Standing Ovations

I counted: President Obama received around 40 standing ovations during his State of the Union on Tuesday, which started me on a thought process around the tradition of standing ovations. A large part of their value, I feel, is that they are given out sparingly, to extraordinary individuals at rare points in time - so that when one is given, it's a signal, a message of sorts, of what resonates with the audience. But when you have 40 in a time period of less than an hour, averaging about 0.75 standing ovations per minute, each successive standing ovation decreases in value, and one is left wondering what the audience really cared about. I think this is especially true in the field of politics. I re-watched Obama's speech to track some simple trends on how he earned his standing ovations. Here's what I came up with:


Obama's statements on recovery from the banking crisis (through renewed lending) and reform (energy, health care, education) won the greatest percentage of standing ovations, but even so, when you have a relatively even distribution of consensus from an audience, what does a speaker leave the stage with? The audience has a message, too.


When you break down the reform slice of the pie, the results are a tad bit more compelling. Health care and education reforms lead those of energy/climate change.

From a more personal point of view, I've always been one to find standing ovations awkward. If you think about it, it only takes maybe 15 to 20 percent of a large audience to find something standing-ovation worthy, and then that does it, the remaining majority is forced to follow. The next time you feel pressured to do so, just remember: being stingy with your standing ovations is not a bad way to go.