Ever feel like you totally bombed a presentation? Here are a few things to consider because odds are it didn’t go as bad as you think.

And the most important piece of advice I can offer: don’t get distracted during a presentation because you think it isn’t going the way you hoped. “Reading” your audience is important, but don’t “over-read” a situation. Stick to the basic game plan and you will execute just fine.

Olivia Mitchell shares a few words of wisdom:

1. You can’t tell how a presentation went just by looking at people

Emma didn’t get much positive nonverbal feedback from her audience. She felt like they were just starting at her blankly and she was like a deer caught in the headlights. And she made the worst possible assumptions about what the audience were thinking. Like:

“…maybe people hated the presentation.”

“…she was boring.”

Here’s the thing: you can’t tell what an audience member is thinking by the way that they look. A person can look totally blank and yet be intensely interested in what you’re saying. If you went to the front of a movie theater and looked back at the audience you’d probably be looking out on a sea of slack-jawed blank faces.

I’ve been constantly surprised by people in my audience who looked totally bored and disinterested or even cynical and then I’ve talked to them later and found that they enjoyed it and found it interesting and valuable.

When I see a person who looks bored I still have a little voice in my head that pipes up  “Oh you’re bombing, they’re bored.” I fight back against that voice by saying “No, that’s not true. You don’t know that they’re bored. Plenty of times people look bored but are in fact getting lots of value.”  The voice shuts up. That allows me to just get on with delivering my presentation and engaging with people.

2. All audiences are different

Emma is assuming that because her audience looked blank they didn’t like the presentation. But the way an audience reacts to a presentation is often more about the audience than about the presentation. Audiences can react to the same presentation in many different ways. Because I deliver roughly the same material all the time I’m reminded of this constantly. I’ll deliver the same material and get different reactions. Some of the factors that influence their reaction are:

Confidence: an audience full of confident people will generally give you lots of nonverbal feedback – nodding, smiling etc. If they’re not confident they may not even make eye contact with you. For example, in our Introduction to Presenting course which is tailored for nervous beginners I know that some participants are unlikely to make eye contact with me during the first hour. I’m now prepared for this.

How well they know each other: an audience of friends will be very different to an audience of strangers. An audience of friends who trust each other are likely to laugh more, banter with you etc. I experience this when we run an inhouse course for a tightly-knit team compared to a public course where no-one knows each other to begin with.

My partner, Tony, does some amateur acting. The cast deliver exactly the same play night after night. But the audience reaction can be different every night.

What’s the point of this? When you’re in front of people speaking you feel vulnerable and you’re primed to take it personally. But, the audience reaction (or lack of it) is not necessarily about you.

3. Your perceptions can be very faulty

Emma felt flustered and felt that she was bombing. Just because she felt that way doesn’t mean it was true.

I have a good friend who presents regularly all over the world. One particular presentation, things went wrong for her at the start, she got rattled and she thought the whole presentation was an absolute unmitigated disaster. Luckily, on that trip she’d taken her 23 year old daughter with her. Her daughter was able to set her straight and tell her that the presentation was fine. Maybe not her best performance ever – but fine.

As an Engineer, I am often confronted with presentations that attempt (sometimes more successfully than others) to tell a story using data. As a rule of thumb, I generally prefer the “KIS” method – keep it simple, when presenting to any audience that is not entirely comprised of subject matter experts on the information. Additionally, overly convoluted presentations can leave even the most expert team members confused, resulting in too much time spent explaining the charts and not enough time explaining the meaning behind the charts.

In Jim Stikeleather’s article “How to Tell a Story with Data” published in the Harvard Business Review, I think he makes a few good points with which I agree. The following are a few of his points that I think we can all learn a thing or two from:

1. Find the compelling narrative. Along with giving an account of the facts and establishing the connections between them, don’t be boring. You are competing for the viewer’s time and attention, so make sure the narrative has a hook, momentum, or a captivating purpose. Finding the narrative structure will help you decide whether you actually have a story to tell. If you don’t, then perhaps this visualization should support exploratory data analysis (EDA) rather than convey information. However, for the designer of an exploratory visualization it is still important to spark the viewers’ imagination to encourage examining relationships among and facilitate interacting with the data – think gameification.
2. Think about your audience. What does the audience know about the topic? Is it meant for decision makers, general interested parties, or others? The visualization needs to be framed around the level of information the audience already has, correct and incorrect:
   • Novice: first exposure to the subject, but doesn’t want oversimplification
• Generalist: aware of the topic, but looking for an overview understanding and major themes
• Managerial: in-depth, actionable understanding of intricacies and interrelationships with access to detail
• Expert: more exploration and discovery and less storytelling with great detail
• Executive: only has time to glean the significance and conclusions of weighted probabilities
3. Be objective and offer balance. A visualization should be devoid of bias. Even if it is arguing to influence, it should be based upon what the data says–not what you want it to say. Tufte found numerous charts that misled viewers about the underlying data, and created a formula to quantify such a misleading graphic called the “Lie Factor.” The Lie Factor is equivalent to the size of the effect shown in the graphic, divided by the size of the effect in the data. Sometimes it is unintentional-a number that is three times bigger than another will be perceived nine times bigger if represented in 3D. There are simple ways to encourage objectivity: labeling to avoid ambiguity, have graphic dimensions match data dimensions, using standardized units, and keeping design elements from compromising the data. Balance can come from alternative representations (multiple clustering’s; confidence intervals instead of lines; changing timelines; alternative color palettes and assignments; variable scaling) of the data in the same visualization. Maintaining objectivity and balance is not a trivial effort and is easily unintentionally violated. Viewers and decision makers will eventually sniff out inconsistencies which in turn will cause the designer to lose trust and credibility, no matter how good the story.
4. Finally, Edit, Edit, Edit. Also, take care to really try to explain the data, not just decorate it. Don’t fall into “it looks cool” trap, when it might not be the best way explain the data. As journalists and writers know, if you are spending more time editing and improving your visualization than creating it, you are probably doing something right.

2. Don’t Memorize: