Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 76698a1519d4a270ba56b2bcd1cc922defee74613c61859dccb03180a1719875

# Spread the Word

Teams translate core ideas from a brief presentation into a short pitch tailored for a specific persona. Paired teams pitch to the same persona, and peers vote on which framing fits best.

**Time:** 35 minutes. Thiagi's original design recommends 30 to 60 minutes. This 35-minute plan assumes a lecture was already completed or occupies the first 10 minutes.
**People:** 4 to 24. 2 teams (for 4 to 11 participants) or 4 teams (for 12 to 24 participants), with 2 to 6 participants per team

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Adapt core concepts into language, tone, and examples suited to a specific target audience.
**Use it when:** After a short informational lecture or technical briefing where participants need to test how well they can explain key points to non-experts or distinct user groups.
**Skip it when:** Skip when the session lacks an initial content briefing or when participants need to critique the content rather than explain it to outside audiences.

## Materials and tools

- Blank paper or index cards (1 pad per team)
- Pens (1 per participant)
- Audience persona cards or visible prompt list (1 audience type per pair of teams)
- Timer or stopwatch

## Before participants arrive

1. Prepare 1 to 2 distinct audience persona cards relevant to the topic (for instance: seven-year-old children, factory line workers, or corporate executives).
2. Arrange seating so small teams of 2 to 6 can confer quietly without disrupting neighboring groups.

## Say this to open

You just heard the briefing on our topic. Knowing the material is only half the job; the real test is explaining it clearly to someone else. I will divide you into teams. Each pair of teams will receive the same target audience. Your task is to craft a 2-minute explanation of the key ideas specifically tailored to that audience. You will present your pitches, and the rest of the room will vote on which version fits the persona best.

## How to run it

### 1. Form teams and assign target audiences (3 minutes)

Divide participants into an even number of teams: form 2 teams for groups of 4 to 11 people, or 4 teams for groups of 12 to 24 people, keeping 2 to 6 members per team. If the group has an odd number of people, allow one team to have one extra member. Assign each pair of teams the same target persona from the prompt cards. For example, Team A and Team B both prepare for seven-year-olds; Team C and Team D both prepare for budget analysts.

### 2. Draft audience-specific presentations (12 minutes)

Teams work independently to draft a 2-minute pitch explaining the key points of the briefing to their assigned audience. Remind them to pick vocabulary, analogies, and examples that make sense to that audience. One or two members from each team agree to speak.

### 3. Run paired pitch presentations and vote (14 minutes)

Call up the first pair of teams. The non-competing teams remain in the room as the audience. Team 1 delivers their 2-minute pitch while Team 2 waits outside or steps away to avoid copying. Team 2 then returns and delivers their 2-minute pitch. The remaining teams vote on which presentation best matched the persona. If running 2 teams total, the facilitator judges or teams identify effective techniques used by each other. Repeat this sequence for the second pair of teams if 4 teams are present.

### 4. Debrief framing choices (6 minutes)

Reconvene the full room. Facilitate a short discussion using the debrief questions to examine what language changes made the technical concepts accessible. Take up to 3 volunteer responses per question.


## Debrief questions

- What specific words or metaphors made the presentation fit the assigned persona?
- Where did you feel tempted to use technical jargon, and how did you replace it?
- What core idea was hardest to translate without losing its original meaning?

**Finished output:** A set of delivered 2-minute verbal pitches translating key lecture themes for specified external audiences.

## Remote

Place each team into a separate breakout room for the 12-minute prep phase. When returning to the main room, keep the neutral audience teams in the main room to observe. Move only the competing team into a temporary waiting room or separate breakout room while the first team delivers their pitch. Bring the competing team back to deliver their pitch. Use in-meeting polling or chat reactions for the neutral audience vote.

## Hybrid

Form paired teams within the same modality when possible (in-person teams pitch against in-person teams, remote pitch against remote). Ensure all pitches are broadcast clearly to all participants via the room screen, room microphones, and video conferencing platform. Run all voting through an online poll or shared chat so both in-person and remote participants cast ballots simultaneously.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may contribute by writing points, timing, or acting as the designated speaker.
- Anyone who prefers not to speak publicly can draft notes or act as a neutral audience evaluator.

## If the session gets stuck

**One team simply repeats lecture jargon without altering the vocabulary for the persona.**

During the 12-minute drafting time, check in with groups and ask: 'Would an actual member of this persona know that term? How would you describe it using an everyday object?'

**The waiting team complains that hearing the first team gives the second team an unfair edge.**

Enforce the waiting rule strictly: have the second team step out of the room or into a digital breakout room during the first team's 2-minute presentation.


## Terms used here

- Persona: A brief profile of a specific target audience, including their background knowledge, priorities, and daily language.

## Participant material: Sample Audience Persona Cards

Persona 1: Seven-Year-Old Elementary Students
Context: High energy, concrete thinkers, short attention span. They understand stories, games, animals, and physical actions. Avoid abstract definitions, acronyms, or corporate processes.

Persona 2: Executive Budget Committee
Context: Time-pressed decision-makers. They look for cost, risk, efficiency, and measurable outcomes. Avoid operational minutiae and long academic introductions.

Persona 3: Front-Line Operations Staff
Context: Practical, busy professionals who need to know: What changes in my daily shift? Does this make my job easier or harder? Avoid high-level strategy buzzwords.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed on The Thiagi Group website, which credits the design to Sivasailam Thiagarajan and Regina Rowland as an interactive lecture activity.

The core mechanic of assigning paired teams the same target audience to deliver parallel pitches and peer voting is drawn directly from Thiagi and Regina Rowland's design. UWT added explicit timing bands, structured persona cards, hybrid guidance, and concrete debrief questions.

[The Thiagi Group](https://www.thiagi.com/archived-games/2015/2/6/spread-the-word)

[SessionLab](https://www.sessionlab.com/methods/spread-the-word)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/spread-the-word/