Ted Talk Analysis - Smoking Deconstructed

The Ted Talk I observed was titled “Smoking Deconstructed” by James Monsees. The speaker is a graduate of Stanford University and the CEO of PAX labs, a company that produces premium vaporizers. The speaker, at Brussels in 2013, attempted to deconstruct the stigma against smoking, providing historical examples in the process. He seemed be vying for the then upcoming changes in the tobacco industry, namely vaporizers and electronic cigarettes. As my service learning organization is Kentucky Smoke Free Policy, I thought the Ted Talk was an obvious and relatable choice.

James Monsees at his talk in Brussels

The audience knew the general information about smoking – that a lot of people do it, despite the known, hazardous health effects. The audience then expected the speaker to provide more specific insight such as statistics, and perhaps even the human psychology behind smoking. I expected, more or less, the same things as the audience.

In my opinion, the speaker had some good examples and support. He definitely knew what he was talking about; for example, he cited the CDC to provide some startling statistics about smoking. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths, it accounts for 1 in 5 deaths in the U.S. each year, and people who smoke on average live 10 years less than others. He also brought up some good points about the positives associated with smoking - how it looks cool, even elegant – and provided historical figures such as Marilyn Monroe and James Deen who through smoking, “exuded personality”.  

Overall, the Ted Talk was quite lackluster. First, I have to mention how dull, dry, and monotone the speaker’s delivery was. He basically used the same tone for the duration of the 18 minutes, creating this very unappealing performance. The most important thing about his lack of tone variance was that he seemed dispassionate. While he certainly seemed to be an authority on the talk he was giving (based on some examples), he didn’t know how to effectively deliver his knowledge to inspire the audience. He also did not have a single visual example, which might have helped to make his presentation more interesting. Perhaps most critically, he started looking at his notecard towards the end. This severely lowered his credibility, as he didn’t seem fully prepared.

From 15:05~15:20, the speaker has some awkard pauses

In terms of content, the speaker could have had better organization and clarity. At one point, he starts talking about this one experiment conducted in the 1970s by Bruce Alexander. He then continues to elaborate on the specifics of the experiment conducted on rats for several minutes. The problem was that while he did explain how the experiment was related to his topic, it was done only in a very loose manner. He didn’t quite elaborate fully on how the example he provided was actually relevant to the act of smoking. Also, he seemed to jump around with his points, not proceeding in a logical and cohesive manner. Right after the experiment example, he suddenly started talking about his past experiences, without really transitioning properly. This lack of clear organization further made the presentation as a whole quite boring. If he could have presented in a more engaging and clear manner, the talk would have been many times more effective.