Exploring Effective Presentations: Why Did That Decision Leave No Impression on Anyone? — The Difference Between Proposals That Pass in Meetings and Those That Actually Move Forward | The Reality of Inception-Style Presentations
This story continues from here.
After the meeting,
Sometimes people ask,
"What ever happened with that matter?"
At the time,
everyone was certainly convinced.
There was no opposition.
"Let's go with that,"
they even said.
But,
a few days later,
no one can explain it well.
"What was that,
anyway?"
"Why did we decide to go in that direction?"
That is what I am asked.
No one is to blame.
However,
nothing remains in anyone's mind.
No vision is left behind.
This happens
surprisingly often.
What you will learn in this article
・What remains in the other person's mind after a meeting
・Why comparison criteria and priorities remain rather than information
・What it means for the other person to be able to explain it to someone else
・The structure of memories where they feel 'I thought of that myself'
・The difference between what is replayed and what fades away after a presentation
What remains in the other person's mind after a meeting
The content you spoke about in the presentation,
the other person
does not remember it exactly as it was.
Not the numbers.
Not the order.
Not the detailed explanations.
Surprisingly, it doesn't stick.
After the meeting,
"Wait, what was the percentage again?"
"Which one was supposed to come first?"
Things like that,
happen all the time.
However,
it's not that everything is forgotten.
Why that direction was chosen.
What was being prioritized.
What it was being compared against.
That perspective,
surprisingly, does remain.
Why comparison criteria and priorities stick better than information
People,
Rather than detailed information,
I bring back
“how to think about it.”
Instead of a 100-page meticulous document,
a single yardstick like
“prioritize B over A” leaves a lasting impression.
Numbers and data are
fuel to gain agreement.
However,
what remains at the end is
a yardstick for decision-making that you can return to when you are lost.
For example,
even if you forget the numbers themselves,
“the discussion was about prioritizing the brand five years from now over short-term sales”
will remain.
“It wasn't about cutting costs,
but about changing how things are used.”
This sticks.
“It wasn't about whether to do it now,
but about where to start.”
This sticks.
When such comparative axes and priorities remain,
the other party
can make decisions even after the meeting.
Even when new information comes in,
“Ah,
but this time, the discussion was about prioritizing this one.”
They can return to that point.
Therefore,
what is truly necessary in a presentation
is not to have them remember all the information.
It is to leave behind
a yardstick for judgment within the other party.
What does it mean for the audience to be able to explain it to someone else?
After the presentation is over,
What is truly important is
whether the story can be conveyed
even to those who were not there.
Can the people who were in the meeting
tell someone else,
“That story was
about this”
and be able to say it?
“There were other ideas, but
it is better to prioritize this one this time”
and be able to say it?
“The reason to do it now
is right here”
and be able to say it?
If it remains to that extent,
that presentation
lives on even outside the meeting room.
Conversely,
If only the feeling of "that was nice"
remains,
you cannot explain it to anyone else.
As a result,
the moment you leave the meeting room,
the conversation stops.
It is no one's fault.
But,
no one can recreate it.
Therefore,
nothing moves forward.
The structure of memory where you feel "I thought of this myself"
People,
more than what they are told by others,
remember what they think they came up with themselves.
That is why,
conclusions that are strongly forced upon them,
surprisingly, do not stick.
Even if they agree on the spot,
as time passes,
it becomes something
that someone else told them.
However,
when a framework for comparison arises within the other person,
and they become able to organize it in their own words,
that conclusion gradually becomes their own.
Rather than being told the answer,
the feeling of having walked the path to that conclusion themselves remains.
That is why,
the feeling of 'I thought so myself'
remains.
That is why,
even as time passes, it does not easily fade away.
The difference between what is replayed after a presentation and what fades away
There is a common thread among the things that are replayed after a presentation.
There is a basis for comparison.
There is a priority.
There is a reason for that direction.
Therefore,
it can be explained to someone else.
Even after the meeting,
it can be replayed within oneself.
Conversely,
for the things that fade away,
there is no reason.
There is no comparison.
There is no priority.
"It was good"
only remains.
Therefore,
when other information comes in,
it easily disappears.
That is where
the core of Inception-style presentations lies.
Next time,
why do people
instead of conclusions forced upon them,
act on conclusions they think
they decided themselves?
I will touch upon that psychological structure.
Summary
・People take home comparison criteria and priorities rather than the information itself
・A single yardstick like "prioritize B over A" remains more effectively than a 100-page document
・If the other party can explain it to someone else, that presentation has left an impression
・Conclusions that people feel they "thought of themselves" are less likely to fade over time
・What is needed is not to have them remember information, but to leave behind a landscape for judgment