¶ … listened to a speech in the community. The speech was about a community building moving locations and the speaker was soliciting funds to help the move. The speech was approximately 15 minutes in length. Was the speech interesting and meaningful?

The speech may have been meaningful in that it was dealing with an event that was important to the audience and to the person delivering the speech. It was, however, disinteresting and failed, I think, to make its impact.

Did the speech appear to be well researched, prepared and rehearsed?

I think the speaker was nervous. He hit to the point mentioning the move, mentioning their need for money, and requesting it. The speech seemed to be impromptu. There was little research to be conducted since the speaker was familiar with the situation. He knew the amount of money needed as well as the new location of the organization. Being that he was president of this organization, he was also familiar with its functions (namely as a small organization with a board of 5 members that offered programming for adolescents and adults).

Nonetheless, the speech revolved around the same point: the need for money in order to ascertain the continued success of the organization. Preparation may have benefited the speech by extending its appeal and making it more effective.

Did the speaker present his information with conviction and enthusiasm?

The data consisted solely in information about the move -- location and date -- as well as amount of money needed for move. The speaker did mention the need for their move and excitement in their move. Nonetheless, his speech seemed dry and shorn of conviction and enthusiasm. Being that their present building was drab and cramped, that they had lost potential members due to their decrepitude, that they had rented from another and would now own their own, that their rental prices had previously been high and for various other reasons -- I was expecting more enthusiasm in the speech. It seemed to me as though the speaker wanted to finish it as fast as he had begun.

Did the speaker talk clearly and audibly?

The speaker's speech was sufficiently audible to reach his small audience. However, I found it garbled and hasty as though he was uncomfortable...

It was presented smoothly and without distraction. This being that the speaker apparently just wished to hurdle through a seemingly unpleasant task and proceed to the party that followed it.
He stood up, delivered his speech for money. Informed the audience about the imminent move. Briefly reminded them about the need for the move. Mentioned the sum of money needed. And told them about the need for this money in order to guarantee the continuing success of their organization. He then proceeded to the party that was held as celebration for the appeal and move.

Did the speech have a definite opening, body and conclusion?

The speech seemed to form into one coherent logistical whole where introduction, body, and conclusion merged into the same appeal. There may well have been an introduction -- it was not obvious -- with the speaker mentioning the imminent move. The body was the appeal for money. The conclusion likely was the importance of these funds to the continuance of their activities.

Did the speaker perform well with or without notes?

The speaker had no notes. His speech was impromptu. He may have performed worse with notes.

It was better that his speech was impromptu. However, in all cases -- regardless of length of speech - speeches benefit from preparation and it was apparent that speaker seemed to lack this.

Was the flow of ideas clear and logical?

The flow was clear and logical: informing audience about purpose of speech, informing audience about need for money, informing them about importance of money. He failed to thank them.

Was the pace suitable to impart the information?

The pace was too fast, possibly due to anxiety of speaker and…