The (perceived) overall value of a presentation, the p cubed value, is based on the product of the story (p1), the supportive media (p2) and the delivery of this (p3). Mathematically I wonder if the relationship between the p cubed value and effort required is best represented by a sigmoidal curve. The relationship between development of a presenter and the effort involved in further progress may be more clear in this.
Those who seek to improve their presentations by changing only slide design will of course see improvement. A reduction in the number of bulletpoints, deciding to use prezi or adding clip art will have impact, but only minimal. The p2 presenter has little reward despite significant effort.
The majority of those who read this blog can consider themselves within the second section, at least a p1 presenter. The fundamental reconsideration of presentations as a whole, approaching from an understanding of audience needs to construct a story and then illustrating it will make a huge difference in the value of a presentation. The effort involved is actually less as one flows directly from the other and consequently delivery improves also. The changes for a p1 presenter are great.
Those who have embraced this structural change aspire to the P3 level of presenter. The reward in terms of effort expended is less clear. This may that may not ever be preceived by the audience but should neither restrict nor dishearten the presenter who truly desires to communicate effectively. No one will ever deliver The Perfect Presentation. There is always room for improvement.