Here is Bill Gates talking at TED, an annual conference that brings together really smart people to talk about big ideas. It's what I would call an informative speech. Look at it for delivery and content and see what you can tell me about
a) delivery
b) structure
c) audience engagement
d) information hunger
e) were his examples engaging?
f) did they make you care about what he was talking about? If not, how could he have done a better job.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Bill Gates's delivery was good but could have been better because he had his hand in his pocket making him feel uncomfortable
ReplyDeleteI did like how he stated ahead of time his points
Strong points about death and life
Should have longer transition time between points
Good use of hand movements
Related malaria to everyone…USA, Europe, Africa…everywhere
Started to drone on as a history lesson/lecture rather than engaging the audience
his examples were engaging to a point but then they felt like they were occuring too much with statistics
Liked Bill's structure -- excellent sign-posting, conversational tone and vocabulary
ReplyDeletePreviewed what he was going to talk about, stated a clear goal/purpose to draw in the most brilliant minds to discuss problems that wouldn't normally be focused on, enhanced his credibility with the mention of Warren Buffett
Inserted humor with opening the jar of mosquitoes and by making the joke about baldness
Asked rhetorical questions to make the problems relatable to his audience--listener relevance link
He could have been more captivating by allowing more variation in tone and inflection.
I think Bill Gates's speech overall was fairly good. He had good audience relevance by relating malaria to the world and all different countries and races. His points were profound and captivating-- his use of rhetorical questions also helped with audience relevance. His delivery could have been a little better through use of gestures instead of having his hand in his pocket.
ReplyDeleteI think that overall his speech was engaging as the information was presented in a very understandable way. He spoke at an intellectual level that did not ostracize the general public but made a point that those listening were of a higher, more pro active class. While his inflection and movements seemed comfortable, he did not make them crazy animated or ridiculous just to maintain attention. This is a plus as no one wants to listen to someone who sounds like they're on crack trying to promote a product or idea. I believe his subject matter was interesting and he did a nice job of relating something that is otherwise thought to affect only poorer countries (malaria) to people in the U.S. and more wealthy countries. While his quote "i'm optimistic" was overused, it enveloped the overall attitude of his speech, which gives the audience hope enough to continue to listen and be engaged in the solution. Bravo.
ReplyDelete