I used to think TED talk-like presentations that lead you to the conclusions are the way to go. Not in this case.
Be clear about why you’re there, what are you expecting from them, and what problem are you solving. That’s slide #1.
If you’re presenting to your manager, leadership team, or an executive trying to convince them to make a call, I have a presentation format for you to follow.
It's battle tested so you get to avoid my earlier mistakes.
Here's a short summary
(Short Thread 🧵)
I used to think TED talk-like presentations that lead you to the conclusions are the way to go. Not in this case.
Be clear about why you’re there, what are you expecting from them, and what problem are you solving. That’s slide #1.
If you can't get people in the room on the same page about why this problem is critical to the company, it's going to be difficult for you to move forward.
You want agreement that this is a problem that matters.
Don't skip this part. There is likely *something* that the company is doing now to solve this issue. Even if you disagree with it, mention it.
Make it clear you understand what is our current approach.
If other companies in your industry are solving this issue better, highlight that.
This is powerful. Nobody wants to fall behind and highlighting how others are doing better is a powerful motivation to do more.
Now that we're clear on the problem and have similar context, what is your solution?
If this is a slight repeat of slide #1, that's okay. You want to highlight it within the context you've just provided.
Solutions cost money and resources. What are you asking for? You want to be clear and articulate about the overall cost of this solution.
This is not just about money, it’s about the overall cost of time, possible change of direction, resourcing, etc.
Do *not* skip this part.
There is a cost to doing nothing. This is a killer way to showcase how the cost of doing something is *better* than the cost of doing what we're doing today or to not improve.
More from All
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
