It is a privilege to travel the world sharing ideas on improving presentation skills. An encouragement is that many people know and understand that their presentations could be better and they recognise easy steps to improve. Yet they are resistant to making the change. The constant question is “What if…” They list all sorts of reasons why this longed-for change might not work, might not be accepted and might even fail. “What if it works?” I ask in return.
The p cubed approach to presentations is neither fashion nor just dreamt up by me. It is a synthesis of educational and psychological science mixed with generally understood common sense and a dash of creativity. The website goes through this in detail to help those challenged to make the change understand the possibilities and the options, leaving them finally to consider, “What if…?”
What if it doesn’t work? A difficult question to answer is that the alternative itself doesn’t work. Any change in the construction and delivery of a presentation will of course be better but, backed by the science and the underlying desire of presenters to deliver, the p cubed approach to improving has, I am told, always worked for those who engage. Worked not to be on the main stage at TED 2025 in just one step but better, obviously and significantly better than the mediocrity of presentations we are routinely subjected to and a first step on a journey of improvement and effective communication. It does work and will work for you.
What if it is not accepted? Once again, one should note that even the worst presentation is accepted by the phrase, “thank you for your excellent presentation, I very much enjoyed it.” I have never, ever, seen a presentation not accepted. Might it not be to everyone’s taste? Perhaps, but let us reflect that microsoftbluewavetimesnewromancentrejustifiedtextheavybulletpointsreadoutbyaboredpresenter is accepted so anything that improves on that will be accepted. Excuses that, “it’s not scientific” or “people might not like it” can be addressed after the event. No-one has ever complained that effective communication is unacceptable. It may be different too, but then so was Einstein when he presented his Special Theory of Relativity for the first time. It will be accepted and it will work.
What if it fails? Almost impossible to answer this question as it actually makes no sense. P cubed is not about witchcraft, or a tightrope risk but merely improving presentations. That cannot fail. What if it fails to be conformist? It will fail to conform but conformity itself fails. What if people reject my message? Again, difficult to understand because if an audience member rejects a message because they don’t like how it was delivered, this says a lot about the individual and not the message. It won’t fail because it will be an effective presentation. It will work.
Let’s turn that around. What if it works? What if the application of science to construction and delivery of presentations was shown (again) to be effective and, importantly more effective than the anti-science approach currently utilised. What if it is different? It is. It is different because it works. What if you took that risk? What could be the opportunity?