If the Duke and Duchess of Sussex Can Make Money Just by Giving Speeches, Maybe You Can, Too! Even During a Pandemic

Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, are reported to be asking for a cool one-million-dollar fee for speaking engagements. Although that seems a little steep, I wouldn’t rule it out. People like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Theresa May routinely collect six-figure speaking fees.

What about the rest of us? The midst of a worldwide pandemic is not the best time to gather huge audiences of people who want to pay hundreds of dollars each for a hotel buffet and the chance to hear someone give a speech, but opportunities to speak can arise in the most surprising ways.

Mere commoners are not going to collect million-dollar fees, but it is not unusual for professional public speakers to charge fees in the range of $2000 to $20,000, plus expenses, to give a major speech at a business or professional conference. Topics vary: people speak about how to overcome stage fright, how to close a sale, better ways to organize a hospital, and any number of other topics. Universities that I worked at often hired outside consultants to give major presentations plus all-day seminars in return for generous fees.

And as people get used to online meeting technology, organizations will continue to hire specialized experts to share their expertise, knowledge, or humor with their members.

How to get started? I am assuming that you are qualified to speak about some specialized topic that will interest the commercial world. Are you in real estate? Politics? Sales? Health care? Are you skilled in a trade?

First, speakers need to start by getting practical experience. No matter how well you did in your public speaking class, start by giving out several weeks or even months of freebies: speak to churches, synagogues and temples, youth groups, and Rotary Clubs. Even with these groups are close, many of them are eager for someone to present online content. Or offer to give lunchtime seminars at your place of employment. Even people who are working from home need to eat lunch. This gives you two benefits. First, practice makes perfect and your speaking will improve. You can never be too good! Second, you never know who will be listening. The more presentations you make, the more chances you give program planners to hear how good you are.

Second, speakers need to work up their publicity materials. Inexpensive business cards, one-sheets, or trifolds are basic. Maybe you'll write up brief free articles about your topic, format them attractively, and distribute them (with your contact information prominently displayed, of course). Give your publicity materials to anyone and everyone. If you’ve written a book, congratulations, and of course you should have copies for your assistant, spouse, or friend to sell on the spot. During the pandemic, the sales table is not a place to ignore social distancing. If you are speaking on line, you can provide clickable links to your sales page. (This might require you to have a business license, which you should have anyway, and to pay sales tax, but it's worth it.)

If you have not written a book, and if you’re a good writer, well, write one. It doesn’t have to be huge. Make sure it includes lots of inspiring stories. If you can't find a commercial publisher, you can hire a contract editor and self-publish. Sell it at your presentations.

Third, an online presence is essential. Twitter and Facebook are basic. Celebrities put their selfies on Instagram, so you should, too. Break out your camera and take a lot of pictures. Make sure they are captioned and include your contact information. Don’t forget about Flickr and Tumblr. If you’re young and know the latest dances, swallow your pride and get on Tik Tok. (Please don’t look for me on Tik Tok. LOL.) Most important, start a blog and post at least once a week. Blogger, WordPress, and Weebly are among the web hosts that make things easy for amateurs.

Your online presence will also need to include short  examples of you speaking on YouTube and Vimeo. Make sure that you’re energetic, because YouTube is what Marshall McLuhan called a hot medium. If possible, include audience reactions. For best sound quality, make sure to use an external microphone.

Link: Tips for Videoconference Speakers

Fourth, obviously, master every online meeting software. Learn everything, and I mean everything, about using Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams, and any other platform that emerges. Know all of them. You want to be so skilled with meeting software that you never need to ask for tech support. In fact, make sure that you know enough that you can provide technical support to anyone else who needs it. If someone is giving you money to speak online, you’d better know how to do it. If you’re speaking online, be sure to obtain quality camera and sound equipment. With modern technology, that’s much less expensive than you might think. You can spend $100 or less and get a good USB microphone with the mounts and accessories. Never use the tiny microphone built into your laptop. Practice with the equipment until you can use it comfortably.

Fifth, professional speakers almost always work with speakers bureaus. You will need to send them samples of your work, including audio and video, and they will want you to have the kinds of experiences that I list above.

Sixth, if you are speaking professionally, you need to be 100% reliable. You need to be on time for your in-person engagements – and when I say on time, I mean an hour early – impeccably dressed, and completely prepared. A delayed airline flight, heavy traffic, or Internet glitch is not an excuse to be late. Your computer and visual aids absolutely must work. Have a backup and contingency plan for anything that might go wrong. If you are speaking in person during the pandemic, practice social distancing without compromise and wear a suitable mask even when you are speaking. Do not let anyone intimidate you into being careless with your health. Contrary to what politicians say on television, a mask does not noticeably obstruct your voice.

Take online speaking seriously. Dress professionally, and be set up and ready to go well before your scheduled time. Be ready to receive last-minute phone calls and emails.

Link: More About Professional Public Speaking

Professional public speaking is a highly competitive enterprise, but there is money to be made, and program planners are always interested in energetic, interesting, witty, and informative speakers. Professional public speaking is a tough business and not without financial risk. Still, if the Duke and Duchess can give it a try, maybe you can too.

Finally, in all seriousness, please follow all pandemic safety rules. No point in making a lot of money if you end up in the hospital.

If you have been speaking to groups, please post a comment to tell my readers about it. Happy speaking!

President Trump Lives in Two Opposite Coronavirus Realities, and Reality #2 Dominated His Tulsa Rally: The Sad Case of Coronavirus Testing

Donald Trump, White House Portrait

Last night, at his poorly-attended Tulsa, Oklahoma rally, President Trump shouted that he had asked his staff to cut down on coronavirus testing. In fact, Trump boasted for about minute and a half that he had restricted coronavirus testing to keep the numbers down. All through the pandemic crisis, Trump has talked about two inconsistent realities: that the virus is a hoax, and that the virus is real but he is smashing it. Both are untrue. But Trump's comments were not, as Trump's critics think, an admission that Trump has bungled his job. On the contrary, Trump created an unreal reality. And Trump's core voters happily live in his make-believe world.


What Did Trump Say?

Here’s the entire passage in which Trump talked about coronavirus testing:

“And with testing, you know, testing is a double edged sword. We’ve tested now 25 million people. It’s probably 20 million people more than anybody else. Germany’s done a lot. South Korea has done a lot.


“They called me, they said, the job you’re doing … Here’s the bad part. When you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people, you’re going to find more cases. So I said to my people slow the testing down, please. They test and they test. We had tests and people don’t know what’s going on. We got tests, we got another one over here. The young man’s 10-years-old. He’s got the sniffles. He’ll recover in about 15 minutes. That’s a case, add him to it. That’s okay. That’s a case. I was actually with a very nice man, very good man, even though he’s very liberal, the Governor of New Jersey, right? We know him? Now listen, he said to me, something that’s amazing. New Jersey was very heavily hit, very hard hit, thousands of people. He said with thousands of people that died, thousands of people, there was only one person that died under the age of 18. Would you believe that? Which tells me one thing, that kids are much stronger than us.”

"Slow the testing down, please." In other words, he obstructed necessary public health measures for political benefit. Of course, the White House and the conservative media then claimed that he was just joking. That stunt is getting old.

Yet the United States is not doing enough testing to control the coronavirus, as Dylan Scott pointed out a few days ago, "The number of tests in the US that are coming back positive also suggests we are still not adequately surveilling Covid-19 compared to European countries." Also, as Kaiser Health points out, "The problem is that the U.S. outbreak is worse than that of many other countries — so we need to be testing a higher percentage of our population than do others." Scaling back testing is objectively dangerous. That is the objective reality.

More: Trump Once "Joked" about Being the "Chosen One"


What Are Trump's Two Realities?

Trump has created two coronavirus realities. They contradict one another.  In Reality #1, as witnessed by his now-defunct daily Coronavirus Task Force briefings, Trump claims to have executed massive public health measures to control the pandemic. In that first reality, Trump brings forth the federal government’s apparatus to smash the virus out of existence.

More: Trump Advocated Medical Quackery at a Coronavirus Task Force Briefing

In Trump's make-believe Reality #2, however, the virus is a liberal hoax. In February 2020, Trump complained that the Democrats were creating “their new hoax.” Contrary to Democratic protests, he did not exactly say that the virus was a hoax. He came close enough, however, for, many of his supporters to get the message. It’s nothing to worry about, he implied. In Reality #2, you might think that only wimps wear masks, social distancing is for losers, and public health measures like testing and contact tracing only encourage some kind of far-left liberal agenda. At the Tulsa rally, which attracted some of Trump's most ardent supporters, the first reality – the massive public health reality – disappeared faster than a morning fog. His crowd came to hear about Reality #2, and he delivered.

At the Tulsa rally, social distancing was nil, and masks were hardly to be seen. It seems that the audience lived in Reality #2. Why, they must have been thinking, do we need onerous public health measures to control something that (they believe) is not real?

A rational person would think that the time-honored methods of testing and contact tracing would help to control the pandemic’s progress. A rational person would also note that nations such as, for example, Greece and Portugal, that implemented these policies have been far healthier than the United States. But that kind of thinking would require an audience to live in a reality that’s, well, real.

Politics, however, is not about rationality. So, Trump announced – bragged – in Tulsa that he handled the coronavirus epidemic by not testing for it: “When you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people, you’re going to find more cases.” Not testing, he believed, would keep his numbers down. That's not the real reality, of course. His point was to get the number of identified cases down. Reality #2 strikes again.

Was It a Joke?

Was Trump joking about the coronavirus testing, as the White House and the conservative media later claimed?  Don’t be silly. Video shows that he shouted angrily through the entire passage, and neither he nor his audience so much as cracked a smile.

When he pretended that he had been joking, Trump was shifting back to Reality #1, that he was really working for public health. Obviously, a massive public health effort would require testing. Does anyone believe that he was joking? No. What matters is that his supporters can now pretend, simultaneously, that they believe equally in Reality #1, that Trump is aggressively attacking the coronavirus, and Reality #2, that the virus is a hoax. Just yesterday, some of my South Texas neighbors were telling me on Next Door Neighbors that the coronavirus is a hoax, or that it is only the flu, and that I should stop worrying about getting sick. Last night in Tulsa, Trump ran with Reality #2. My friends were probably happy with that.

Are There Two Realities?

The reader may be asking, can two contradictory realities exist? Well, no, they can't. People who die from the coronavirus can’t choose to believe in Reality #2 and come back to life. At the same time, many Trump supporters are, like some of my neighbors, happy to play along with Reality #2 until and unless, of course, they meet the undertaker themselves. Pending an encounter with the Grim Reaper, however, America should not underestimate the persuasive power of alternative realities. Worse, by boasting about cutting tests, Trump seemed to admit that Reality #1 is phony: he is not making a vigorous public health response. But, if he was only joking, he can convey both contradictory messages at the same time: his gullible Tulsa crowd can believe that the pandemic is a hoax, while he can still play-act to educated Republicans about Reality #1.

Sadly, I regret to say, viruses don’t care whether we live in Trump's imaginary rhetorical reality or not.

P.S.: Technical note for my fellow rhetorical scholars. A major school of thought in our field holds that rhetoric creates reality. This opinion has never appealed to me and, now that I’ve retired, I happily say so out loud. I discussed certain aspects of this issue in one of my first academic articles, which was published in Philosophy and Rhetoric. The article is available in databases and large libraries, but the publisher generously allowed the University of South Carolina to post a preprint so you can read an almost-final version at no charge. You can also click on William Harpine's Publications above.

Thanks to the good people at Rev.Com for quickly posting a verbatim transcript of Trump’s speech.

Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and the Christian Right Showed Us What We Should Have Known All Along: There Are Two Different Christianities

Yesterday, after the United States Park Police and National Guard personnel cleared the way by spraying tear gas over what looked like a peaceful crowd, President Donald Trump marched through a phalanx of armored personnel to wave a Bible, firmly closed and upside down, in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington DC. It’s a lovely little church, which I visited and enjoyed many years ago. 

As he held the Bible, Trump showed that the Christian faith in the United States travels in two opposite directions.

Trump, the “President of Law and Order”

Trump had just spoken in the Rose Garden, pledging that:

“The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities, and as their President, I will fight to keep them safe.  I will fight to protect you.  I am your President of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protesters.”

More: Trump and Multivocal Communication

“Law and order” are good things, of course, but the phrase “law and order” is also a long-standing racist trope. (Another example of “multivocal communication,” which I wrote about the other day. Call it a dog whistle if you like.)

Liberal Christians Respond

Washington, D.C. Episcopal Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde responded to Trump on National Public Radio. She pointed out that Trump did not pray but merely posed for a photo, and she commented:

“He did not offer a word of balm or condolence to those who are grieving. He did not seek to unify the country, but rather he used our symbols and our sacred space as a way to reinforce a message that is antithetical to everything that the person of Jesus, whom we follow, and the gospel texts that we strive to emulate.”

Expressing a similar view, religion scholar Diana Butler Bass tweeted this comment in fine rhetorical style:

“As an Episcopalian, I utterly disavow this use of my church as a racist prop. As a Christian, I utterly disavow this use of scripture as a racist prop. As a person of faith, I utterly disavow this use of God as a racist prop. As a human being, I vow to work for love & justice.”

Joseph Biden’s Response

In a speech yesterday in Philadelphia, the home city of American freedom, presumed Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden chastised Trump for waving a Bible without following its teachings:

“The president held up the Bible at St John’s Church yesterday. I just wish he opened it once in a while. Instead of brandishing it. If he opened it, he could have learned something. We’re called to love one another as we love ourselves, it’s really hard work. But it’s the work of America.” 

The Christian Right Defends Trump

Dallas, Texas Megachurch pastor Dr. Robert Jeffress jumped, as we all expected, to Trump’s defense. He tweeted:

“Thank God for a President like @realDonaldTrump who is intent on protecting our great country from anarchists who are trying to destroy it. As the Bible says, ‘Sin is lawlessness’ (1 John 3:4).”

I think Jeffress got that backwards, since he was implying that “lawlessness is sin,” not “sin is lawlessness,” which is what the text says, but that’s really part of his whole concept.

Jeffress then appeared on Fox & Friends to praise President Trump “for demonstratin’ his intent to protect churches from those who would try to destroy them.”

So, Jeffress did not praise Trump for acting in a Christian fashion. That would make no sense, even to him. Instead, he praised Trump for defending the church.

Isn't that how we got the Crusades? But that’s a subject for another day.

Two Christianities

We in the United States have two Christianities, and I don't mean Protestant and Catholic. One Christianity, which, for some bizarre reason, is now called liberal Christianity, is a Christianity that draws on the four Gospels – “gospel” is a Greek word that means “good news” – which teaches that Christians should, above all else, demonstrate their faith by following the gospels’ teachings. These include such supposedly liberal ideas as the Sermon on the Mount’s promise that “Blessed are the poor.”

We have, also, what is often called the Christian Right. I won’t say that Christian Right pastors never cite the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of comfort and love, but it doesn’t happen often. In fact, since I moved to the deep South in 2005, I’ve heard precious few sermons, even in my supposedly liberal social gospel church, using the Sermon on the Mount for a text.

Instead, the Christian Right takes a different view, the view that Dr. Jeffress expressed so succinctly: “to protect churches from those who would try to destroy them.” The Christian Right famously considers religion to be under attack and, despite their enormous political power, its members think of themselves as a persecuted religion. So, when St. John’s Church was damaged during yesterday’s sometimes-violent demonstrations, Jeffress leapt to the view that the entire Christian church is under attack and needs Trump to defend it. The fact that St. John’s Church’s leaders entirely rejected Trump’s visit was irrelevant to him. All that mattered was attack – and defense.

I don’t suppose that any one person has a right to say that he or she defines what is the real Christianity. But if we are going to understand our religious and cultural divide, we need to understand that the United States lives with two versions of the Christian faith and that they contradict one another. One supposedly liberal version draws on the gospels’ teachings and undertakes, as best as fallible people can, to follow Jesus’ example. The other, supposedly conservative, version believes that the church is under attack, seems to assume that God is helpless to defend himself, and justifies a vicious, unethical, and violent response to protect the church from perceived imminent destruction.

So, yesterday’s speaking taught us two lessons in faith. Which lesson do we plan to learn?