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 — without context — 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.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 — from their personal experience or from a lecture perspective — 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:
→ Where is the audience starting?
→ Where do you want them to end up?
→ 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 — 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? 😉