Explaining BIG ideas. Lessons from Yang.

Explaining your Big Idea

A lot of the speakers I train have a Big Idea to explain: the path to carbon neutrality, how hiring practices discriminate against minorities or why waiting lists don’t have to be so long even at the current level of resourcing.

Effectively explaining a big idea is likely to be at the heart of your presentation.

So how do you ensure that you successfully convey your idea to an audience that likely knows (and cares) far less about it than you do?

Let’s look at some of the techniques aspiring Democratic Presidential nominee Andrew Yang employs in this three minute video pitch for a big idea – universal basic income.

Yang will explain the idea but it’s safe to say that he knows that it’s a ‘big idea’ that will appeal to some but trigger many.

“Money – for everyone? For nothing? No matter what? Forever? Are you crazy?”

Depending on what you have to explain and the make-up of your audience you might be speaking to the converted, sworn enemies or the blissfully ignorant.

FYI: I presented this video to two groups in the last month – one room had a 90% awareness of Yang's idea, the other had 10%. Anyhow – Andrew has some explaining to do. So let’s review:

0.00

He starts off with no preamble. (Love that.) And immediately challenges a negative thought held by many in the audience (I call these "anxieties"). 

“It’s not too good to be true.”

The game is afoot! Well played Mr Yang. He looks confident and up for a challenge.

0:12

He then outlines his proposal in the simplest terms possible: 

$1000 a month, every month, for everyone once they turn 18.

That’s good – don’t get bogged down in detail before you even begin. You must make clear your hypothesis, argument or concept. 20 seconds down and he's doing well.

0:20

Note that he points to camera and says “You would receive $1000 a month…”

This gives people a delicious thought to think and makes it more relevant to them. Always go to lengths to demonstrate that your idea will impact your audience or those that they care about in ways good or bad.

Yang also tries to coin a phrase by calling the idea the “Freedom Dividend” which is a shameless effort to wrap the concept in the stars and stripes. It’s certainly a far less communist vibe than “Universal Basic Income”. Shameless - but it helps him ‘own’ an idea that is not his. To his credit, Yang doesn’t claim ownership.

Third party advocates

Yang then goes to great lengths to normalise the idea by giving a potted history. He calls on a range of third party advocates: Richard Nixon, Dr Martin Luther King and free market loving economist Milton Friedman. This is a case of Yang saying: “Hey – don’t take my word for it…”

He’s also picked unusual suspects as supporters. This can defuse hostility.

Good tactic.

 0:56

The rationale. 

According to Yang, automation is coming to take our jobs but he unnecessarily gives us two overlapping stats to prove how bad things look job-wise. This is an own goal. One stat would suffice. Poor work from Yang.

Yang also fails to state that the Freedom Dividend is what will replace many of our salaries as the bots make us redundant. He fails to outline the connection between unemployment and the Freedom Dividend – especially to people unfamiliar with the concept. I guess he’s keen to focus on the $1000 a month for every voter.

(Interesting that today A.I has replaced robots as the job killer.)

1:33

How will this work?

Yang fails to use his own corny term calling his “Freedom Dividend” Universal Basic Income. Oops. His comms person should have picked this up at the time. Get off Twitter and concentrate comms person.

He decides to pick on the tech sector as the bad guys who are paying less tax than “you or your parents”. Nice phrasing.

This article isn’t a policy review but it’s weird that it’s only the tech sector in his sites and not: aerospace, banking and finance, mining, big ag, big tobacco, big pharma etc. They all pay minimal tax but he’s decided to leverage anger at the tech sector to win favour for his plan. Hmmm…it might have helped win more support.

The basic strength of your arguments matter and this tech-only approach seems odd. (I’m marking Yang down for this.) Don’t deliver ideas with fundamental weaknesses or giant logical leaps as they distract from your message, seed doubt and diminish your authority.

1:55

Yang introduces his plan for a new value added tax. Again he tries to downplay and normalise this potentially unpopular idea by mentioning that every other country has one. Maybe they do, maybe not and none use it to fund a UBI. (Maybe Norway but who cares – almost none.)

He’s playing a fast and loose now. Bad form.

2:10

Yang mentions Alaska as a state which has a UBI of sorts funded by oil profits and cleverly explains that his idea is just like that but he's swapping oil for tech because “technology is the oil of the 21st century". Nice line. Well played. 

2:42

The benefits.

Beware - upcoming logical leaps…

Yang lists the benefits of which there are many including: better mental health, fewer ER visits, higher education attainment, reduced incarceration and a boost to the economy. 

“This is going to pay for itself”. Huh?

Even the least skeptical viewer may ask how exactly $1000 per person, per month creates these happy outcomes, especially when we’re unemployed courtesy of those pesky robots.

Once again Yang eschews details and focuses on the positive. Could he not point to these positive outcomes in Alaska? Why not? He does nothing to connect the Freedom Dividend to these hypothetical outcomes. This is getting weaker and weaker. 

His approach is fine for a three minute video which is a one-way monologue but you’ll need to explain more and address people’s reasonable doubts and their desire for clarity.

Balancing your level of detail is tough. Too little basic detail and you will leave people behind. Too much and you’ll frustrate those who already understand your deal to begin with. 

Yang never explains why giving everyone $1000 leads to all sorts of good things. His giant leap from “here’s my plan” to the myriad of benefits reminds me of many Yes campaign spokespeople who readily associate the formation of the Voice to Parliament with an array of positive outcomes. 

The positive outcomes predicted in policy innovation, reduction in financial waste, discovery of local solutions, reduction in service overlaps and gaps are presented as inevitable if we vote Yes. But swinging voters need more specific demonstrations of how a consultative body with no funding or legislative power will lead to all the positive outcomes. 

Speakers must persuade the persuadable so aim your arguments to them. Forget those that will automatically support or ignore you. This is not religion - don't count on blind faith. Some folk have never even given your issue or solution a second thought.

3:00

Yang ends well, claiming another phrase: “This is the trickle up economy” and restating the basics but all up; a poor showing, much like his tilt at the Presidency. 

His ending is considered and leaves the viewer with his message - this is my idea, I stand by it and you can get it by voting for me. Beyond your opening, the most remembered moment of your presentation will be the end but it's rare that we rehearse them as much as we do the beginning.

So - how'd you think Yang went?