Victor followed the playbook perfectly.
He opened with an engagement exercise. He told a story showing the problem and solution. He explained why it mattered to him personally. He ended with a vision of the future.
On paper, it looked like a solid talk.
But the experience was confusing.
The engagement exercise at the start โ without context โ left the audience puzzled rather than hooked. The story wasn't connected to their reality. His personal stake didn't translate to their stake. And because those pieces were weak, the vision fell flat.
Those already believing in his topic appreciated it. But they weren't the ones he needed to take on a journey.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐บ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐๐ป ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ โ from their personal experience or from a lecture perspective โ instead of focusing on the audience journey.
Once you have clarity on where you want the audience to end up, structure is about mapping the route:
โ Where is the audience starting?
โ Where do you want them to end up?
โ What obstacles, objections, or misunderstandings need to be overcome along the way?
Following a structure isn't the same as structuring for your audience.
Victor's engagement exercise would have worked brilliantly at the end โ as a tool in the audience's toolkit. At the beginning, it was just noise.
Are you telling your story, or taking your audience on theirs? ๐