As always, we orient ourselves toward working with the affluent. To best serve us in this respect, we must use language and speech powerfully.

The more you read, the bigger your vocabulary.

However, a huge vocabulary doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be a great speaker. Oration is a different best altogether.

First you have the fear of public speaking to get over (if you're inflicted with this, the most common of fears) and then of course you have to have something to say.

The next obstacle. . . the delivery.

My transcriptionist tells me I say 'In other words' a lot. I believe I do this for two reasons.

I do this in part because I want to be fully understood.

Another reason I do this is because I don't often use the filler words 'um' or 'uh'. In other words, I'm filling the space with in other words.

Michael Erard has written a great book called 'Um. . . Slips, Stumbles and Verbal Blunders and What They Mean' in which he suggests that 'um', or the concept of 'um', is a universal language filler (in France it's 'euh' and in Spain it's 'eh'). He further suggests that 'um' dates back to Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt.

Since the advent of television and radio 'um' has been thought of something we need to extinguish from usage. Instead of verbal filler, it has wrongly become an sign of a lack of verbal polish.

'Um. . .' (the book) starts out with the transcriptionists of the Federal News Service (FNS). They're the ones that do the closed captions for the hearing impaired.

At the FNS, the transcriptionists are given style guidelines: 'um', 'uh', 'ah' and 'er' are all left out, as are false starts of one or two words and partial words. The one exception for all of these rules is that absolutely everything a policymaker is typed out.

I couldn't help myself. I skipped ahead and read the chapter on George W. Bush. And while it's not as funny as 'Bushisms' it is quite an interesting take on perception and how people view him as a result of his "disfluencies".

Some consider George W. 'down home' and 'one of the people' with his speech patterns and gaffes making him more accessible and affable. While others consider his blunders to be an indication of his 'lack of preparedness' and/or intelligence and a dangerous indication of a 'disconnect with reality'.

No matter what you think of the man, you've got to admit some of his blunders have been really funny.

If every word you uttered were recorded and transcribed, what kinds of patterns do you think you'd find? Pay attention to the way you and others talk, looking for the ums, ahs, false starts, gaffes and blunders you make.

Language is a critical part of persuasion and the ums, uhs, and other fillers 'say something' to your prospect when you verbalize them. Keep that in mind when you are persuading the affluent.