content that was cheap and efficient. They are coming back, BUT they have a fresh set of eyes about what is important now. Our job is to rise to that challenge and show them what value looks like now. We are in an age of joined-up meetings and of just-in-time learning. We can capitalize on that if we are prepared to re-invent ourselves and show the new value

Tamsen Browne Reed • We are in an age of social-content, sustainable conversation, influence, and intent to provide a higher return on the investment. I love to work with a more sophisticated buyer seeking a higher quality product at price. It challenges me to work harder for the commission and provide the best service possible in a turn-key process. Our roles are to be experts in the field. Personally, I think this is a lazy industry (bureaus). Buyers want what they want, yes? However, if someone is $10K and they have $5K. Pack that $10K with a value-add and make suggestions at $5K. What value-add–service, follow-up, be on premise, maybe 30 minutes to an hour of high quality time negotiated between speaker and key executives. There are so many ways to be creative, pack in value, and not compromise market integrity. This also means cover your bases. Everyone you present should be contacted, aware you are presenting them, so that you are not surprised…in the end. Those who make their livings in this business…know what I mean.

Sheldon Senek • Some great comments here. I think the common thread here is “value.” No matter what the fee is, an organization wants value. We all do (whether we’re purchasing a product, paying for a service, or getting amazing content that will have a positive impact on our lives/companies).

It’s really case by case, isn’t it? Some organizations come in with a range–and we have to work within that range. We’re not going to recommend a speaker if it’s out of their range–however, if we have built a relationship with a speaker and know he/she has flexibility, then we include them in the recommendations (with their knowledge–after all, we have to check their calendar availability). I don’t think this practice is any different than when the economy was blooming.

Now, it’s a different story when an organization comes to us with a particular speaker in mind. Knowing they have a specific budget, we will be honest in telling them how likely they are to booking the speaker. Again, it’s case by case…Our objective is to never undervalue the speaker–rather, support the value. At least for Eagles Talent, our bureau’s goal is to guide the organization, and find the speaker whom best fits their needs. For us, it’s not about a one-time event, we want to develop a relationship, and help them to grow for years to come.

Also, I totally appreciate the previous comment of adding value (if a speaker is 10K and the client has 5K [I hope I understood this correctly]). If there is an opportunity to do this, we will, but unfortunately, it’s not always the case. I personally believe in those follow-up visits to a company–it absolutely re-enforces the things you talked about in your keynote–and get’s the organization into level 2 (and beyond) thinking!  http://www.eaglestalent.com/

Tamsen Browne Reed • The underlying thread is absolutely value. Sheldon, the comment of $10K vs the $5K isn’t to move them to $5K but to add the value to the $10K to position and “sway” the decision to give them the speaker they wished for originally + a little something extra. I have found when a little “lagniappe” (something extra) is added a Client will often the find the extra therefore not compromising the market integrity of the speaker.

Teresa Allen • I think every speaker needs to have a fee schedule that shows discounts for very specific circumstances such as geographic proximity to the event, non profit, association, short term booking etc. That way they remain the 10k or 5k speaker status and the client knows they received that discount not just because they asked for it but because of a specific reason and therefore it does not damage fee integrity.

Cam Marston • When I get home from a road trip I’m greeted with four gaping mouths that are saying “feed me.” My wife refers to them as my children. “Fee Integrity” was great stuff when the phone was ringing. Now times are hard and my commitments at home come well before holding fast to rack-rate fees. So I’m negotiating as well as I know how to meet my obligations at home. I wish it weren’t the case but it is. There are some fees I just can’t take for being too low, but if the fee is close, I accept. Besides, my years in this work have taught me: “the more you work, the more you’ll work.” More booking and more exposure leads to more leads and more requests and in a simple supply and demand model that’s the best way to drive the fee up – a full calendar. I’m not nearly there yet but things are looking better. My competition who won’t take a booking because it is not full fee has become an unwitting ally to building my calendar back to where it once was.

Ed Primeau • Great answers-”add value”. Why not ask questions like “who is emcee for your general sessions”? “Are you in need of breakout speakers”? All professional speakers (especially those represented by the See Agency) would make great emcees. You can also do more than one keynote and provide a multiple presentation discount. I believe by asking your buyer questions you will know how to use dialogue to get your full fee and fill other needs. You will look like a hero and get the gig in spite of the fee. Most groups have budgets for breakouts and other keynote positions. Plus having a celebrity (you are all celebrities) as their emcee sure beats the not so enthusiastic emcee they may be planning to use.

Saideh Browne • This conversation is great; the sad part is that I have speakers who blatantly refuse to modify their fees. I say, “ok, cool,” and I know who NOT to call when the phones start ringing again.

Rich Halladay • You have to negotiate in all business transactions. People better evolve or die! Get out of the way for the rest of us who understand the new business world!

Three Cups of Trouble for Inspirational Speakers?

The recent 60 Minutes expose on “Three Cups of Tea” author Greg Mortenson has most certainly captured my attention. (And by “captured” I mean in the “car accident can’t look away” variety of attention grabbing.)

With all of the allegations about him swirling around in my head, I mostly just feel really (really) bad about the whole thing. He did much good, and now it’s all soured by the bad.

Blech.

It begs that question though: do you think the recent drama surrounding the validity of Greg Mortenson‘s story will affect the way buyers vet inspirational speakers? Will talent buyers, conference and event planners be able to trust again?

As posted in the See Agency LinkedIn group, here are some viewpoints on the topic:

Bill Palladino •  I’ve been following this story very closely and hadn’t yet considered this angle. As a speaker, I’m not too threatened by it. Nor should anyone else be. If Bernie Madoff wasn’t in prison, I think he’d be getting some speaking gigs!

In my current work as a CEO for hire for a nonprofit organization, the take is rather different. My organization, On The Ground (www.onthegroundglobal.org), builds schools, hospitals, and water infrastructure in developing nations around the world. We are examining all this news of Greg Mortenson‘s fall from grace with careful eyes. It speaks to the need for clear and transparent financial operations in nonprofits. Especially those that have the Founder as its defacto leader.

In the end it’s no different than any other business. Under-promise, over-deliver, and live up to your word.

Jennifer Cook • I don’t believe it will affect the way buyers vet any more than it did with James Ray last year or anyone before or since. The only thing that went down was the interest in that person and/or topic. Planners should vet anyone they bring in … which is one of the benefits of working with people like me … I do the vetting for them! I try to steer my client partners away from the flash and look for the ROI and what can really help their bottom line and goals. In the past 20 years in this business I’ve seen many that look great on paper (or video) but on stage and on the back end … not so much.

Curt Steinhorst • If they wanted Greg Mortenson, they were looking for the celebrity factor. I’m sure a component of choosing him was the great work he’s done- but it wasn’t the primary reason. Otherwise, get the guy who has worked at the local homeless shelter for the last 15 years. As such, I don’t think it changes one thing. The Greg Mortenson recipe for speaking is “get a mega bestseller.” Therefore, I can’t imagine this is more than a minor blip on the radar- if that.

Rick Lewis • An interesting consideration. Mr. Mortenson obviously crossed the line, but sometimes that line isn’t so clear since good story-telling is the core of speaking and always involves putting a slant on the facts that will highlight what is of value. There’s going too far, but there’s also not going far enough in tailoring the details of a report to create impact – to motivate, educate, or inspire. We love stories, we all respond to them and ultimately want them, so in a way we train ourselves to spin. And there are many instances in which we’re happy to look the other way when lies are told. I’m not defending the fraudulent behavior, but it arises out of a context that we’re culturally culpable for.

 Tamsen Browne Reed • Bottomline..it should. Had to jump in all. We are, though, a culture who forgets and loves sensationalism. Bill, you’re right, Bernie would have a speaking career, Spitzer certainly is more “famous” than before, and we cannot forget Mike Milken, who does have a speaking career and has gone on to be known more for philanthropy and as the “godfather” of the junk bond market than his illegal activity. Only Greg knows the truth of these allegations, the literary license taken with his story of which he has shouldered much of onto his co-author Relin, and poor management choices and financial mis-direction of the multi-million dollar organization. He will choose to either be victim and hide behind the forgiving demeanor of disorganized introvert or hero by working to rebuild his credibility and strengthening the results and legitimacy of those schools via transparency and accountability. I follow NYTimes journalist Nick Kristof and he has written a very good piece about his friend, Greg Mortenson. I share it now. Time will tell about vetting on both the world of inspirational speakers and the publishing community.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Jeff Salz Ph.D. • Interesting you should write… I just blogged about my reaction as a fellow

adventurer/Himalayan mountaineer/author/humanitarian at jeffsalz.wordpress.com  Check it out!

Andy Core • I agree with both Jen and Bill, and would add – I think the damage was already done. All you have to do is check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK3kAR_fZvk

and see how many people, especially corporate audiences, view “motivational speakers.” Personally, I don’t see it that way, but transparency and authenticity has always been, and is even more important now.

  Sean Abbananto • The lives we live and the stories that come from them are rich enough in content and life lessons without lying and pushing the envelope.

Speaking is about impacting and influencing lives, not star quality or how many books someone has sold. It’s about what happens in the lives of those people in the audience within the time your blessed with to share your story with them.

Jay Kemp • I could throw in my “two-cents” on this on a professional level. However, I will tell you on a personal level, my 10-year old daughter was crushed when she heard about the story at school. She read the young reader’s version of his book last year and did a fundraiser for his foundation through her school. She came home in tears asking why he lied about all that he did.

I told her that he did build schools and he did help children. But for some reason, he decided to stretch the truth about the facts of his story (like getting lost in the first place) and the number of schools he built. I said he’s raised a lot of money and people are trying to make sure that all that money is going to the right place and not just in his pockets. It’s tough to explain to a child how adults can get so caught up in themselves, that reality goes right out the window. I think we’ve all done it at one time in our lives (although to a much lesser extent). I told her eventually, he will have to answer for the lying. But in the meantime, it’s probably best to focus on the good that he’s done. I’m not dismissing what he did at all. I’m just letting my daughter know that there is still some good in him. Maybe that translates to our business….and maybe it doesn’t.

 Dale Collie • Thanks for the rich comments here — three thoughts come to mind:

1. The hype about corporate audiences having a “bad attitude” about motivational speakers is just that. My understanding is that motivational speakers are still high on the “wish list” for meeting planners and executives. The link posted by Andy is humorous and works as a commercial because of the hype. Bernie M’s publicity did not put all financial planners out of business. People are more discerning than to believe all speakers are “stretching the truth.”
2. Let’s say for the sake of discussion that Greg M. is all afoul, which isn’t the case if you read the NY Times article linked in Tamsen’s post. But say he is. He can probably take that show on the road and sell and sell and sell about how the millions were made unethically. The big bucks seem to follow both the famous and the infamous. Those of us in the middle keep plodding along with sound messages that work, but we don’t have the paparazzi and National Inquirer marketing our efforts.
3. Having run an international charity, I can tell you the work is difficult and often completed in the face of all odds. We found we could feed a meal for less than the cost of one click through your copy machine, and we could employ hundreds and support orphans in E. Europe with small donations and savvy business strategies. Some organizations require a large % of donations for overhead, but we found we could do great good with under 5% fundraising and overhead. That small % sounds great, but it is not a negative comment on 60% overhead — it must all be viewed in context of the operation. We were working in USA and E. Europe, but none of what we were doing was in the challenging areas of the “stans” … Afghanistan, Pakistan. I wonder whether the producers of the “expose” traveled to those places, lived in those conditions, picked up a brick to build a building, or even met one of the students. Did they ever try to run one of these organizations, achieve the impossible, make a difference? Maybe they did, and maybe they know the difficulties faced. And maybe, just maybe, they’re making their own “big bucks” through “sometimes” questionable journalism. Have we ever heard of a journalist stretching the truth? Did people quit following all journalists because of one gone wrong? — As I’ve heard among teens, “I’m just saying …”

Ronnie Caplan • One must always solidly appraise who they’re booking, irregardless of their recent alleged unsavory actions – an engaging story is an engaging story is a satisfied audience = business as usual.

In the same way the old adage ‘All publicity is good publicity, even bad publicity’ is believed by many, sensationalism does help grow an audience, whether it’s a businessman (Madoff, Trump, Milken), politician (Spitzer, Edwards, PRESIDENT Clinton), athletes (Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, A-Rod), celebrities (Lohan, Sheen, Downey Jr, Paris Hilton). . . even authors – I didn’t enjoy ‘A Million Little Pieces’ any less after James Frey was “exposed” on Oprah!

Mr. Mortenson DID in fact raise money for charity, in itself a gallant and thoughtful action. Who knows what motivates someone to stretch the truth? The bottom line remains that a good story is a good story. I would wager that all of the people I mention above get even more cash for a speaking engagement after the sh*t hit the fan for them – IF you can even book and afford them.

I agree with Rick: I’m not advocating fraudulent behavior either, but today’s culture almost demands it, as it makes for a much BETTER story.