presentation advantages and disadvantages

• Onsite training

3,000,000+ delegates

15,000+ clients

1,000+ locations

• KnowledgePass
• Log a ticket

01344203999 Available 24/7

Advantages and Disadvantages of Presentation

Exploring the 'Advantages and Disadvantages of Presentation,' this blog explores how presentations can effectively communicate ideas yet sometimes hinder creativity. It discusses the ease of conveying complex information visually and the potential for engaging audiences but also considers the challenges of over-reliance on visuals and potential misinterpretation.

Exclusive 40% OFF

Training Outcomes Within Your Budget!

We ensure quality, budget-alignment, and timely delivery by our expert instructors.

Share this Resource

• Effective Communication Skills
• Presenting with Impact Training
• Interpersonal Skills Training Course
• Effective Presentation Skills & Techniques
• Public Speaking Course

Table of Contents  

1) What is a Presentation: A brief introduction 

2) Advantages of Presentations 

3) Disadvantages of Presentations 

4) How to make a successful Presentation? 

5) Conclusion 

What is a Presentation: A brief introduction  

A Presentation refers to a method of conveying information, ideas, or data to an audience using visual aids and spoken words. It is a formal or informal communication tool used in various settings, such as business meetings, educational environments, conferences, or public speaking engagements. 

During a Presentation, the presenter uses visual elements like slides, charts, graphs, images, and multimedia to support and enhance their spoken content. The goal of a Presentation is to engage the audience, effectively communicate the message, and leave a lasting impact on the listeners. You can ace your presentation skill by understanding various presentation skills interview questions and answers . It will expand your horizon to elevate your skills. 

Presentation Skills can be used to cover a wide variety of Presentations, from business proposals and academic research to sales pitches and motivational speeches.The success of a Presentation depends on the presenter's ability to organize the content coherently, engage the audience, and deliver the information in a clear and compelling manner, showcasing strong principles of presentation skills. Therefore, it is essential to understand the elements of presentation .

Unlock your full potential as a presenter with our Presentation Skills Training Course. Join now!  

Advantages of Presentations  

Effective communication  

One of the primary advantages of Presentations is their ability to facilitate effective communication. Whether you're addressing a small group of colleagues or a large audience at a conference, Presentations help you to convey your message clearly and succinctly. By structuring your content and using visuals, you can ensure that your key points are highlighted and easily understood by the audience. 

Visual appeal  

"Seeing is believing," and Presentations capitalise on this aspect of human psychology. The use of visuals, such as charts, graphs, images, and videos, enhances the overall appeal of the content. These visual aids not only make the information more engaging but also help reinforce the main ideas, making the Presentation more memorable for the audience. 

Engaging the audience  

Captivating your audience's attention is crucial for effective communication. Presentations provide ample opportunities to engage your listeners through various means. By incorporating storytelling, anecdotes, and real-life examples, you can nurture an emotional connection with your audience. Additionally, interactive elements like polls, quizzes, and group activities keep the audience actively involved throughout the Presentation. 

Simplifying complex information  

Complex ideas and data can often be overwhelming, making it challenging to convey them effectively. However, Presentations excel in simplifying intricate information. By breaking down complex concepts into digestible and interconnected slides, you can present the information in a logical sequence, ensuring that the audience grasps the content more easily. 

Persuasive impact  

Presentations are powerful tools for persuasion and influence. Whether you're convincing potential clients to invest in your product, advocating for a particular cause, or delivering a motivational speech, a well-crafted Presentation can sway the audience's opinions and inspire action. The combination of visual and verbal elements enables you to make a compelling case for your ideas, leaving a lasting impact on the listeners. 

Versatility in delivery methods  

Another advantage of Presentations lies in their flexibility and versatility in terms of delivery methods. Gone are the days when Presentations were limited to in-person meetings. Today, technology allows presenters to reach a wider audience through various platforms, including webinars, online videos, and virtual conferences. This adaptability makes Presentations an ideal choice for modern communication needs. 

Enhanced understanding and retention  

When information is presented in a visually appealing and structured manner, it aids in better understanding and retention. Human brains process visuals faster and more effectively than plain text, making Presentations an ideal medium for conveying complex concepts. The combination of visual elements and spoken words create a multi-sensory experience, leading to increased information retention among the audience. 

Professionalism and credibility  

In professional settings, well-designed Presentations lend an air of credibility and professionalism to the presenter and the topic being discussed. A thoughtfully crafted Presentation shows that the presenter has put effort into preparing and organising the content, which in turn enhances the audience's trust and receptiveness to the information presented. 

Take your Presentations to the next level with our Effective Presentation Skills & Techniques Course. Sign up today!  

Disadvantages of Presentations  

Time-consuming  

Creating a compelling Presentation can be a time-consuming process. From researching and gathering relevant information to designing visually appealing slides, a significant amount of effort goes into ensuring that the content is well-structured and impactful. This time investment can be challenging, especially when presenters have tight schedules or are faced with last-minute Presentation requests. 

Technical glitches  

Presentations heavily rely on technology, and technical glitches can quickly turn a well-prepared Presentation into a frustrating experience. Projectors may malfunction, slides might not load correctly, or audiovisual components may fail to work as expected. Dealing with such technical issues during a Presentation can disrupt the flow and distract both the presenter and the audience. 

Overdependence on technology  

In some cases, presenters may become overly reliant on the visuals and technology, neglecting the importance of direct engagement with the audience. Overloaded slides with excessive text can make presenters read directly from the slides, undermining the personal connection and interaction with the listeners. This overdependence on technology can lead to a lack of spontaneity and authenticity during the Presentation. 

Lack of interactivity  

Traditional Presentations, particularly those delivered in large auditoriums, may lack interactivity and real-time feedback. In comparison, modern Presentation formats can incorporate interactive elements; not all Presentations provide opportunities for audience participation or discussions. This one-sided communication can lead to reduced engagement and limited opportunities for clarifying doubts or addressing queries. 

Public speaking anxiety  

For many individuals, public speaking can be a nerve-wracking experience. Presenting in front of an audience, especially in formal settings, can trigger anxiety and stage fright. This anxiety may affect the presenter's delivery and confidence, impacting the overall effectiveness of the Presentation. Overcoming public speaking anxiety requires practice, self-assurance, and effective stress management techniques. 

Not suitable for all topics  

While Presentations are an excellent medium for conveying certain types of information, they may not be suitable for all topics. Some subjects require in-depth discussions, hands-on demonstrations, or interactive workshops, which may not align well with the traditional slide-based Presentation format. Choosing the appropriate communication method for specific topics is crucial to ensure effective knowledge transfer and engagement. 

Accessibility concerns  

In a diverse audience, some individuals may face challenges in accessing and comprehending Presentation materials. For instance, people with visual impairments may find it difficult to interpret visual elements, while those with hearing impairments may struggle to follow the spoken content without proper captions or transcripts. Addressing accessibility concerns is vital to ensure inclusivity and equal participation for all attendees. 

Information overload  

Presentations that bombard the audience with excessive information on each slide can lead to information overload. When the audience is overwhelmed with data, they may struggle to absorb and retain the key points. Presenters should strike a balance between providing adequate information and keeping the content concise and focused. 

How to make a successful Presentation?  

Now that we know the Advantages and Disadvantages of Presentations, we will provide you with some tips on how to make a successful Presentation. 

1) Know your audience: Understand your audience's needs and interests to tailor your content accordingly. 

2) Start with a strong opening: Begin with an attention-grabbing introduction to captivate the audience from the start of presentation .

3) Organise your content logically: Structure your Presentation in a clear and coherent manner with a beginning, middle, and end. 

4) Limit text on slides: Keep slides simple and avoid overcrowding with excessive text; use bullet points and keywords. 

5) Use visuals effectively: Incorporate high-quality images, graphs, and charts to enhance understanding and engagement. 

6) Practice, practice, practice: Rehearse your Presentation multiple times to improve your delivery and confidence. 

7) Be enthusiastic and confident: Show passion for your topic and maintain good eye contact to build trust with the audience. 

8) Tell stories and use examples: Include relevant anecdotes and case studies to make your points more relatable and memorable. 

9) Keep it interactive: Encourage audience participation through questions, polls, or discussions to keep them engaged. 

10) Manage time wisely: Respect the allotted time for your Presentation and pace your delivery accordingly. 

11) End with a strong conclusion: Summarise your key points and leave the audience with a clear takeaway or call to action. 

Conclusion  

All in all, Presentations have altered the way we communicate and share information. While they offer numerous advantages, such as effective communication, visual appeal, and persuasive impact, they also come with their share of disadvantages, including technical challenges and public speaking anxiety. By understanding the advantages and disadvantages of presentations and employing best practices, we can Improve Presesntation Skills , create engaging and impactful presentations that leave a lasting impression on the audience.

Want to master the art of impactful Presentations? Explore our Presentation Skills Courses and elevate your communication prowess!  

Frequently Asked Questions

Upcoming business skills resources batches & dates.

Fri 3rd May 2024

Fri 7th Jun 2024

Fri 5th Jul 2024

Fri 2nd Aug 2024

Fri 6th Sep 2024

Fri 4th Oct 2024

Fri 1st Nov 2024

Fri 6th Dec 2024

Get A Quote

WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

My employer

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry

• Business Analysis
• Lean Six Sigma Certification

Share this course

Our biggest spring sale.

We cannot process your enquiry without contacting you, please tick to confirm your consent to us for contacting you about your enquiry.

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry.

We may not have the course you’re looking for. If you enquire or give us a call on 01344203999 and speak to our training experts, we may still be able to help with your training requirements.

Or select from our popular topics

• ITIL® Certification
• Scrum Certification
• Change Management Certification
• Business Analysis Courses
• Microsoft Azure Certification
• Microsoft Excel & Certification Course
• Microsoft Project
• Explore more courses

Press esc to close

Fill out your  contact details  below and our training experts will be in touch.

Fill out your   contact details   below

Thank you for your enquiry!

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go over your training requirements.

Back to Course Information

Fill out your contact details below so we can get in touch with you regarding your training requirements.

* WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

Preferred Contact Method

No preference

Back to course information

Fill out your  training details  below

Fill out your training details below so we have a better idea of what your training requirements are.

HOW MANY DELEGATES NEED TRAINING?

HOW DO YOU WANT THE COURSE DELIVERED?

Online Instructor-led

Online Self-paced

WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS COURSE?

Next 2 - 4 months

WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR ENQUIRING?

Looking for some information

Looking for a discount

I want to book but have questions

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go overy your training requirements.

Your privacy & cookies!

Like many websites we use cookies. We care about your data and experience, so to give you the best possible experience using our site, we store a very limited amount of your data. Continuing to use this site or clicking “Accept & close” means that you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about our privacy policy and cookie policy cookie policy .

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. Please visit our cookie policy for more information. To accept all cookies click 'Accept & close'.

Disadvantages & Advantages of a Powerpoint Presentation

Part of the Microsoft Office suite, PowerPoint is used to create presentations for personal, professional and educational use. The software comes with numerous advantages when it comes to making engaging presentations, collaborating and sharing information. Even better, little training is needed to get started. Despite these advantages, you should consider concerns such as cost, possible technical problems, and the potential for ineffective presentations. Understanding all the PowerPoint presentation pros and cons can help you use this software more effectively.

Advertisement

Basics of PowerPoint Presentations

Video of the Day

PowerPoint presentations feature slides where you can put text, images, videos, audio, tables of data and mathematical formulas. You have control over placing and formatting the content and can annotate slides, make custom drawings, and record narration that goes along with the presentation. The software comes with a variety of animations and transitions and gives users control over whether they want to use an automated slideshow or present the slides manually.

Advantages of PowerPoint Presentations

When considering making a PowerPoint presentation, consider the benefits that using the software can offer:

• Flexible uses : Individuals, businesses and educators often use PowerPoint presentations to share information in slideshows, but the uses go far beyond that. For example, you can use PowerPoint to create graphics such as banners, brochures, charts and logos for a business. Other uses include calendars, photo albums and collages, invitations, screen recordings, brainstorming maps and resumes.
• Engaging presentations : PowerPoint gives you the tools to make engaging presentations that go beyond only text and images to include videos, narration and animations. When used correctly, such presentations help teachers and trainers keep their learners interested and appeal to multiple learning styles.
• Detailed customization : PowerPoint gives you full control over your slides' appearance so that you can align content, add annotations, use lists and highlight important information visually. You can also control the slide size to fit your needs.
• Suitable for beginners : While training helps with using PowerPoint's advanced features, beginners can quickly get started thanks to the program's huge selection of templates. These templates come with a variety of backgrounds, layouts and themes. You can search by project types such as resumes, posters or charts.
• Easy sharing and collaboration : Microsoft Office comes with tools that let you share your PowerPoint presentation to the cloud where others can view and work on it with you easily.

Disadvantages of PowerPoint Presentations

While PowerPoint can offer many benefits for personal, educational or professional use, keep in mind these disadvantages of PowerPoint presentations:

• May not always engage users : Although you can make engaging PowerPoint presentations that use multimedia effectively, not all presentations end up that way. Sometimes, the presentations hinder learning when the slides contain distracting elements or contain only text and narration that viewers tune out.
• Technical issues : Using PowerPoint can create some headaches when you face compatibility issues, corrupted files or internet problems. For example, Microsoft included a compatibility mode in the program to open older files, but some elements might not work correctly. You might also face hard drive problems that cause you to lose your presentation file if you haven't backed it up, and internet outages make it impossible for users to see your presentation when you share it online.
• Potential cost : While Microsoft offers a free basic version of PowerPoint online, you likely need to pay for an annual subscription if you want to use the desktop and mobile apps and gain access to all features. The price depends on whether you need a home or office version of Microsoft Office and how many users you have.
• Lack of flexibility during slideshow presentations : Once you start a slide show, you can't easily make changes or annotate any slides during the presentation. Instead, you control moving through slides or ending the presentation. So, you need to ensure your presentation is ready to go beforehand.
• Drexel University: Advantages and Disadvantages of Powerpoint Presentations in Business
• 24 Slides: 30 Amazing Things You Can Do and Create in PowerPoint
• Commonwealth of Learning: Facilitating Using Powerpoint
• Brandon Gaille: 10 Pros and Cons of Powerpoint Presentations
• Microsoft: Buy Office
• Microsoft: What Is Powerpoint?
• Microsoft: Work Together on Powerpoint Presentations

Report an Issue

Screenshot loading...

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Does a presentation’s medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

Affiliation Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America

Affiliation Minerva Schools at the Keck Graduate Institute, San Francisco, California, United States of America

• Samuel T. Moulton, 
• Selen Türkay, 
• Stephen M. Kosslyn

• Published: July 5, 2017
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774
• Reader Comments

12 Oct 2017: The PLOS ONE Staff (2017) Correction: Does a presentation's medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations. PLOS ONE 12(10): e0186673. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186673 View correction

Despite the prevalence of PowerPoint in professional and educational presentations, surprisingly little is known about how effective such presentations are. All else being equal, are PowerPoint presentations better than purely oral presentations or those that use alternative software tools? To address this question we recreated a real-world business scenario in which individuals presented to a corporate board. Participants (playing the role of the presenter) were randomly assigned to create PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral presentations, and then actually delivered the presentation live to other participants (playing the role of corporate executives). Across two experiments and on a variety of dimensions, participants evaluated PowerPoint presentations comparably to oral presentations, but evaluated Prezi presentations more favorably than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. There was some evidence that participants who viewed different types of presentations came to different conclusions about the business scenario, but no evidence that they remembered or comprehended the scenario differently. We conclude that the observed effects of presentation format are not merely the result of novelty, bias, experimenter-, or software-specific characteristics, but instead reveal a communication preference for using the panning-and-zooming animations that characterize Prezi presentations.

Citation: Moulton ST, Türkay S, Kosslyn SM (2017) Does a presentation’s medium affect its message? PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations. PLoS ONE 12(7): e0178774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774

Editor: Philip Allen, University of Akron, UNITED STATES

Received: November 2, 2016; Accepted: May 18, 2017; Published: July 5, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 Moulton et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data files are available from the Open Science Framework https://osf.io/fgf7c/ .

Funding: This research was supported by a grant from Prezi ( http://www.prezi.com ) to SMK. In the sponsored research agreement (which we are happy to provide) and in our conversations with Prezi leadership, they agreed to let us conduct the study as we wished and publish it no matter what the results revealed. Aside from funding the research, the only role that any employees of Prezi played was (as documented in the manuscript) 1) to provide us with a distribution list of Boston-area Prezi customers (8 of whom participated in the first experiment) and 2) as experts in Prezi, review the background questionnaire to ensure that we were accurately describing Prezi’s purported benefits and features (just as PowerPoint and oral presentation experts did the same). No employees at Prezi had any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. None of the authors have any professional or financial connection to Prezi or personal relationships with any Prezi employees. We do not plan to conduct any follow-up research on this topic or obtain future funding from Prezi. As evident in the manuscript, we took special care not to allow bias or demand characteristics to influence this research.

Competing interests: This research was supported by a grant to SMK from Prezi ( http://www.prezi.com ), a commercial funder. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction

How do the characteristics of a communication medium affect its messages? This question has been the subject of much philosophical and empirical inquiry, with some (e.g., [ 1 ]) claiming that the medium determines the message (“the medium is the message”), others (e.g., [ 2 ]) claiming that characteristics of a medium affect the message, and others claiming that the medium and message are separable (e.g.,[ 3 , 4 ]). As psychologists, we ask: What mental mechanisms underlie effective communication and how can presenters leverage these mechanisms to communicate better? These questions—at the intersection of psychology and communication practice—motivate this research.

That said, the relative efficacy of different communication media or technologies informs the primary questions of interest. If we can demonstrate that oral presentations are less or more effective than those that rely on presentation software—or that presenters who use one type of presentation software tend to be more effective than those who use another—then we advance our psychological and practical understanding of effective communication. Thus, in the tradition of use-inspired basic research [ 5 ]—and as a means to an end, rather than an end unto itself—we compare the effectiveness of three commonly-used formats for communication: oral, PowerPoint, and Prezi presentations.

We focused on presentations because they populate our academic, professional, and even personal lives in the form of public speeches, academic lectures, webinars, class presentations, wedding toasts, courtroom arguments, sermons, product demonstrations, and business presentations [ 6 – 8 ], and because basic questions remain about how to present effectively. Should we present with or without presentation software? If we should present with software, which software? We examined PowerPoint and Prezi because they are popular and psychologically interesting alternatives: Whereas PowerPoint’s linear slide format might reduce cognitive load, focus attention, and promote logical analysis, Prezi’s map-like canvas format and heavy reliance on animation (see the Background section and https://prezi.com for examples) might facilitate visuospatial processing, conceptual understanding, and narrative storytelling.

To inform the present research, we explore the methodological challenges of media research and review past research on presentation formats.

Methodological challenges of media research

To research the efficacy of different communication formats fairly and accurately, one must overcome two stubborn methodological challenges. First, because correlation is not causation and the variables that underlie media usage are heavily confounded, such research requires true experimentation. To study whether a blended learning “flipped classroom” is a more effective instructional medium than traditional lecturing, for example, researchers gain little insight by comparing outcomes for students who enroll in one type of course versus the other. To control for audience (in this case, student) self-selection effects, researchers need to 1) randomly assign audience members to different communication conditions (in this case, pedagogies) or 2) manipulate format within participants. Moreover, the same methodological controls need to be applied to presenters (in this case, instructors). Instructors who choose to teach with emerging, innovative methods probably differ in numerous other respects (e.g., motivation) from those who teach with more traditional methods. If students assigned randomly to a flipped classroom format perform better than those assigned randomly to a traditional classroom format, we risk drawing inferences about confounds instead of causes unless instructors are also assigned randomly to instructional media. To make strong, accurate inferences, therefore, researchers interested in communication must control for audience and presenter self-selection effects. Such control introduces new complexities; when randomly assigning presenters to formats, for example, one must ensure that all presenters receive sufficient training in the relevant format. Moreover, such control is often cumbersome, sometimes impractical, and occasionally unethical (e.g., randomly assigning students in actual courses to hypothetically worse instructional conditions). But there are no adequate methodological substitutes for proper experimental control.

A second thorny methodological challenge inherent in conducting media research concerns how to draw general inferences about formats instead of specific inferences about exemplars of those formats. For example, if one advertising expert is assigned randomly to design a print ad and another expert a television ad—and a hundred consumers are assigned randomly to view the television or print ad—can we actually infer anything about print versus television ads in general when the two groups of consumers behave differently? Arguably not, because such a finding is just as easily explained by other (confounding) differences between the ads or their creators (e.g., ratio of print to graphics, which sorts of people—if any—are shown, and so forth). In other words, even with proper random assignment, researchers who intend to study different forms of communication risk merely studying different instances of communication. Statistically speaking, one should assume a random not fixed effect of the communication objects of interest (e.g., presentations, lectures, advertisements). To overcome this challenge and draw generalizable inferences, one must (at the very least) sample a sufficiently large set of examples within each medium.

Research on presentation software

Methodological shortcomings..

Considerable research has been conducted on how different presentation formats (particularly PowerPoint) convey information (for review, see [ 9 ]). However, much of this research is anecdotal or based on case studies. For example, Tufte [ 10 ] claims that PowerPoint’s default settings lead presenters to create bulleted lists and vacuous graphs that abbreviate arguments and fragment thought. And Kjeldsen [ 11 ] used Al Gore’s TED talk on climate change as a positive example of how visuals can be used to effectively convey evidence and enhance verbal communication.

Research that goes beyond mere anecdote or case study is plagued by the aforementioned methodological shortcomings: failure to control for audience self-selection effects (71% of studies), failure to control for presenter self-selection effects (100% of studies), and a problematic assumption of fixed effects across content and presenters (91% of studies). As is evident in Table 1 , no studies overcame two of these shortcomings, let alone all three. For example, in one of the most heavily-cited publications on this topic Szabo and Hasting [ 12 ] investigated the efficacy of PowerPoint in undergraduate education. In the first study, they examined whether students who received lectures with PowerPoint performed better on a test than students who received traditional lectures. Students were not assigned randomly to lecture conditions, however; rather, the comparison was across time, between two cohorts of students enrolled in different iterations of the same course. Any observed outcome difference could have been caused by student or instructor variables (e.g., preparedness), not lecture format. The fact that no such differences were found does not obviate this concern: Such differences may in fact have been present, but were overshadowed by confounding characteristics of students or instructors. In the second study, the authors varied presentation format within the same cohort of students, but confounded format with order, time, content, and performance measure: student performance was compared between lectures on different days, on different topics, and using different tests. As the authors themselves note, the observed differences may have had nothing to do with PowerPoint. In the third study, they counterbalanced lecture order and content; some students received a PowerPoint lecture first and others a traditional lecture first, and the same topics were presented in both formats. However, students were assigned to conditions based on their course enrollment, not randomly, but more importantly the study included only four presentations, all by one presenter. Any advantages of the two PowerPoint lectures (none were found) might have been particular to those instances or that presenter and not representative of the format more generally.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t001

Most studies—even those that control experimentally for audience self-selection—relied on only a single self-selected presenter, and some relied on only one presentation per format. In one study ([ 13 ]: Experiment 1), for example, one of the authors varied the format of his lecture instruction randomly across the semester, using transparences or PowerPoint slides. In another study [ 14 ], students who were enrolled in one of the authors’ courses were assigned randomly to a PowerPoint or Prezi e-lecture that contained identical audio narration and written text. In a third study [ 15 ], one of the researchers gave the same lecture over the course of the year to rotating medical students, using PowerPoint on odd months and overhead slides on even months. What reason is there to think that we can make general claims about presentation format based on studies of single lectures or single presenters? That is, how can we reasonably assume fixed as opposed to random effects? If the use of presentation software does meaningfully influence student learning or experience, surely that effect is not constant across all presenters or presentations—some instructors use it more effectively than others, and within any format some presentations are more effective than others (see [ 16 ]). And how can we assume that presenters who select both the content and format of their presentations are not designing them in ways that favor one format over another?

Research on the efficacy of presentation software has numerous other flaws, most notably the failure to control for experimenter effects or demand characteristics. In 82% of studies we identified, for example, the researchers investigated their own instruction and studied their own students. It is difficult to imagine that one would make these instructional and research efforts (e.g., creating new course material, conducting a field experiment) without a strong belief in the efficacy of one format over the other, and it is plausible (if not likely) that such beliefs would influence students or confound instructional format with instructional effort and enthusiasm.

Another common issue is the confounding of lecture format with access to study materials—in studies that contrast PowerPoint with traditional lecturing (e.g., [ 17 – 19 ]), students in the PowerPoint condition (but not the control condition) sometimes have access to PowerPoint slides as study material. This access could bias student motivation, behavior (e.g., attendance), course satisfaction, and performance (see [ 20 ]).

PowerPoint: Performance, perception, and persuasion.

Despite their methodological shortcomings, what are the findings of this research literature? The majority of studies examined the use of PowerPoint in higher education and measured both objective and subjective outcomes (see Table 1 ). They typically involved students enrolled in one or more of the researchers’ courses, and contrasted the efficacy of lectures (or whole lecture courses) that used PowerPoint with those that used a more traditional technology (e.g., blackboards, overhead projectors). In terms of student performance, their findings were notably mixed: Of the 28 studies we identified, 17 found no effect of PowerPoint lectures relative to traditional lectures ([ 12 ]: Experiments 1,3; [ 13 , 15 , 21 – 33 ]), 9 found a performance benefit of PowerPoint over traditional instruction ([ 12 ]: Experiment 2; [ 17 – 19 , 34 – 38 ]), and 2 found a performance benefit of traditional over PowerPoint instruction [ 39 , 40 ].

There is near consensus in the literature, however, when it comes student perception: Of the 26 studies we identified, 21 found that students preferred PowerPoint over traditional instruction ([ 12 ]: Experiment 1; [ 13 , 17 – 19 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 31 – 33 , 35 , 39 , 41 – 45 ]), 2 found that students preferred traditional over PowerPoint instruction [ 40 , 46 ], and 3 other studies found no preference for one or the other formats [ 15 , 22 , 37 ]. As one example, Tang and Austin [ 45 ] surveyed 215 undergraduates in business courses about their general perceptions of different lecture formats; on measures of enjoyment, learning, motivation, and career relevance, they found that students rated lectures with PowerPoint slides more favorably than lectures with overheads or without visual aids. An additional 7 studies did not contrast student perceptions of PowerPoint with another technology—they simply surveyed students about PowerPoint; these studies all found that students had, on average, favorable impressions of PowerPoint-based instruction [ 36 , 47 – 52 ].

In addition to these studies of how presentation software impacts student performance and perception, two studies examined PowerPoint‘s impact on audience persuasion. Guadagno, Sundie, Hardison, and Cialdini [ 53 ] argue that we heuristically use a presentation’s format to evaluate its content, particularly when we lack the expertise to evaluate the content on its merits. To test this hypothesis, they presented undergraduates with key statistics about a university football recruit and asked them to evaluate the recruit’s career prospects. The same statistics were presented in one of three formats: a written summary, a graphical summary via printed-out PowerPoint slides, or a graphical summary via animated PowerPoint slides (self-advanced by the participant). Participants shown the computer-based PowerPoint presentation tended to rate the recruit more positively than other participants, and there was some evidence that this effect was more pronounced for football novices than for experts. The findings of this study suggest that some presentation formats may be more persuasive than others, perhaps because audience members conflate a sophisticated medium with a sophisticated message.

In the second study to examine the impact of PowerPoint on persuasion, Park and Feigenson [ 54 ] examined the impact of video-recorded presentations on mock juror decision-making. Participants were more persuaded by attorneys on either side of a liability case when the attorney used PowerPoint slides as opposed to merely oral argument. They also remembered more details from PowerPoint than oral presentations, and evaluated both attorneys as more persuasive, competent, credible, and prepared when they presented with PowerPoint. Based on mediation analyses, the researchers argue that the decision-making benefit of PowerPoint results from both deliberative and heuristic processing (“slow” and “fast” thinking, respectively, see [ 55 ]).

Both of these studies, however, share the methodological limitations of the educational research on PowerPoint. The first study [ 53 ] used only one PowerPoint presentation, and the second [ 54 ] used only two. The presentations used were not selected at random from a larger stimulus pool but instead were created by researchers who hypothesized that PowerPoint would enhance presentations. But even if the presentations had been sampled randomly, the sample is too small to allow one to generalize to a broader population. In studying performance, perception, or persuasion, one cannot reasonably assume that all presentation effects are equal.

Prezi: A zoomable user interface.

Released in 2009, Prezi has received generally favorable reviews by researchers, educators, and professional critics [ 56 – 60 ]. With a purported 75 million users worldwide, it is increasingly popular but still an order of magnitude less so than PowerPoint (with as many as one billion users; [ 61 ]). Like PowerPoint and other slideware, Prezi allows users to arrange images, graphics, text, audio, video and animations, and to present them alongside aural narration to an in-person or remote audience. In contrast to PowerPoint and other slideware in which users create presentations as a deck of slides, Prezi users create presentations on a single visuospatial canvas. In this regard, Prezi is much like a blackboard and chalk. But unlike a physical blackboard, the Prezi canvas is infinite (cf. [ 62 ]) and zoomable: in designing presentations, users can infinitely expand the size of their canvas and can zoom in or out. When presenting, users define paths to navigate their audience through the map-like presentation, zooming and panning from a fixed-angle overhead view.

Like Google Maps or modern touchscreens, Prezi is an example of what scholars of human-computer interaction label a zoomable user interface (ZUI). These interfaces are defined by two features: They present information in a theoretically infinite two-dimensional space (i.e., an infinite canvas) and they enable users to animate this virtual space through panning and zooming. Some of the original ZUIs were used to visualize history, navigate file systems, browse images, and—in the Prezi predecessor CounterPoint—create presentations [ 63 , 64 ].

As communication and visualization tools, ZUIs in general and Prezi in particular are interesting psychologically for several reasons. First, they may take advantage of our mental and neural architecture, specifically the fact that we process information through dissociable visual and spatial systems. Whereas the so-called “ventral” visual system in the brain processes information such as shape and color, the “dorsal” spatial system processes information such as location and distance [ 65 – 68 ]. When working in concert, these systems result in vastly better memory and comprehension than when they work in isolation. For example, in the classic “method of loci” individuals visualize objects in specific locations; when later trying to recall the objects, they visualize navigating through the space, “seeing” each object in turn. This method typically doubles retention, compared to other ways of trying to memorize objects [ 69 , 70 ]. Similarly, in research on note-taking, students learned more when they used spatial methods than when they used linear methods (e.g., [ 71 ]). Mayer’s multimedia learning principles and evidence in their favor also highlight the importance of spatial contiguity [ 72 ].

Thus, by encouraging users to visualize and process information spatially, ZUIs such as Prezi may confer an advantage over traditional tools such as PowerPoint that do not encourage such visuospatial integration. As Good and Bederson [ 64 ] write: “Because they employ a metaphor based on physical space and navigation, ZUIs offer an additional avenue for exploring the utilization of human spatial abilities during a presentation.”

Furthermore, ZUIs may encourage a particularly efficacious type of spatial processing, namely graphical processing. In graphical processing, digital objects (or groups of objects) are not just arranged in space, they are arranged or connected in a way makes their interrelationships explicit. Randomly placing animal stickers on a blank page, for example, engages mere spatial processing; drawing connecting lines between animals of the same genus or arranging the animals into a phylogenetic tree, however, engages graphical processing. Because ZUIs force users to “see the big picture,” they may prompt deeper processing than software that segments content into separate spatial canvases. By facilitating such processing, ZUIs may leverage the same learning benefits of concept maps and other graphical organizers, which have been studied extensively. For example, in their meta-analysis of the use of concept maps in education, Nesbit and Adesope [ 73 ] found that these graphical representations (especially when animated) were more effective than texts, lists, and outlines. By requiring one to organize the whole presentation on a single canvas instead of a slide deck, therefore, Prezi may prompt presenters (and their audiences) to connect component ideas with each other, contextualize them in a larger narrative, and remember, understand, and appreciate this larger narrative. Slideware, on the other hand, may do just the opposite:

PowerPoint favours information that can be displayed on a single projected 4:3 rectangle. Knowledge that requires more space is disadvantaged … How to include a story on a slide? Distributing the associated text over several slides literally breaks it into fragments, disturbing its natural cohesion and thus coherence … PowerPoint renders obsolete some complex narrative and data forms in favour of those that are easily abbreviated or otherwise lend themselves to display on a series of slides [ 74 ] (p399)

Of course these arguments are speculative, and one can also speculate on the psychological costs of ZUI or benefits of standard slideware. Perhaps PowerPoint does confer some of same spatial processing benefits of Prezi—after all, slides are spatial canvases, and they must be arranged to form a narrative—but in a way that better manages the limited attentional resources of the presenter or audience. Our point here is simply that Prezi, as a ZUI presentation tool, offers a psychologically interesting alternative to standard deck-based slideware, with a range of possible advantages that could be explored empirically to discover the psychological mechanisms of effective communication.

Like the PowerPoint literature, most of the published literature on Prezi is limited to observational reports or case studies. Brock and Brodahl [ 75 ] evaluated Prezi favorably based on their review and students’ ratings of course presentations. Conboy, Fletcher, Russell, and Wilson [ 76 ] interviewed 6 undergraduates and 3 staff members about their experiences with Prezi in lecture instruction and reported generally positive experiences. Masood and Othman [ 77 ] measured the eye movements and subjective judgments of ten participants who viewed a single Prezi presentation; participants attended to the presentation’s text more than to its other components (e.g., images, headings), and favorably judged the presentation. Ballentine [ 78 ] assigned students to use Prezi to design text adventure games and reported benefits of using the medium. Two other studies [ 79 , 80 ] surveyed college students about their course experiences with Prezi, and both reported similarly positive perceptions.

All of these studies, however, suffer from major demand characteristics, due to the fact that the researchers observed or asked leading questions of their own students about their own instruction (e.g., “Do you find lectures delivered with Prezi more engaging then[sic] other lectures?”, from [ 79 ]). Moreover, all suffer from the methodological limitations discussed earlier.

Other literature that addresses Prezi is purely theoretical and speculative: In discussing the pedagogical implications of various presentation software, Harris [ 81 ] mostly just describes Prezi’s features, but does suggest that some of these features provide useful visual metaphors (e.g., zooming in to demonstrate otherwise hidden realities). Bean [ 82 ] offers a particularly compelling analysis of PowerPoint and Prezi’s histories, user interfaces, and visual metaphors, and argues that Prezi is the optimal tool for presenting certain types of information (e.g., wireflow diagrams).

The experimental literature on Prezi is limited to three published studies. Castelyn, Mottart and Valcke [ 14 ] investigated whether a Prezi e-lecture with graphic organizers (e.g., concepts maps) was more effective than a PowerPoint e-lecture without graphic organizers. Claiming that Prezi encourages the use of graphic organizers, they purposefully confounded the type of presentation software with the presence of graphic organizers. Undergraduates randomly assigned to the different e-lectures did not differ in their knowledge or self-efficacy gains, but did prefer the graphically-organized Prezi lecture over the PowerPoint control lecture. In a follow-up study [ 83 ], the same researchers assigned undergraduates to create Prezi presentations that did or did not use graphic organizers, and found no effects of this manipulation on students’ self-reported motivation or self-efficacy. Chou, Chang, and Lu [ 24 ] compared the effects of Prezi, PowerPoint and traditional blackboard instruction on 5 th graders’ learning of geography. Whereas the Prezi group performed better than the control group (which received blackboard instruction) in formative quizzes and a summative test, the PowerPoint group did not; however, on a delayed summative test, both Prezi and PowerPoint students performed better than those in the control group. In direct comparisons of PowerPoint and Prezi, there were no differences in any of the learning measures. Taken together, the studies are not just limited in number: They present uncompelling findings and suffer from the same methodological shortcomings of the PowerPoint research.

The current study

In short, the extant literature does not clarify whether presenters should present with or without visual aids—and, if the latter, whether they should use standard deck-based slideware such as PowerPoint or a ZUI such as Prezi. One of the reasons why these basic questions remain unanswered is the methodological challenges inherent in comparing different presentation formats. We designed the current study to overcome these challenges.

To control for individual differences among presenters, we randomly assigned presenters to different presentation conditions. To control for individual differences among audience members, we used a counterbalanced, within-participants design for the first experiment, and between-participants random assignment in the second experiment. And to draw general inferences about the impact of presentation format—instead of specific inferences about particular presenters or presentations—we sampled from a large number of presentations, each created by a different presenter. Our methods have their own challenges, such as recruiting participants sufficiently trained in all presentation methods, allowing presenters adequate preparation time and context, approximating the psychological conditions of real-world presentations, and measuring the “signal” of presentation format among the added “noise” of so many presenters and presentations. In addition, the studies had to be double-blind: Neither presenters nor audience members could be aware of any hypotheses, and had to be free from any sorts of confirmation bias conveyed by the investigators.

To focus on presentations as a form of presenter-audience communication and limit the number of confounded variables, we purposefully controlled for other possible impacts of presentation software on professional practices or outcomes, including 1) the use of presentation artifacts (e.g., PowerPoint files, printed-out slides, online Prezis), and 2) facilitated collaboration among presentation designers. Unlike other research (e.g., [ 32 , 33 ]) we did allow for the possibility that presentation format not only affects how audiences perceive presentations, but also how presenters design or deliver them (e.g., by increasing their conceptual understanding of the topic, or decreasing their cognitive load during live narration; cf. [ 84 ]). In other words, presentation technologies might affect the cognition of both the audience and the presenter, so we designed the present studies to accommodate both sets of mechanisms.

To maximize the real-world relevance of this research, we relied on multimedia case materials from Harvard Business School [ 85 ]; these materials recreate the actual professional circumstances in which presentations are typically used. Because presentations are designed commonly both to inform and convince audiences, we examine outcome measures of learning as well as persuasion. And to minimize demand characteristics, we avoided the typical flaws of existing research (e.g., researcher-designed presentations, the researchers’ students as research participants) and adopted several countermeasures (e.g., recruitment language and participant instructions that obscured the research hypotheses, between-participant manipulation).

We adopted a two-phased approach in this research. In the first phase, participants with sufficient experience in oral, PowerPoint, and Prezi presentation formats were randomly assigned to create a presentation in one of those formats. We provided the necessary context, instruction, and time to create a short but realistic presentation. Participants then presented live to an actual audience, who judged each presentation’s efficacy. In the second phase, recorded versions of these presentations were presented to a larger online audience, affording us greater statistical power and allowing us to measure the impact of presentation format on decision-making and learning.

Experiment 1

Participants..

We recruited presenter participants via online postings (on Craigslist, the Harvard Psychology Study Pool, the Harvard Decision Science Lab Study Pool), email solicitations to the local Prezi community, and campus flyers. To create the fairest comparison between PowerPoint and Prezi, we recruited individuals who “have expertise in using both PowerPoint and Prezi presentation software.” Interested individuals were directed to a prescreening survey in which they reported their experience with and preference for giving different types of presentations. Only individuals who reported that they were “not at all experienced” with PowerPoint, Prezi or giving oral presentations were excluded from research participation. Out of the 681 respondents who completed the prescreening survey, 456 of them were eligible and invited to sign up for an available timeslot. Out of this group, 146 individuals—105 from the Harvard study pools, 33 from Craigslist, and 8 from the Prezi community—participated as presenters in the study and were compensated $40 for approximately two hours of their time. There were no significant differences between the three presentation groups on any demographics variables.

We also recruited 153 audience participants from the Harvard Decision Science Lab Study Pool and Craigslist using the following announcement:

Do you use Skype? Does your computer have a large screen (13 inches or larger)? If so, you may be eligible to participate in a 45 minute long online study. In this study, you will watch professional presentations over Skype from home on your personal computer.

Anyone who responded to the recruitment notice was eligible, provided that they were available during one of the prescheduled testing sessions. Audience participants were compensated $10 for approximately 45 minutes of their time. Table 2 presents demographic information for the presenter and audience participants. This study was approved by the Harvard Committee on the Use of Human Subjects (Study #IRB14-1427), and all participants in both experiments provided written consent.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t002

Presenter procedure.

Presenter participants completed a survey remotely before attending the in-person, group sessions with other participants. In the online pre-survey, presenters first answered basic demographic questions (gender, age, education level, English fluency, and occupation). Next, they answered questions about their prior experience with, opinions about, and understanding of the different presentation formats (oral, Prezi, and PowerPoint). This section was prefaced with the following note:

A note on language: When we use the term "presentation," we mean a formal, planned, and oral presentation of any duration, including a public speech, an academic lecture, a webinar, a class presentation, a wedding toast, a sermon, a product demonstration, a business presentation, and so on. Examples of things we do NOT mean are: a theatrical performance, an impromptu toast at dinner, and any presentation with no audience. When we say PowerPoint presentations, we mean presentations that were made using Microsoft PowerPoint, not other software such as Apple's Keynote. When we say Prezi presentations, we mean presentations that were made using Prezi presentation software. Also, when we refer to "oral presentation", we mean a presentation that is only spoken and does not include any visual aids or the use of presentation software.

Participants were asked the following questions for each type of presentation:

• How experienced are you at making the following types of presentations? [5-level rating]
• When you give a presentation, how effective are the following types of presentations for you? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• When somebody else gives a presentation, how effective are the following types of presentations for you? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• How difficult is it for you to make the following types of presentations? [5-level rating, with “not applicable” option]
• In the last year, approximately how many of the following types of presentations did you make? [free response]
• In your lifetime, approximately how many of the following types of presentations have you made? [free response]
• For approximately how many years have you been making the following types of presentations? [free response]

As part of the expertise-related measures, we also asked the participants to identify the purported advantages and disadvantages of each presentation format, according to its proponents and critics, respectively. For PowerPoint and Prezi, we asked participants to identify whether or not it had particular functionalities (e.g., the capacity to record narration, create custom backgrounds, print handouts). Finally, participants viewed three sets of four short Prezi presentations and rank-ordered them from best to worst. In each set we manipulated a key dimension of Prezi effectiveness, according to its designers: the use of zooming, the connection of ideas, and the use of visual metaphor.

Presenter participants were tested in person at the Harvard Decision Science Lab, and randomly assigned to one of the three groups: Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral presentation. A total of 50 data collection sessions were held. In each session, there were typically three presenter participants (one for each presentation format); as a result of participants who failed to arrive or overbooking, there were ten sessions with only two presenters and six sessions with four presenters.

After providing informed consent, participants completed an online survey (in the lab) in which they rank-ordered three sets of recorded example PowerPoint and oral presentations. Identical in form to the example Prezi presentations they judged in the pre-survey, these short presentations were designed to assess their understanding of effective presentation design by manipulating a key aspect specific to each format. For PowerPoint presentations, we manipulated the use of text, use of extraneous “bells and whistles,” and graph design; for oral presentations, the three dimensions were verbal behavior, nonverbal behavior (other than eye contact), and eye contact. In selecting these dimensions (and those for Prezi), we consulted with a variety of experts, including software designers, speaking coaches, and researchers.

Next, presenters were shown material from a multimedia case created for and used by the Harvard Business School. Specifically, they were told the following (the company featured in the business case will be referred to anonymously here as “Company X” to respect their contractual agreement with the school):

For the next two hours, you are going to pretend to be the chief marketing officer of i-Mart, a large chain of retail stores. i-Mart recently made an offer to [Company X] to sell their products in i-Mart stores. Your boss, the CEO of i-Mart, has asked you to make a presentation to [Company X]’s leadership that persuades them to accept i-Mart’s offer. In your presentation, you will need to argue that accepting i-Mart’s offer is in [Company X]’s strategic interests, and address any concerns they may have about how accepting the offer might affect their corporate identity.

As a participant in this study, your primary job today is to prepare and then deliver this presentation. The presentation will be very short (less than 5 minutes) and made live (via Skype) to an audience of participants who are playing the part of [Company X] executives. Before you start planning your presentation, you will first learn more about [Company X] and how they’re thinking about i-Mart’s offer.

On their own computer workstation, participants studied the multimedia case for 30 minutes and were invited to take notes on blank paper provided for them. The multimedia case material included video and textual descriptions of Company’s X’s corporate culture, business model, and constituent communities.

Following this study period, participants were given 45 minutes to create a presentation in one of three randomly assigned presentation formats: PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral. To assist participants in the PowerPoint and Prezi conditions, we provided them with a set of digital artifacts including text, data, and graphics related to the case. Participants were not told that other participants were asked to present in different formats, and the workstations were separated from each other to prevent participants from discovering this manipulation.

After this preparation period, participants were taken individually (in a counterbalanced order) to another room to present to a live audience via Skype. For PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, we shared each participant’s presentation with the audience via screen sharing; thus they viewed both the presenter and the presentation. For those presenters who consented, we also recorded their presentations for future research purposes. After making their presentations, presenters completed a final survey about their presentation (e.g., “How convincing do you think your presentation will be to [Company X’s] board members”), the corporate scenario (e.g., What do you think [Company X] should do?”), and their presentation format (e.g., “How likely are you to recommend the presentation tool or presentation format you used to others to make professional presentations?”).

Audience procedure.

Audience participants completed the entire experiment remotely and online. Their participation was scheduled for the end of the presenter sessions so that the in-lab presenters could present live to a remote audience via Skype. We recruited between three and six audience participants per session, although participants who failed to arrive or Skype connectivity issues resulted in some sessions with only one or two audience participants: Five sessions had one participant, twelve sessions had two participants, sixteen sessions had three participants, eleven sessions had four participants, four sessions had five participants, and two sessions had six participants.

Individuals who responded to the recruitment notice completed a consent form and three online surveys prior to their scheduled Skype session. The first survey was a slightly modified form of the presenter pre-survey (demographics, background on presentation formats, rank-ordering of example Prezis) in which they also scheduled their Skype session. In the second survey, audience participants were told that they were “going to play the role of a corporate executive listening to several short business presentations,” and that their task was “to evaluate the quality of these presentations, each made by another participant engaged in a similar role-playing scenario.” They were then shown a brief video and textual description of the fictionalized corporate scenario (an abridged version of what presenter participants studied), and told the following:

You are a board member for [Company X], an innovative clothing company. Another company, i-Mart, wants to sell [Company Y’s products] in its stores. You and your fellow board members must decide whether or not to accept i-Mart's offer.

And in the third survey they rank-ordered the three sets of recorded example PowerPoint and oral presentations.

At the time of the scheduled session, the audience participants logged into Skype using a generic account provided by the research team, and were instructed to turn on their webcams and put on headphones. Once the first presenter participant was ready to present, the experimenter initiated the group Skype call, confirmed that the software was functioning properly, invited the presenter into the room to begin, left the room before the start of the presentation, monitored the presentation remotely via a closed-circuit video feed, and re-entered the room at the presentation’s conclusion. For Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, Skype’s built-in screen-sharing function was used to share the visual component of the presentation; audience participants viewing these presentations were instructed to use the split-screen view, with windows of equal size showing the presenter and the accompanying visuals.

Immediately after viewing each presentation, participants evaluated it via an online survey. They rated each presentation on how organized, engaging, realistic, persuasive, and effective it was using a five-level scale with response options of not at all , slightly , somewhat , very , and extremely . They were also invited to offer feedback to the presenter on how the presentation could be improved. After the final presentation, participants rank-ordered the presentations on the same dimensions (e.g., effectiveness, persuasiveness). Halfway through the experiment we added a final question in which we asked participants to rank-order PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentation formats “in terms of their general effectiveness, ignoring how well individual presenters (including today's) use that format,” and to explain their rank-ordering.

Prior experience and pre-existing beliefs.

Participants’ prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about each presentation format provide a baseline that informs the research findings. If presenter participants had more experience with and more positive beliefs about one format than the others—and those assigned to that format induced more positive assessments from the audience members than did those assigned to the other formats—then the results are less compelling than if there was no correlation between these baseline measures and the experimental outcomes. The same applies to audience participants: Are they merely judging presentations according to their initial biases? Conversely, the results are most compelling if there is a negative association between the baseline measures and the experimental findings. For this reason—and to check that presenters assigned to the different formats did not happen to differ in these baseline measures—we analyzed participants’ prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentation formats.

Both audience and presenter participants were least experienced with Prezi and most experienced with oral presentations. At the outset, they rated PowerPoint as the most effective and easiest to use to present material and Prezi as the least effective and most difficult to use to present. For watching presentations, audience participants rated PowerPoint most effective and oral presentations least effective, but rated Prezi as more enjoyable than other formats. For watching presentations, presenter participants did not find any format more effective than the others. Table 3 presents full descriptive and inferential statistics for all self-reported measures of prior experience with and preexisting beliefs about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t003

Presenters assigned to different formats did not differ in their experience with or pre-existing beliefs about presentations formats. They also did not differ in how well they identified the purported advantages and disadvantages of each presentation format, how well they identified the software features of PowerPoint and Prezi, or how accurately they could identify effective presentations of each format.

Audience ratings.

In term of their prior experience with and pre-existing beliefs about presentation formats, both audience and presenter participants were biased in favor of oral and PowerPoint presentations and against Prezi. After presenters were randomly assigned to these different formats, how did the audience evaluate their presentations?

In examining how presentation format affected the audience’s ratings of the presentations, two complications arose. First, sessions with two presentations were missing one presentation format, and sessions with four presentations had two presentations of the same format. To address this complexity we only conducted pairwise comparisons of different formats (e.g., PPT versus oral) instead of omnibus tests, and—for those sessions with four presentations—we averaged ratings for the two same-format presentations. To be certain that the differing number of presentations per session did not somehow bias the results even after adopting these measures, we also conducted an analysis on the subset of sessions that had exactly three presentations.

Second, the number of audience participants per session ranged from one to six. In calculating descriptive statistics, some sessions would be weighted more heavily than others unless ratings were first averaged across participants within the same session, then averaged across sessions. In calculating inferential statistics, averaging across ratings from different participants within the same session who received presentations in the same format was necessary to ensure that the sampling units were independent of each other, an assumption of all parametric and most nonparametric tests. In other words, for both descriptive and inferential statistics, we treated session (instead of participant) as the sampling unit.

As an empirical matter, this multi-step averaging—within participants across identical presentation formats, then across participants within the same session—had little impact on the condition means (i.e., the average ratings of PowerPoint, Prezi, or oral presentations on each dimension). Compared to the simplest, raw averaging of all ratings in one step, the maximum absolute difference between these two sets of means was .07 (on a 1–5 scale) and the mean absolute difference was .04.

To test whether the presentations’ format affected their ratings, therefore, we conducted paired t -tests for each rating dimension, with presentation format as the repeated measure and mean session rating as the dependent variable. Because we conducted three tests for each dimension—pairing each format with every other—we controlled for multiple comparisons by dividing our significance threshold by the same factor (i.e., α = .05/3 = .017). Results revealed that presentation format influenced audience ratings. In particular, the audience rated Prezi presentations as significantly more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations; on a five-level scale, the average participant rated Prezi presentations over half a level higher than other presentations. The audience did not rate PowerPoint presentations differently than oral presentations on any dimension. Table 4 and Fig 1 present these results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t004

Audience members rated presentations on each dimension on a 5-level scale (1 = “not at all,” 5 = “extremely”). The figure shows session-level means from all available data, including those from sessions with two or four presentations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g001

By limiting the analysis to the 34 sessions with exactly three presentations (one of each format), we could ensure that the sessions with two or four presentations did not somehow bias the results. Moreover, this procedure enabled us to conduct omnibus tests of presentation format for each rating dimension. These omnibus tests revealed significant effects for organization, F (2,66) = 12.9, p < .0001, engagement, F (2,66) = 4.6, p = .01, persuasion, F (2,66) = 3.9, p = .03, and effectiveness, F (2,66) = 7.2, p = .001. The results from post-hoc tests (Fisher’s LSD) aligned with the original pairwise comparisons: On all dimensions, the audience rated Prezi presentations higher than PowerPoint and oral presentations, p s < .05; PowerPoint and oral presentations were not rated differently on any dimension, p s>.05. (Note: All p -values for pairwise tests here and elsewhere are two-tailed.)

To explore whether the obtained results were somehow the result of demand characteristics, we analyzed ratings from only the first presentation in each session. This analysis yielded the same pattern of findings, with a to-be-expected reduction in statistical significance due to the loss of power. On all four dimensions, a one-way, independent-measures ANOVA yielded significant or marginally-significant results: organized, F (2,49) = 5.1, p = .01; engaging, F (2,49) = 2.5, p = .09; persuasive, F (2,49) = 2.6, p = .09; and effective, F (2,49) = 5.8, p = .006. In all cases, Prezi was rated higher than oral and PowerPoint presentations (post-hoc LSD p s ≤.08).

On average, the audience rated the presentations as realistic, with a modal rating of “very realistic.” Our intent in including this rating dimension was merely to verify that our experimental protocol resulted in realistic rather than contrived presentations; we therefore did not test for differences in these ratings as a function of group differences.

Audience rankings.

As just noted, participants randomly assigned to present using Prezi were rated as giving more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective presentations compared to those randomly assigned to the PowerPoint or oral presentation conditions. In addition, at the end of each session audience participants rank-ordered each type of presentation on the same dimensions used for the ratings. Here we ask: Did the audiences’ rank-orderings align with the ratings?

The same complexities with the ratings data—the variable number of conditions and audience participants per session—applied as well to the ranking data. We therefore adopted a similar analytic strategy, with one exception: we conducted non-parametric rather than parametric pairwise tests, given the rank-ordered nature of the raw data and distributional assumptions that underlie parametric tests.

Using the session-level mean ranks, we tested the effect of presentation format with three sets of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. The results had the identical pattern as those from the ratings data: the audience rated Prezi presentations as significantly more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentation (all p s ≤ .006); the audience did not rate PowerPoint presentations differently than oral presentations on any dimension. Table 5 and Fig 2 present these results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t005

Audience members ranked the presentations from best to worst, with lower ranks indicating better presentations. The figure shows session-level means from all available data, including those from sessions with two or four presentations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g002

As with the ratings data, we also conducted omnibus tests of only those sessions with exactly three presentations to validate that unbalanced sessions did not somehow bias the results. These tests (Friedman ANOVAs) revealed significant effects for organization, exact p = .0005, engagement, exact p = .04, and effectiveness, exact p = .003; we found only a marginally significant effect for persuasion, exact p = .08. Post-hoc tests (Fisher’s LSD) showed that the audience ranked Prezi presentations higher than PowerPoint and oral presentations on all dimensions, p s < .05; PowerPoint and oral presentations were not ranked differently on engagement, persuasion, or effectiveness, p s>.05, but the audience did rank PowerPoint presentations as more organized than oral presentations, p = .04.

Audience omnibus judgments of effectiveness.

Before and after the experimental session, audience participants judged the general effectiveness of the three presentation formats. In the pre-survey, they rated each format on its effectiveness for them as presenters and audience members. In the post-survey, they rank-ordered the formats on their “general effectiveness” and were instructed to ignore “how well individual presenters (including today's) use that format.” Although the pre- and post-questions differed in their phrasing and response formats, they nonetheless afford us an opportunity to investigate if and how their judgments changed over the course of the experiment.

As already described (see Table 3 ), the audience began the experiment judging PowerPoint presentations as most effective for presenters and audiences. They ended the experiment, however, with different judgments of efficacy: A majority (52%) ranked Prezi presentations as the most effective, a majority (57%) ranked oral presentations as least effective, and a plurality (49%) ranked PowerPoint presentations second in effectiveness. A Friedman’s ANOVA test (on the mean rankings) confirmed that participants rated presentation formats differently, exact p = .00007. Post hoc analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed that the audience ranked both Prezi and PowerPoint presentations as more effective than oral presentations, ps ≤.003). They did not rank Prezi and PowerPoint presentations significantly differently ( p = .15). Fig 3 presents these results.

Note: Means shown from pre-survey items are calculated based on responses from all participants (as opposed to only those who had experience with all presentation formats).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g003

In the pre-survey, some audience participants reported prior experience viewing Prezi presentations but others did not (i.e., those who selected the “not applicable” response option). Compared to participants with no prior experience watching Prezi presentations ( n = 34), participants with prior Prezi experience ( n = 117) rated PowerPoint presentations (but not oral presentations) as less effective, t (149) = 2.7, p = .007, mean difference = .47, and less enjoyable for them, t (149) = 2.9, p = .004, mean difference = .53. Thus, prior experience with Prezi was associated with negative pre-existing judgments of PowerPoint.

Audience correlates of presentation ratings and rankings.

What, if any, individual-level variables—demographics and baseline survey responses—correlated with the audience’s judgments of the presentations? If, for example, the more experience the audience had with Prezi, the worse they evaluated those presentations, such a correlation would suggest that the current findings reflect a novelty effect.

We did not find any significant relationships between the audiences’ prior experience with a given presentation format (presenter experience rating, number of years, number of presentations watched last year or lifetime) and their ratings or rank-orderings of that presentation format on any dimensions, all | r| s < .16. The only pre-existing audience beliefs about the presentation formats (presenter effectiveness, presenter difficulty, audience effectiveness, audience enjoyableness) that correlated with their ratings or rankings were for oral presentations: the more effective participants rated oral presentations for them as audience members before the experiment, the more effective they rated and ranked oral presentations in the experiment as engaging, r = .22 and .26, respectively, p s < .01.

Among demographic variables, only age showed reliable correlations with the audiences’ evaluations of presentations: the older the participant, the more effective they rated PowerPoint presentations, r = .23, p = .007, the more persuasive they ranked PowerPoint presentations, r = .24, p = .006, and the less organized and persuasive they rated oral presentations, r = -.32, p = .001, and r = -.21, p = .01, respectively.

Audience participants’ success in distinguishing better from worse presentations of each format (i.e., their rank-ordering of short expert-created examples) did not correlate with their evaluations of the experimental presentations, nor did it correlate with the audiences’ self-reported experience with each format.

Audience free response.

Although we cannot assume that participants understood the reasons behind their rank-orderings (cf. [ 86 ]), their explanations may nonetheless offer some insight into how they perceived different presentation formats. In explaining their rank-ordering of the presentation formats in terms of their general effectiveness, 8% of participants who preferred Prezi mentioned that it was new or different or that PowerPoint presentations were old or outdated . More commonly, they described Prezi as more engaging or interactive (49%), organized (18%), visually interesting , visually compelling , visually pleasing , sleek , or vivid (15%), or creative (13%). Of participants who preferred PowerPoint, 38% described it as more concise , clear , easy to follow , familiar , professional , or organized than the other presentation formats. An equal percentage explained their choice in terms of negative judgments of Prezi, including comments that Prezi was disorienting , busy , crowded , amateurish , or overwhelming . Participants who rank-ordered oral presentations as most effective remarked that they felt more engaged or connected with the presenter, could better give their undivided attention to the presentation (29%), valued the eye contact or face-to-face interaction with the presenter (14%), or found presentation software distracting (14%).

Presenter outcomes and correlates of success.

A series of one-way ANOVAs revealed that presentation format did not affect the presenters’ judgments about the business scenario (e.g., “What do you think [Company X] should do?”), self-reported comprehension of the business scenario (“How much do you think you understand the situation with [Company X] and i-Mart?”), or ratings of their own motivation (e.g., “This activity was fun to do”), self-efficacy (e.g., “I think I am pretty good at this activity”), effort (e.g., “I tried very hard on this activity), and effectiveness as presenters (“How convincing do you think your presentation will be to [Company X]’s board members?”); participants using different presentation formats also did not differ in their performance on the multiple-choice test about the business scenario, all p s >.05.

The presenter groups did differ in how inclined they were to recommend their presentation format to others (“How likely are you to recommend the presentation tool or presentation format you used to others to make professional presentations?”), F (2,144) = 4.2, p = .02, with presenters who used Prezi or PowerPoint being more likely to recommend their format than those who made oral presentations, LSD p = .03 and p = .007, respectively.

Presenter variables—including demographic characteristics and experience with their assigned format—generally did not predict their presentation success, either in terms of audience ratings or rankings. The one exception was that Prezi presenters who were better able to identify effective Prezi presentations were rated and ranked as giving more effective and engaging presentations, .008 < p s < .04.

Participants who were randomly assigned to present using Prezi were judged as giving more effective, organized, engaging, and persuasive presentations than those who were randomly assigned to present orally or with PowerPoint. This was true despite the fact that both audience and presenter participants were initially predisposed against Prezi. What might explain these findings?

One explanation is a novelty effect: Perhaps the audience preferred Prezi simply because it is relatively new to them. It appears that this was not the case, however: Only 8% of participants claimed that they preferred Prezi because it was new or different, and there was no significant relationship between the audiences’ experience with Prezi and their ratings or rank-orderings.

Another explanation for these results is that the presenters or audience members were somehow biased towards the Prezi presentations. Again, however, this appears not to be the case. The presenters were least experienced in Prezi, judged themselves least effective presenting with Prezi, and found Prezi presentations hardest to create. We recruited only a small minority (8%) of presenters based on their prior association with Prezi, and used the most conservative exclusion criteria feasible: only individuals without any experience with Prezi or PowerPoint were excluded from participating. All presenters were randomly assigned to their presentation format and were blind to the experimental manipulation. In recruiting audience participants, we did not mention Prezi or PowerPoint, and selected participants only based on their access to Skype and a sufficiently large computer screen. In addition, we minimized contact between the investigator and research participants, and presentations were never identified based on their format; at the end of the experiment, in fact, some participants did not even realize that they had seen a Prezi presentation (as evidenced by their free responses). Data were collected through standardized, online surveys, the investigator was not in the room with the presenter during his or her presentation, and the investigator interacted with the audience only briefly to set up their Skype session. Finally, an analysis of ratings from only the first presentations yielded the same results as the full analysis, making implausible an interpretation based on audience demand characteristics.

Thus, the most likely explanation is that individuals do, in fact, perceive Prezi presentations more favorably than PowerPoint or oral presentation. Experiment 1 has several limitations, however. First, because each audience participant in Experiment 1 was exposed to multiple presentations, we were unable to evaluate presentations on their ultimate goal: to convince the audience (role-playing Company X board members) to accept i-Mart’s business offer. In other words, Experiment 1 demonstrated that Prezi presentations are more effective than other formats in terms of audience perceptions but not decision-making outcomes. Second, we asked the audience about their pre-existing beliefs and prior experiences with PowerPoint, Prezi, and oral presentations at the beginning of the Experiment 1; although it is difficult to imagine how this questioning could have produced the obtained results—particularly given the nature of their pre-existing beliefs and prior experiments—it is a remote possibility. Third, just like the results from any single experiment, the findings of Experiment 1 should be treated cautiously until replicated. We designed a second experiment to address these limitations and extend the findings from the first experiment.

Experiment 2

In Experiment 2 we showed online participants a single presentation from Experiment 1, and varied randomly which type of presentation (Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral) they viewed. We also randomly assigned some participants to view a presentation on material that was not related to the case material; this control condition served as a baseline that allowed us to estimate the impact of each presentation format. To minimize demand characteristics, we asked participants about their experiences with different presentation formats at the conclusion of the experiment (instead of the beginning), and did not expose participants to multiple presentation formats. Finally, to investigate better the nature of participants’ perceptions about presentation effectiveness, we distinguished between perceptions about the presentation, the presenter, and the audiovisual component of the presentation.

We recruited native-English speaking participants via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk using the following language: “In this study, you will read a business case, watch presentations, assume a role, and make a decision.” They were compensated $4 for approximately one hour of their time. Excluding pilot participants who offered us initial feedback on the survey and protocol, 1398 individuals consented to and began the experiment. Of these, 16 participants were excluded because of evidence that they didn’t complete the task properly (e.g., answering a long series of questions identically, incorrectly answering a “trap” question), and 305 were excluded because they dropped out before completing all of the outcome measures, leaving 1069 participants in the final dataset: 272 in the Prezi group, 261 in the PowerPoint group, 275 in the oral presentation group, and 261 in the control group. The number of excluded participants did not covary with group assignment or demographic variables. Table 6 presents demographic information on the included participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t006

The main stimuli for this experiment consisted of recorded presentations from Experiment 1. For Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, these were split-screen videos showing the presenter on one side of the screen and the visuals on the other side. For the oral presentations, these were simply audiovisual recordings of the presenter.

Of the 146 presenter participants from Experiment 1, 33 either did not consent to being video-recorded or were not recorded due to technical difficulties. We therefore had a pool of 113 presentation videos to use for Experiment 2: 41 from the Prezi condition (out of a possible 50), 40 from the PowerPoint condition (out of possible 49), and 32 from the oral presentation condition (out of a possible 47). The proportion of presentations that were video-recorded did not vary with their format, exact p = .61.

Some of the recorded presentations from Experiment 1 were unusable because of intractable quality issues (e.g., inaudible speech, incomplete video, partially occluded presenter), leaving a total of 89 usable videos (34 Prezi, 28 PowerPoint, 27 oral). The proportion of videos removed because of quality issues did not vary with presentation format, exact p = .57.

We randomly selected 25 videos in each format, resulting in a total pool of 75 videos. Because of a URL typo that was not detected until after testing, one PowerPoint video was not presented and participants assigned that video were not able to complete the experiment. Video length varied by format, F (2, 71) = 4.2, p = .02, with PowerPoint and Prezi presentations lasted longer than oral presentations ( M = 5.9, 6.0, and 4.6 minutes, respectively).

We were concerned that we could have, perhaps unconsciously, selected better stimuli in the Prezi condition, which would have biased the results. To ensure that our judgments of major audiovisual problems and subsequent exclusion of some videos were not biased, we recruited a separate group of participants to rate the audiovisual quality of the 113 presentation videos. Using the following language, we recruited 455 individuals from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to serve as judges:

In this study you will judge the technical quality of three short videos. To participate you must have a high-speed Internet connection. We will compensate you $2 for 15–20 minutes of your time.

These participants were totally blind to the experimental hypotheses and manipulation. They completed the audiovisual rating task completely online via the Qualtrics survey platform, and were given the following instructions:

We need your help in determining the audiovisual quality of some Skype presentations we recorded. We want to know which presentations we can use for additional research, and which need to be eliminated due to major technical problems with the recordings. The sorts of technical problems that might exist in some of the videos are: incomplete recordings (the recording starts late or stops early), cropped recordings (the camera isn’t positioned properly), choppy or blurry video, and absent or inaudible audio.

You will watch a single presentation video. Please ignore any aspect of the recording other than its audiovisual quality. In particular, do not base your judgments on the presentation itself, including the presenter’s argument, appearance, or the nature of the accompanying slides. The only thing we care about is whether the audio and video were recorded properly.

Finally, please keep in mind that because these videos were recorded through Skype, even the best recordings are not very high quality.

These judge participants then watched a presentation video (selected at random), rated the quality of its audio and video (on a five-level scale from “very bad” to “very good”), and indicated whether or not there were “any major technical problems with the presentations audio or video”; those who reported major technical problems were asked to identify them.

To address any possibility of experimenter bias—which seemed unlikely, given that we designed the procedure from the outset to guard against such effects—we conducted a series of Presentation Format (Prezi, PowerPoint, oral) x Quality Judgment (inclusion, exclusion) ANOVAs to test 1) whether audiovisual quality was for any reason confounded with presentation format (i.e., the main effect of Presentation Format), 2) whether the excluded videos were indeed lower quality than the included videos (i.e., the main effect of Quality Judgment), and 3) whether our exclusion of videos was biased based on their format (i.e., the interaction between Presentation Format and Audiovisual Quality). We conducted the ANOVAs on the three measures of audiovisual quality collected from the independent judges: ratings of audio quality, ratings of video quality, and judgments of major audiovisual problems.

The results were straightforward: For all three dependent variables, there were no main effects of Presentation Format, p s > .13, but we did find a significant main effect of Quality Judgment (with included videos being judged better quality than excluded videos), all p s < .002, and did not find any interaction effects, all p s > .31. In other words, presentation format was not confounded with audiovisual quality, our judgments of quality corresponded to those of blind judges, and our exclusion of videos was unrelated to presentation format.

Participants completed the experiment entirely online through Qualtrics. After providing informed consent, and answering preliminary demographic and background questions (e.g., about their familiarity with business concepts and practices) they were told the following:

In this part of the study, you are going to play the role of a corporate executive for [Company X], an innovative clothing company. Another company, i-Mart, wants to sell [Company X’s] t-shirts in its many retail stores. You must decide whether or not to accept i-Mart's offer.

To help you make your decision, we will first provide you with some background on [Company X] and the i-Mart offer. You will see a series of short videos and text that describe relevant aspects of [Company X’s] origins, business model, practices, culture, and community. Please review this background material carefully.

Participants were then shown a series of brief video and textual descriptions of the fictionalized corporate scenario, including information on Company X’s business model, business processes, community, and culture. This material was an abridged version of what Experiment 1 presenter participants studied, but an expanded version of what Experiment 1 audience participants studied.

After viewing the multimedia case material, the participants were asked to identify what product Company X sells (a “trap” question to exclude non-serious participants) and to rate the background material on how engaging it was, how much they enjoyed it, how much they paid attention to it, and how difficult it was to understand.

Participants randomly assigned to the Prezi, PowerPoint, and Oral Presentation conditions were then told the following:

Now that you know a little bit about the company, you will watch a video presentation from another research participant. Just as you are playing the role of a [Company X] executive, the other participant is playing the role of i-Mart's Chief Marketing Office (CMO). In this presentation, he or she will try to convince you and your fellow [Company X] executives to accept i-Mart's offer.

Because this presentation is from another research participant playing the role of an i-Mart executive--and not an actual i-Mart executive--please disregard the presenter's appearance (clothing, age, etc). And because we did not professionally videorecord the presentation, please also try to disregard the relatively poor quality of the video compared to the videos you just viewed.

The purpose of this research is to understand what makes presentations effective. So please listen carefully and do your best to imagine that this is "real".

Identically to Experiment 1, participants rated the presentation on how organized, engaging, realistic, persuasive, and effective it was on a five-level scale from “not at all” to “extremely.” Using the same scale, these participants also rated the presenter on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, confident, enthusiastic, knowledgeable, professional, nervous, and boring he or she was.

Participants in the Prezi and PowerPoint groups were asked three additional questions. First, they were asked to rate the visual component of the presentation (i.e., the Prezi or the PowerPoint slides) on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, dynamic, visually compelling, distracting, informative, distinctive, and boring it was. Second, they were asked to rate whether the presentation had “not enough”, “too much” or an “about right” amount of text, graphs, images, and animations. And finally, there were asked to comment on the visual component of the presentations, including ways in which it could be improved.

All participants then summarized the presentation in their own words, with a minimum acceptable length of 50 characters. Participants were asked to rate how well they understood the “situation with [Company X] and I-Mart,” and to decide whether [Company X] should accept or reject i-Mart’s offer (on a 6-level scale, with the modifiers “definitely,” “probably,” and “possibly”).

In addition, we asked participants a series of recall and comprehension questions about the case. An example recall question is “According to the background materials and the presentation, approximately how many members does [Company X] have?”, with four possible answers ranging from 500,000 to 1.5 million. An example comprehension question is “According to the background materials, what is the biggest challenge [Company X] is facing?”, with possible answers ranging from “marketing” to “logistics.” These comprehension questions were based on the instructor’s guide to the business case material, and included open-ended questions (“Why do you think [Company X] should accept or reject i-Mart's offer?”). At this point we also asked another trap question (“What is 84 plus 27?”).

Finally, and after answering all questions about the business case and presentation, participants answered background questions about their experience with, knowledge of, and general preference for different presentation formats. They also rank-ordered the mini examples of Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations in terms of their effectiveness. These background questions and tasks were the same as those used in Experiment 1.

Participants in the control condition completed the same protocol, with a few exceptions: First, instead of being shown presentations from Experiment 1, they viewed one of three instructional videos (matched for length with the Experiment 1 presentations). Before they viewed these videos they were told “Before you decide what to do about i-Mart's offer to [Company X], we would like you to watch an unrelated presentation and briefly answer some questions about it.” Second, they did not rate how realistic the presentation was, nor did they rate the visual component on how organized, engaging, persuasive, effective, dynamic, visually compelling, distracting, informative, distinctive, and boring it was. And finally, they did not complete the final set of background questions on the different presentation formats or rank-order the example presentations.

At the outset, participants rated oral and PowerPoint presentations as equally effective in general, and Prezi presentations as less effective than the other two formats. Just as we found in Experiment 1, participants rated themselves as more experienced and effective in making and oral and PowerPoint presentations compared to Prezi presentations. They also rated oral and PowerPoint presentations as more enjoyable and effective for them than viewing Prezi presentations. When asked how difficult it was to make the different types of presentations, they rated Prezi as more difficult than oral and PowerPoint presentations, and oral presentations as more difficult than PowerPoint ones. In terms of the number of presentations watched in the last year and in their lifetime—as well as the number of years of experience—they reported more experience watching oral compared to PowerPoint presentations, and more experience watching PowerPoint than watching Prezi presentations. The same pattern was true for their reported experience in making presentations, with one exception: They reported making more PowerPoint than oral presentations in their lifetime. Table 7 presents full descriptive and inference statistics for all self-reported measures of prior experience with and preexisting beliefs about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations. The experimental groups did not differ significantly on any of these variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t007

Most participants (78%) were either “not at all familiar” or “slightly familiar” with Company X, and the modal participant reported being “somewhat experienced” with “concepts and practices from the business world, such as strategy, innovation, product development, sales, and marketing.” The groups did not differ significantly on these variables, nor did they differ on demographic variables such as age, gender, or education.

For overall judgments of the presentations, participants rated Prezi as more organized, effective, engaging, and persuasive than PowerPoint and oral presentations, and rated PowerPoint no differently than oral presentations. They also rated Prezi presenters as more organized, knowledgeable, effective, and professional than PowerPoint presenters and oral presenters; Prezi presenters were not rated differently from other presentations on how nervous, boring, enthusiastic, confident, persuasive, or engaging they were, and PowerPoint presenters were rated no differently than oral presenters on all dimensions. In judging the visual components of the Prezi and PowerPoint presentations, the audience rated Prezi presentations as more dynamic, visually compelling, and distinctive than PowerPoint slides, and marginally more effective and persuasive.

Examining the magnitude of mean differences, some effects are clearly larger than others. Most notably, Prezi presentations are rated as most organized and visually dynamic, and Prezi presenters are rated as most organized. Fig 4 and Table 8 present the descriptive and inferential statistics, respectively, for these audience ratings.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t008

Note: rating dimensions are ordered by the magnitude of the difference between Prezi and the other presentation formats; for dimensions with no significant differences between presentation formats, only the overall mean is displayed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g004

The modal participant rated the background case material on Company X as “very engaging” and “completely enjoyable,” reported “mostly” understanding the situation with i-Mart and Company X, and rated the presentations as “very realistic.” Seventy percent of participants expected to do “somewhat well” or “very well” when quizzed about the case. There were no significant group differences on any of these variables.

Audience decision-making.

Did the presentations actually influence participants’ core judgment of the business scenario and, if so, was one presentation format more effective than others?

Participants who received a Prezi presentation accepted i-Mart’s offer 53.7% of the time, participants who received a PowerPoint presentation accepted the offer 49.8% of the time, participants exposed to an oral presentation accepted it 45.5% of the time, and participants exposed to the control presentation accepted it 37.5% of the time (see Fig 5 ). In an omnibus test, these differences were significant, exact p = .002. Specific comparisons revealed that Prezi presentations were significantly more influential than control presentations, exact p = 0003, marginally more influential than oral presentations, exact p = .06, and no more influential than PowerPoint presentations, exact p = .39; PowerPoint presentations were significantly more influential than control presentations, exact p = .006, but not oral presentations, exact p = .34; oral presentations were marginally more influential than control presentations, exact p = .07. In order to investigate the impact of presentation software on decision-making, we contrasted the Prezi and PowerPoint groups with the oral presentation groups. We found a marginally significant effect, exact p = .06.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.g005

On the whole, therefore, the participants’ decision-making results were concordant descriptively (if not always inferentially) with the rating results.

If participants’ perceptions of the presentations and decisions about the case were both influenced by presentation format, then we would expect them to be associated with each other. And this is indeed what we found. Excluding participants in the control group (who did not make judgments about comparable presentations), those who rejected the i-Mart offer rated presentations as worse than those who accepted the i-Mart offer. This was true for 23 of the 24 rating dimensions (“visually boring” was the exception), with the largest effects for ratings of effectiveness and persuasiveness. Those who rejected the offer rated the overall presentation, visual aids, and presenter as less effective than those who accepted the offer, with effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) of .93, .83, and .78, respectively. These effects were consistent across formats, all interaction p s > .05.

We conducted an analogous set of analyses that preserved the original 6-level scale of the decision variable (“possibly accept,” “probably accept,” “definitely accept,” “possibly reject,” “probably reject,” “definitely reject”). These analyses produced qualitatively identical results, both in terms of decision-making as a function of group assignment and the correlation between decision-making and presentation ratings.

Memory and comprehension.

Participants’ performance on the four rote memory questions did not vary across conditions, nor did their correct identification (according to the case designers) of reasons to accept or reject the offer, with one exception: Compared to those in the treatment groups, control participants were more likely to identify Company X’s ability to meet production demand as a reason to reject the i-Mart, omnibus exact p = .00004.

Correlates of presentation outcomes.

There were no notable correlations between demographic variables and participants’ ratings or decisions. In particular, participants’ experience with or preexisting beliefs about each presentation format did not correlate with their ratings of the experimental presentations, mirroring the results from Experiment 1 (but with much greater statistical power). Presentation length or recording quality (as assessed by the independent judges) did not correlate with presentation outcomes.

Participants’ success in distinguishing better from worse presentations of each format—that is, their rank-ordering of short expert-created examples—correlated slightly with their evaluations of the presentations. Most notably, the better participants did on the rank-ordering PowerPoint task, the worse they rated PowerPoint (but not Prezi) presentations on visual dimensions; the same was true for the Prezi task and presentations. For example, participants’ performance in the PowerPoint task correlated negatively with their judgments of how “visually dynamic” PowerPoint presentations were, r = -.22, p = .0005, and participants’ performance on the Prezi task correlated negatively with their judgments of how “visually dynamic” Prezi presentations were, r = -.16, p = .009. Thus, individuals with more expertise in PowerPoint and Prezi were more critical of PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, respectively.

Audiovisual attributes of Prezi and PowerPoint presentations.

To understand the media attributes and psychological mechanisms that underlie the observed effects of format, we examined how participants’ judgments about amount of text, graphs, animations, and images in the presentations correlated with their judgments of the presentations, the visual component of the presentations, and the presenters themselves. To examine these relationships, we conducted one-way ANOVAs with the various ratings as the dependent variables, and participants’ judgments (“not enough,” “about right,” “too much”) about the amount of text, graphs, animations, and images in the PowerPoint and Prezi presentations as the independent variable. For nearly all (80 of 96) of these ANOVAs, the results were highly significant, p s < .001. In judging the amount of text, participants typically rated “too much” or “not enough” text as worse than an “about right” amount; in judging graphs, images, and animations, participants typically rated “too much” and “just right” both as equally better than “not enough.” Averaging across all rating dimensions, the text and graph effects were over twice as large as the animation and image effects; averaging across all attributes, the effects for visual ratings was over twice as large as the effects for presenter and overall ratings. Participants’ judgments about the media attributes of presentations did, therefore, relate to their overall assessments of the presenters and presentations.

Summing across PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, the modal participant indicated that there was the “about right” amount of text, graphs, animations, and images. Only 21% of participants thought there was not enough or too much text; for the other dimensions, this percentage ranged from 42–51%. More participants indicated that there was not enough text, graphs, and animations in PowerPoint presentations than Prezi presentations, with animation as the most distinguishing attribute. Table 9 presents the descriptive and inferential statistics for these variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t009

As shown in Table 10 , participants’ judgments about the audiovisual attributes of the Prezi and PowerPoint presentations were associated with the decision about the business scenario. Individuals who reported that there was not enough text, graph, animation, or images tended to reject the offer for i-Mart, whereas those who reported that there was the “about right” amount of those attributes tended to accept the offer. This effect was particularly pronounced for judgments of graphs and text. Participants who reported too much text also tended to reject the offer.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.t010

In sum, participants’ perceptions of presenters and the presentations correlated with their evaluations of the amount of text, graphs, images, and animations that were included in the presentations. Presenters and presentations were rated worse if they had too much or not enough text, and not enough graphs, images, and animations; in terms of audience decision-making, presentations were less effective if they contained too much or not enough text, or not enough graphs, animations, and images. PowerPoint presentations were judged to have too little of all attributes, particularly animation.

Replicating results from Experiment 1, participants rated presentations made with Prezi as more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. This remained true despite participants’ preexisting bias against Prezi and the different context of Experiment 2: the audience did not view multiple presentations of different formats and presentations were prerecorded instead of live. Extending the Experiment 1 results, participants also judged Prezi presentations as better in various ways (e.g., more visually compelling, more dynamic) than PowerPoint presentations; participants even rated Prezi presenters more highly (e.g., more knowledgeable, more professional) than PowerPoint presenters.

In making decisions as corporate executives, participants were persuaded by the presentations. Compared to the baseline decisions of the control group, those in the treatment group shifted their decisions by 16.2%, 12.3%, and 8.0% depending on whether they viewed Prezi, PowerPoint, or oral presentations, respectively. The non- or marginal significance of some between-format comparisons (e.g., PowerPoint versus Prezi) is difficult to interpret. We hesitate to dismiss these differences as statistical noise given their general alignment with rating results, as well as the correlation between business decisions and presentation ratings (which do vary significantly with format). For the more objective outcome of decision-making, we can, at the very least, provisionally conclude that Prezi presentations are more effective than oral presentations, and that software-aided presentations are more effective than oral presentations.

We did not find any evidence that the presentations affected participants’ memory or understanding of the case, nor did we find evidence that certain presentation formats impacted learning more than others. Given the goals of the presentations and design of the experiment, however, we hesitate to draw any conclusions from these null results.

General discussion

The most important finding across the two experiments is easy to summarize: Participants evaluated Prezi presentations as more organized, engaging, persuasive, and effective than both PowerPoint and oral presentations. This finding was true for both live and prerecorded presentations, when participants rated or ranked presentations, and when participants judged multiple presentations of different formats or only one presentation in isolation. Results from Experiment 2 demonstrate that these presentations influenced participants’ core judgments about a business decision, and suggest that Prezi may benefit both behavioral and experiential outcomes. We have no evidence, however, that Prezi (or PowerPoint or oral presentations) facilitate learning in either presenters or their audience.

Several uninteresting explanations exist for the observed Prezi effects, none of which posit any specific efficacy of Prezi or ZUIs in general: namely, novelty, bias, and experimenter effects. We consider each in turn.

Novelty heavily influences both attention and memory [ 87 , 88 ], and the benefits of new media have sometimes dissipated over time—just as one would expect with novelty effects [ 3 ]. However, we found no evidence that novelty explains the observed benefits of Prezi: Participants who were less familiar with Prezi did not evaluate Prezi presentations more favorably, and only a small fraction of participants who favored Prezi explained their preference in terms of novelty. We therefore are skeptical that mere novelty can explain the observed effects.

We also considered the possibility that participants had a pre-existing bias for Prezi. This seems unlikely because presenter participants were selected based only on minimal experience with both PowerPoint and Prezi and were assigned randomly to the experimental groups; audience participants from both experiments were selected based merely on high-speed internet access, and the words “Prezi” and “PowerPoint” were not used in any audience recruitment material. In fact, both sets of participants entered the research with biases against Prezi, not for Prezi: They reported more experience with PowerPoint and oral presentations than Prezi, and perceived PowerPoint and oral presentations as more (not less) efficacious than Prezi. Thus, we reject the idea that the results simply reflect pre-existing media biases.

For many reasons, we also find it unlikely that experimenter effects—including demand characteristics (i.e., when participants conform to the experimenters’ expectations)—can explain the observed effects. First, at the outset we did not have strong hypotheses about the benefits of one format over the others. Second, the results are subtle in ways that neither we nor a demand characteristics hypothesis would predict: the effects on subjective experience diverged somewhat from the effects on decision-making, and there were no memory or comprehension effects. Third, the between-participants design of Experiment 2 (and between-participants analysis of Experiment 1 ) limited participants’ exposure to a single presentation format, thereby minimizing their ability to discern the experimental manipulation or research hypotheses. Fourth, we ensured that the presentations were equally high-quality; we did not unconsciously select Prezi presentations that happened to be higher quality than presentations in the other formats. Fifth, the random assignment of presenters to format limits the possible confounding of presenter variables with presentation formats or qualities; and no confounding with format was observed in presenters’ preexisting beliefs, prior experience, or demographics. And finally, in Experiment 2 we only explicitly mentioned or asked participants questions about Prezi, PowerPoint, and oral presentations at the conclusion of the experiment, after collecting all key outcome data.

We therefore conclude that the observed effects are not confounds or biases, but instead reflect a true and specific benefit of Prezi over PowerPoint or, more generally, ZUIs over slideware. If, however, these experimental effects merely reveal that Prezi is more user-friendly than PowerPoint—or that PowerPoint’s default templates encourage shallow processing by “[fetishizing] the outline at the expense of the content” [ 89 ] (pB26)—then we have learned little about the practice or psychology of communication. But if these effects instead reflect intrinsic properties of ZUIs or slideware, then they reveal more interesting and general insights about effective communication.

It is difficult to understand Prezi’s benefits in terms of user-friendliness because the odds were so clearly stacked in PowerPoint’s favor. Presenters were much more experienced in using PowerPoint than Prezi and rated PowerPoint as easier to use than Prezi. Especially given the task constraints—participants only had 45 minutes to prepare for a 5-minute presentation on a relatively new, unfamiliar topic—Prezi’s user interface would have to be improbably superior to PowerPoint’s interface to overcome these handicaps. Moreover, participants’ prior experience with PowerPoint or Prezi did not correlate with their success as presenters, as one would expect under an ease-of-use explanation. Finally, audience participants did not simply favor the Prezi presentations in an even, omnibus sense—they evaluated Prezi as better in particular ways that align with the purported advantages of ZUIs over slideware. This pattern of finding makes most sense if the mechanism were at the level of media, not software.

Participants’ evaluations of Prezi were particularly telling in three ways. First, in participants’ own words (from Experiment 1 ), they frequently described Prezi as engaging , interactive , visually compelling , visually pleasing , or vivid , and PowerPoint as concise , clear , easy to follow , familiar , professional , or organized . Second, in participants’ ratings (from Experiment 2 ), the visuals from Prezi presentations were evaluated as significantly more dynamic, visually compelling, and distinctive than those from PowerPoint presentations. And third, in judging the audiovisual attributes of presentations, participants’ identified animations as both the attribute most lacking in presentations and the attribute that most distinguished Prezi from PowerPoint; furthermore, the more a presentation was judged as lacking animation, the worse it was rated. Taken together, this evidence suggests that Prezi presentations were not just better overall, but were better at engaging visually with their audience through the use of animation. Because ZUIs are defined by their panning and zooming animations—and animation is an ancillary (and frequently misused) feature of slideware—the most parsimonious explanation for the present results is in terms of ZUIs and slideware in general, not Prezi and PowerPoint in particular. The medium is not the message, but it may be the mechanism.

The animated nature of ZUIs makes more sense as possible mechanism for the observed effects when one considers relevant literature on animation. Past research has shown that animation can induce physiological and subjective arousal (e.g., [ 90 , 91 ]) and facilitate attention, learning, and task performance (e.g., [ 92 – 94 ]; but see also [ 95 , 96 ]). Most pertinently, people appear to prefer animated media over static media. Participants rate animated online advertisements as more enjoyable, persuasive, effective, and exciting than static online advertisements [ 97 , 98 ], animated websites as more likeable, engaging, and favorable than static websites [ 99 ], and animated architectural displays as clearer than static displays [ 100 ]. In an experiment of online academic lectures, participants preferred whiteboard-style animations over a slideware-style version matched for both visual and audio content [ 101 ]. Moreover, ZUI’s use of animation aligns with recommended principles for using animation effectively in presentations, which include the creation of a large virtual canvas and the use of zooming to view detail [ 102 ]. Slideware, on the other hand, encourages the use of superfluous animation in slide transitions and object entrances/exits, despite evidence that adding such “seductive details” to multimedia presentations can be counterproductive [ 72 ].

Therefore, we not only conclude that audiences prefer Prezi over PowerPoint presentations, but also conclude that their preference is rooted in an intrinsic attribute of ZUIs: panning and zooming animations. Compared to slideware’s sequential, linear transitions (and oral presentations’ total lack of visual aids), zooming and panning over a virtual canvas is a more engaging and enjoyable experience for an audience.

From this perspective, the reason that participants rated Prezi presentations as more persuasive, effective, and organized than other presentations—and Prezi presenters as more knowledgeable, professional, effective, and organized than other presenters—was because they confuse media with messages and messengers. Dual-process models of persuasion contend that opinion change occurs through not just slow deliberations grounded in logic and reason but also through fast shortcuts rooted in associations and cues [ 103 – 106 ]. If better presenters with better arguments tend to give better presentations, then an audience’s experience while viewing a presentation may shade their judgments about its presenter or argument. This is the same basic logic of research that demonstrates PowerPoint’s persuasion advantage over oral presentations [ 53 , 54 ]. Just as audiences appear more persuaded by slideware than by oral presentations, they also appear more persuaded by ZUI than by slideware presentations. But unlike past research, we do not argue that audience members use technological sophistication as a cue for argument quality [ 53 ] or presenter preparedness [ 54 ]; instead, we suggest that they use their subjective viewing experience as a heuristic for judging both presentations and presenters. Because ZUI presentations are more engaging than slideshows, ZUI presentations and presenters are judged more positively than slideshows.

Concluding remarks

Media research, including research into presentation software, is plagued methodologically by a lack of experimental control, the unjustifiable assumption that media effects are constant across individuals and content, and a failure to account for the biases of all involved: the presenters, the audiences, and the researchers. In the research reported here we strived to overcome these challenges by randomly assigning presenters and audience members to competing presentation formats, blinding them to the experimental manipulations, and sampling a sufficient array of presentations within each format.

Our conclusions about the advantages of ZUIs (such as Prezi) over slideware (such as PowerPoint) and oral presentations are, of course, tentative. Further research will need to replicate the findings across different presentation contexts, clarify whether the subjective benefits of ZUIs over slideware result in decision-making or behavioral advantages, and better investigate the precise media attributes responsible for these advantages. Like others [ 107 ], we caution against technological determinism: Presentation medium is but one of many factors that determine presentation success, and presentations that rely on any given medium can succeed or fail. Because slideware can be used to zoom and pan over a virtual canvas just as ZUIs can be used to create slideshows, the benefits of ZUIs over slideware are ultimately based on affordances: How much do certain formats encourage or enable psychologically advantageous media attributes, such as zooming and panning animations?

In many ways, it is surprising that we found any effects of presentation medium. The presentations differed in many ways aside from their format, ways that surely influenced their effectiveness: Each presentation was made by a different person (sampled from a diverse pool of participants), presenters chose what content to include in their presentation, and presenters decided how to convey that content within their assigned format. Under real-world circumstances in which presentations of different formats are actually contrasted with each other, we expect this background “noise” to be greatly reduced and impact of format correspondingly greater.

Supporting information

S1 file. experiment 1 audience pre-survey..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s001

S2 File. Experiment 1 audience post-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s002

S3 File. Experiment 1 presenter pre-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s003

S4 File. Experiment 1 presenter post-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s004

S5 File. Experiment 2 audience post-survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178774.s005

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Erin-Driver Linn, Brooke Pulitzer, and Sarah Shaughnessy of the Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching for their institutional guidance and support, Nina Cohodes, Gabe Mansur, and the staff of the Harvard Decision Sciences Laboratory for their assistance with participant testing, Michael Friedman for his feedback on pilot versions of the study protocol, and Tom Ryder for his support in adapting the multimedia case for research purposes.

Author Contributions

• Conceptualization: SMK ST STM.
• Data curation: ST STM.
• Formal analysis: ST STM.
• Funding acquisition: SMK ST STM.
• Investigation: ST.
• Methodology: SMK ST STM.
• Project administration: ST STM.
• Resources: ST STM.
• Software: ST STM.
• Supervision: SMK ST STM.
• Validation: SMK ST STM.
• Visualization: STM.
• Writing – original draft: STM.
• Writing – review & editing: SMK ST STM.
• 1. McCluhan M. The medium is the message. In: Understanding of media: The extensions of man. 1964. p. 1–18.
• 2. Salomon G. Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. Lawrance Erlbaum Associates Inc.; 1994.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 5. Stokes DE. Pasteur’s Quadrant. Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1997.
• 7. Parker I. Absolute PowerPoint: Can a software package edit our thoughts? [Internet]. The New Yorker. 2001 [cited 2016 Sep 3]. Available from: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/05/28/absolute-powerpoint
• 10. Tufte ER. The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 2013.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 42. Frey BA, Birnbaum DJ. Learners’ perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in lectures. 2002 [cited 2016 Sep 5]; Available from: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED467192
• 53. Guadagno RE, Sundie JM, Hardison TA, Cialdini RB. The persuasive power of PowerPoint ® presentations. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Persuasive Technology: Persuasive Technology and Design: Enhancing Sustainability and Health [Internet]. ACM; 2011 [cited 2015 Dec 26]. p. 2. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2467805
• 55. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Macmillan; 2011. 511 p.
• 56. Gunelius S. Stand Out From Competitors With Prezi Presentations [Internet]. Forbes. 2011 [cited 2016 Sep 5]. Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2011/03/23/stand-out-from-competitors-with-prezi-presentations/
• 58. Rockinson-Szapkiw AJ, Knight A, Tucker JM. Prezi: Trading linear presentations for conceptual learning experiences in counselor education. In 2011 [cited 2016 Sep 3]. Available from: https://works.bepress.com/amanda_rockinson_szapkiw/18/
• 61. Adams S. How Prezi’s Peter Arvai plans to beat PowerPoint. Forbes [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 5]; Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2016/06/07/how-prezis-peter-arvai-plans-to-beat-powerpoint/
• 62. McCloud S. Reinventing comics. New York, NY, USA: Paradox Pres; 2000.
• 67. Wilson ML, others. A longitudinal study of exploratory and keyword search. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries [Internet]. ACM; 2008 [cited 2016 Aug 16]. p. 52–56. Available from: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378899
• 69. Luria AR. The mind of a mnemonist: A little book about a vast memory. Harvard University Press; 1968.
• 72. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning. In: Brian H. Ross , editor. Psychology of Learning and Motivation [Internet]. Academic Press; 2002 [cited 2013 Dec 19]. p. 85–139. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079742102800056
• 75. Brock S, Brodahl C. A Tale of two cultures: Cross cultural comparison in learning the Prezi presentation software tool in the US and Norway. In: Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 Dec 26]. p. 95–119. Available from: http://www.editlib.org/p/114622/
• 78. Ballentine BD. High concept and design documentation: Using Prezi for undergraduate game design. In: 2012 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. 2012. p. 1–5.
• 82. Bean JW. Presentation software supporting visual design: Displaying spatial relationships with a zooming user interface. Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2012 IEEE International 2012 Oct 8 (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
• 85. Harvard Business Publishing—Cases [Internet]. [cited 2016 Sep 10]. Available from: https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/pages/content/cases
• 94. Shanmugasundaram M, Irani P. The effect of animated transitions in zooming interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2008 [cited 2016 Sep 5]. p. 396–399. (AVI ‘08). Available from: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1385569.1385642
• 101. Turkay S, Moulton ST. The educational impact of whiteboard animations: An experiment using popular social science lessons. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Learning International Networks Consortium (LINC). Cambridge, MA, USA; 2016. p. 283–91.
• 103. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly AH. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and. Unintended thought. In: Unintended Thought. New York, NY, USA: The Guilford Press; 1989. p. 212–52.
• 104. Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D. Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgement. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
• 105. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1986.
• 106. Petty RE, Wegener DT. The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y, editors. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 1999. p. 37–72.

20 Advantages And Disadvantages Of Google Slides

Google Slides is a powerful web-based presentation program that offers several distinguishable features compared to other presentation programs. However, like any other program, it also has a few disadvantages that users should be aware of. In this article, we will explore the 20 advantages and drawbacks of Google Slides so that you can decide if it’s the correct presentation program for you.

1. It’s Free

2. easy to use, 3. real-time collaboration, 4. web-based (no software required), 5. easy accessibility, 6. export/import in multiple formats, 7. works offline, 8. auto-save docs, 9. embeds different elements, 10. support add-ons, 11. cloud storage, 12. relatively secure, 13. easy to track the changes, 14. compatible with other google apps, 15. limited templates, 16. lack some features, 17. limited functionality while offline, 18. possible security risks, 19. formatting loss when importing, 20. no dedicated desktop app, advantages of google slides.

Let’s begin with  the advantages of Google Slides:

One of the main advantages of Google Slides is that it’s free to use. There are no subscription fees, and you can use all the features without paying anything. This makes it a great option for individuals and businesses who want to create professional-grade presentations without spending any money.

There are not a lot of free presentation programs out there that can compete with Google Slides in terms of features and presentation quality.

Google Slides is very easy to use, even if you’ve never used a presentation program before. The user interface is straightforward, intuitive, and uncluttered. You can easily access any of the features with just a few clicks. The learning curve is also very short. And there’s also a wealth of tutorials and resources available if you need assistance.

Google Slides offers real-time collaboration, which means multiple users can contribute and make changes to the same presentation simultaneously. Many other presentation programs also offer this feature, but Google Slides does it better by allowing users to see the changes being made in real-time. This is extremely useful for team projects as it allows more efficient collaboration.

While most of the popular presentation programs require you to download and install software, Google Slides is web-based, which means you don’t need to install anything. All you need is a web browser and an internet connection. That means there are no compatibility issues, and you can use Google Slides on any computer, regardless of the operating system.

As Google Slides is web-based, it’s easy to access from anywhere. You can simply go to the website and log in with your Google account. Since there is no device restriction, you can access your presentations without any restrictions (even from smart TVs). This is very convenient, especially if you need to make changes or present your slides while you’re on the go.

Google Slides allows you to export your presentations in multiple formats (PDF, PPTX, JPG, etc.), which is a great feature to have if you need to share your slides with someone who uses a different program. You can also import supported formats of presentations from other programs into Google Slides. This is very useful if you need to edit an existing presentation or convert it into a different format.

You can use Google Slides offline on Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome browser by installing an extension . It enables you to continue working on your presentation even without an internet connection. Although a few features will be disabled when you’re offline, you can still do a lot, such as adding new slides, editing text, etc.

Google Slides automatically saves your presentations as you work on them, so you don’t have to worry about losing your work if the power goes out or your computer crashes. While other programs also offer this feature, Google Slides does it more efficiently by autosaving the work more frequently.

You can embed different types of content from other sources, such as images, videos, charts, shapes, etc., in Google Slides. This is a very useful feature for adding multimedia content to your slides without having to download or insert them separately.

Google Slides supports add-ons, which are basically small pieces of software that add new features and functionality to the program. There are many useful add-ons available, such as the one that allows you to add a timer or stopwatch, icons, additional fonts, etc., on your slide, which can be very useful for different purposes.

When you create a presentation in Google Slides, it’s automatically saved to your Google Drive account. This means you don’t need to worry about losing your work if your computer crashes or if you accidentally delete the file. You also won’t need to be bothered about the storage capacity of your device. Other alternatives like MS PowerPoint also offer cloud storage, but you need to activate it manually.

Google Slides is relatively secure as your presentations are stored in the Google Drive cloud storage, which is a very secure platform. Google utilizes top-notch encryption and security measures to keep your data safe. However, as with any other online service, how secure your data is also depends on how you use it.

Google Slides also makes it easy to track the changes made to your presentation. It keeps a record of all the changes and allows you to see who made them and when. This is a very useful feature, especially if you’re working on a presentation with others.

Google Slides is compatible with other Google apps, such as Google Docs and Sheets. You can easily insert content from these apps into your slides and vice versa. This is very convenient for showcasing data on your presentation from your spreadsheet or document.

Disadvantages Of Google Slides

Here are some disadvantages of Google Slides:

Google Slides offers a limited number of templates as compared to other alternatives like MS PowerPoint. While there are some good templates available, you might need to use a different program if you’re looking for more variety. You can also download additional templates from the internet, but finding good ones can be time-consuming.

Google Slides lacks some features that are available in other programs, such limited ability to add animations or transitions to your slides. While you may still achieve these by using add-ons or workarounds, it’s not as convenient as having built-in features.

While you can still use Google Slides offline, some features like spelling and grammar check will be disabled. You won’t be able to access your saved works, either. Moreover, the offline mode might not work if it is not properly set. This can be frustrating, especially if you’re working on a presentation and suddenly lose the connection.

As we said earlier,  Google Slides is relatively secure, but it’s still possible for your data to be hacked or leaked. This is especially true if you carelessly share your presentation with others. Be careful about what information you include in your slides and who you share them with.

When you import a presentation from another program like MS PowerPoint to Google Slides, the formatting might not be retained. This can be very annoying, especially if you’ve spent a lot of time working on the original presentation.

Google Slides is web-based, which means you can access it from any device with an internet connection. However, there’s no dedicated laptop app for it. Some institutions or workplaces block access to certain services, including Google, which can make it difficult to use Google Slides.

Google Slides is a great program for creating presentations, especially if you’re working with others. It’s free, easy to use, and includes features like real-time collaboration and cloud storage.  Apart from a few disadvantages, like limited templates and features, Google Slides is a good choice for those looking for a highly-capable and free online presentation program.

Related Posts:

• Pitch Decks & Investor Materials
• B2B Graphic Design
• Startup Consulting
• Trainings & Workshops
• Case studies
• Downloadable resources

What are the advantages and disadvatages of PowerPoint

• PowerPoint tutorial /
• Presentation design

PowerPoint is one of the most popular software for presentations. It is part of the Microsoft Office suite and can be used for personal, business, and educational purposes. Most known for its templates and easiness of use, PowerPoint had conquered the presentations game. 

From beginners to professional speakers, this software allows you to build your own presentations using text, images, video, audios, tables of data. There are a variety of animations and transitions that can help in delivering the presentation the way you want. 

We’ve been working for five years in Presentation Design, and most of our work is done using PowerPoint.

Even though I’ve been using it over the past 5 years, I’m learning something new every once in a while. I’m always looking to improve my process, do things differently or executing the wrong command. Some mistakes are good too, eh? I feel like PowerPoint is a tool which is overlooked by many people in the design industry. When I switch to other software, I’m thinking <<oh, I could have done this a lot faster in PowerPoint>>. I like order and precision. Through PowerPoint’s  grid and guides features, I’m able to satisfy these cravings of mine and create consistent and neat presentations.

Bogdan, Visual Hackers Designer

Advantages of PowerPoint

1. It can be used virtually anywhere

Put your presentation on a USB flash drive or in any cloud storage app and you will have your PowerPoint presentation at hand anytime. It is also included in standard professional settings, so with your user license, you can access your presentation from anywhere.

2. It is a collaborative solution

Work from home is now a normal thing to do. Tools that provide solutions for working together with your team even if you are in different locations are in high demand. PowerPoint adapted to this situation and with its online cloud storage, you can now work on presentations at the same time, or work on the same presentation without sending it to each other. 

3. You can choose to create your own design or use existing ones

PowerPoint offers you full control over your slides’ appearances. You have the freedom to customize your presentation with your own design. As it is easy to modify and play with the elements given by this software, you can create the perfect presentation for yourself. 

There are also templates already integrated into the software for visually appealing presentations and for those who want a quick and nice design. Furthermore, PowerPoint will give you design ideas with the images and elements you chose to have on slides.

If you customize the slides you have the Master Slide, it will help you set the fonts, images (logos), and other preferences for all the slides. The master slide is the top slide in the thumbnail pane on the left side of the window.

4. Multiple uses 

An adaptable and perceptive tool is how our founder described PowerPoint in a previous article. That is because this software is not only for presentations (even though it is most known for them), but also for other types of materials, such as flyers, marketing materials, gifs, videos, or CVs. We do PowerPoint infographics, our social media posts, and presentations for clients. 

89% of people use PowerPoint to create presentations.

Read more about how you can use PowerPoint:

PowerPoint is more than just a presentation tool

5. Export in different formats

With PowerPoint, you can export your materials in other formats than .pptx. We talked previously about all the types of materials you can create in this software and for them, it offers alternatives of saving you work. 

Presentations can be saved also in .pdf, this will reduce their size, videos can be exported as mp4 and for gifs, there is the specific option to save them as Animated gifs. Of course, there is also the option of saving a slide as .png or .jpg.

6. It facilitates an effective way of communication with the audience

Most of the time, PowerPoint is used for presenting to a larger audience (a few things have changed in 2020, but a zoom presentation looks just as good), as it is easier to be projected. Choose your communication style, do you want to rely more on images, text, or videos, all of them can be easily integrated into PowerPoint.

65% of the population are visual learners

7. You can insert multimedia formats

Visuals are the key in PowerPoint. Images and videos help you explain your idea better and in an engaging way in any presentation. There are some basic sounds that you can use or insert your own audio for the desired effect. 

Play with all the functionalities of this tool and use it to its maximum. 

8. Extremely efficient tool

Once you get familiar with the software, there are all kinds of features that you can use to become an expert in PowerPoint. We can even name 84 shortcuts that will change the way you use it and will also save you a lot of time.

Learn for yourself:

84 PowerPoint Shortcuts To Improve Your Presentation Game

9. It is accessible for all categories of users

Most of the time employees/staff have already the Microsoft license on their work computers, with PowerPoint included. Also, universities acquire the suite so students and teachers cand use reach out and use them.

Disadvantages of PowerPoint

1. High risk of technical issues

It can happen anytime, there are a lot of variables that intervene when you are about to use PowerPoint for presenting. Your computer can stop working, get an update right before you start, or lose power in the middle of the presentation. There is always the connectivity issue, do you use HDMI, VGA or do you have an adaptor. PowerPoint also has some specifics ada[ted for your computer, like fonts or videos, and if you don’t embed them or you don’t put them in a folder with the presentation they won’t work on somebody else’s computer.

2. Overuse of information 

After you accommodate with the software it becomes very easy to get lost in all the options you have. How much text is too much? Are there enough images? What font to use? How many fonts to use? By adding a lot of things you will lose sight of the purpose of the presentation. 

We know that there is a lot of important information you want to transmit, but leave some mystery for the delivery part. 

3. Predisposal to death by PowerPoint

PowerPoint presentations are very common in conferences, business meetings and universities, therefore your audience has seen quite a lot of presentations before yours. You need to catch your audience’s attention from the beginning with your presentation looks or with your way of presenting, otherwise, they will get bored and won’t listen to you present.  Make sure you put enough time into preparing your PowerPoint material, a good presentation with a fine speech will hit the target. 

Avoid templates as much as possible if you want to impress, or work on them and add your unique style to them. 

4. Presenters rely too much on slides 

Sometimes when you are too focused on preparing the slides you may forget to actually prepare to deliver the presentation and you will end up reading from the slides. The audience wants to hear more from the speaker than what is presented on the slides, otherwise they could have looked over the presentation themselves.

5. Overuse of presentations 

There are situations when you get so used to the tool that you will start making a presentation for everything. Every report or status will become easier to do in PowerPoint for you, but it won’t be that fun for your colleagues and will cost you time. 

We recommend using Powerpoint for all kinds of materials, not just presentations. This tool can give you freedom in design and also help you with predefined elements. 

If you want to make a presentation yourself, invest time, look for tutorials or just reach out to an agency to help you create the right presentation. 

Here’s When You Really Need A Presentation Design Specialist

Top articles

• Infographics
• Personal branding
• Pitch deck design
• PowerPoint tutorial
• Public speaking
• Visual communication

Sign up for our monthly newsletter

I always use to have a good result from here

Give result of all quation that im ask Good area for studing

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Home » Pros and Cons » 10 Pros and Cons of Powerpoint Presentations

10 Pros and Cons of Powerpoint Presentations

If you need to make a formal presentation, one of the best supportive tools you can use to create visuals for those attending is Microsoft PowerPoint. It can be found in Office 365 subscriptions for both personal and business use.

The primary advantage of using PowerPoint is that visual representations can help to reinforce the key points you’re speaking about. Humans are visually orientated when learning new skills or ideas, so having a graphic representation of what you’re speaking about makes it easier to retain the information.

The primary disadvantage is that it takes time to learn how to use this software. For those unfamiliar with visual presentation software, the process can become difficult. It may even cause some to give up trying to learn it. Here are some of the other pros and cons of PowerPoint presentations that are worth thinking about as well.

What Are the Pros of PowerPoint Presentations?

1. It is easy to download and use virtually anywhere. PowerPoint is considered a standard product in many professional settings. This allows you to take your user license virtually anywhere to be able to create the graphics needed for your presentation. It is so expected, in fact, that you may create a negative first impression if you don’t have a PowerPoint presentation to offer.

2. It can make a presentation more interesting. Even interesting presentations can grow long and boring. With an animated presentation or interesting quotes or other fun slides, you can bring people back from their boredom.

3. It is easy to customize each slide to meet specific needs. Images on a slide can be decreased or increased in scale to fit your needs. It only takes a few clicks to insert, alter, and align images to create a needed visual representation. You can even use arrows, pointers, or other shapes to highlight key areas of information you want people to know about.

4. It is a simple process to create follow-along hand-outs. You can print each slide directly from PowerPoint. Then you can copy those slides to become a helpful hand-out that can be given to each presentation participant.

5. It is reasonably affordable for most professionals. Business plans for Office 365 start at just under $10 per month. This gives you 1 license to use on a computer of your choice. For $15 per month, you receive 5 computer licenses to use.

What Are the Cons of PowerPoint Presentations?

1. There’s always the chance of running into technical difficulties. Even tech-savvy individuals can run into presentation issues when the technology doesn’t work as intended. Maybe the computer stops working. Or you lose power to your outlet. Or the overhead display doesn’t work right. This can alter the positive first impression of a presentation very quickly.

2. Slides with too much information on them can become overwhelming. Because there are so many options that can be included on a PowerPoint presentation, it can be easy to go overboard on the number of colors, sounds, shapes, and other items that can be used. By adding to many things, you can detract from the information that needs to be shared.

3. It isn’t a substitute for what a presenter must do. Many who use PowerPoint tend to rely on the information on the slide instead of providing a learning narrative. It is easy to become too reliant on this software and forget that there is an actual presentation that needs to be completed.

4. Costs are always ongoing. Because it is part of the Office 365 package, you no longer receive a proprietary software license for one specific cost. You must pay a monthly or annual subscription cost, which over time can add up to more than what the proprietary license once offered. You must also download the software to each computer, which consumes data that may be capped for some small business owners.

5. Some participants may tune out your narrative. If your PowerPoint is very detailed, some participants in your presentation may focus on your handouts and slides more than your actual narrative. This may make it difficult to make the call to action that you want participants to follow at the end of the day.

The pros and cons of PowerPoint presentations show that with careful planning, any narrative can be enhanced for those who are participating in the event. Without that planning, the presentation may do more harm than good to the narrative.

Do you use Microsoft PowerPoint for your presentations? What helpful tips do you have to refine the presentation creation experience?

Related Posts:

• 50 Most Profitable Recession Proof Businesses
• 25 Best Elevator Pitch Examples for Startups and…
• 21 Best SMART Goals Examples for Teachers and Educators
• 50 Best Passive Income Ideas that Deliver

Pros and Cons for PowerPoint and Google Slides

Bad , Comparison , Good , Opposite , Thunderbolt

File types:

Google Slides , PPTX

Free pros and cons for PowerPoint and Google Slides. Stunning and eye-catching presentation template to compare advantages and disadvantages. Editable graphics with text placeholders.

Pros and Cons

Do you want your audience to think you are a pro and not a con artist? Then choose this free Pros and Cons template to make your point!

The design of this slide offers two clear-cut sides. On the left, you can indeed make the list of your cons or disadvantages over a strong red background. On the opposite side, your pros or advantages will appear over a green background. Last but not least, a thunderbolt symbol stands in the center to separate both sides.

Good versus bad, positive versus negative, pros versus cons: the eternal dichotomy! This free Pros and Cons template is ideal to present your comparisons and oppositions in an electrifying way!

Shapes are 100% editable : colors and sizes can be easily changed.

Includes 2 slide option designs: Standard (4:3) and Widescreen (16:9).

Widescreen (16:9) size preview:

This ‘Pros and Cons for PowerPoint and Google Slides’ features:

• 2 unique slides
• Light and Dark layout
• Ready to use template with text placeholders
• Completely editable shapes
• Standard (4:3) and Widescreen (16:9) aspect ratios
• PPTX file and for Google Slides

Free fonts used:

• Helvetica (System Font)
• Calibri (System Font)

Terms of use:

Requires attribution, personal and educational use, commercial use, (re)sell, (re)distribute, read the full  terms of use.

Google Slides: Widescreen (16:9)

You may also like these presentation templates

Search Templates by categories

Search templates by colors.

Love our templates? Show your support with a coffee!

Thank you for fueling our creativity.

Charts & Diagrams

Text & Tables

Graphics & Metaphors

Timelines & Planning

Best-Ofs & Tips

Terms and Conditions

Privacy Statement

Cookie Policy

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Policy

© Copyright 2024  Ofeex  | PRESENTATIONGO® is a registered trademark | All rights reserved.

To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.

Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.

Thank you for downloading this template!

Remember, you can use it for free but you have to attribute PresentationGO . For example, you can use the following text:

If you really like our free templates and want to thank/help us, you can:

Thank you for your support

Blog – Creative Presentations Ideas

infoDiagram visual slide examples, PowerPoint diagrams & icons , PPT tricks & guides

How to Show Comparison with Pros and Cons PowerPoint Diagrams

Last Updated on February 20, 2024 by Anastasia

Do you need to add a slide with advantages and disadvantages in comparison to your presentation? In this blog, we offer visual examples of how to illustrate the pros and cons of a business process, product, strategy, or decision using visual aids.

Transform your business presentations with our expert resources. Discover more on our business performance presentations webpage.

Do you have any ideas on how to create visually appealing positive and negative slides? Don’t worry if your answer is ‘no’. Check the following creative slide design ideas we share in this blog. They will help you create are fresh, simple, and elegant presentation.

All example slides below are a part of the Pros & Cons Diagrams PowerPoint template  (see details by clicking the pictures).

Why Use Pros and Cons Diagrams in Your Presentation?

Here are the major reasons for using graphics to highlight the pros & cons:

• Show the pluses and minuses of specific options
• Compare the gains and losses of a proposal in the decision-making process
• Visualize the benefits and drawbacks of the solution
• Highlight the major advantages and disadvantages of the product, process, strategy, idea, etc.
• Present a visual comparison of ups and downs on one slide
• Replace ordinary tables and lists with creative diagrams

Apply Pros and Cons Diagrams Instead of Ordinary Bullet Points

Are you going to use ordinary bullet points to list the advantages or disadvantages of the discussed subject? It would be better to visualize data to make sure that your audience will not miss any critical information.

The example above demonstrates how you can transform a written list of the advantages into an eye-catching infographic. You can add different icons and short descriptions to draw your audience’s attention to small details, that matter.

Design tip: if you are going to add more icons in your presentation, remember to keep them graphically consistent. Use one style for all slides and limited set of colors – ideally based on your branding.

Looking for more list presentation ideas? See three creative ways of illustrating a list in your presentation.

Use Pros and Cons Diagrams Instead of Traditional Comparison Tables

Let’s face the truth, traditional Excel tables look pretty boring. If you want to make sure that your audience will not skip reading table information, you should pay attention to the slide design.

This slide example shows how you can highlight pluses and minuses utilizing a non-standard table. We also added hand-drawn icons and elements to make the table look creative and unique. Such hand-drawn visuals can help make your presentation more impactful .

Highlight the Pros and Cons On Two Separate Slides

In case you want to discuss the advantages of the topic in more detail but don’t want to overload the slide with text, you can choose the following design. A relevant background photo and a small text section work great together. Visualization of this type makes your message clear and concise helping to retain the audience’s attention.

You can also apply this design to list the disadvantages. Take a look at the following template: a high-resolution image pairs well with a short bulleted list and a few simple icons. These two slides will look great next to each other.

Put Benefits and Drawbacks On a Final Slide

If a major goal of your presentation is to focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the discussed idea, we suggest adding a pros and cons diagram for a final slide.

Take a glance at the following template, which presents benefits and drawbacks in a simple, yet effective way. The slide divided diagonally looks more creative and will suit any presentation. You can add big icons (like on the picture) to show where you stated the benefits and drawbacks.

As you can see, there are a lot of unordinary Pros and Cons slide designs to choose from. You just need to select the most suitable diagram to create a killer presentation.

Don’t be afraid to experiment: you can use several slides in the same presentation. For instance, you can focus separately on benefits and drawbacks, and then sum it up with a final slide with the most essential points. Just remember about visual consistency.

Do you need to create a to-do checklist slide for the project or review a presentation? You can rearrange and reuse one of the above diagrams, e.g. a slide with a tick and cross. Here we share more ideas on creating To-Do checklists for various purposes.

Resources of Comparison Diagrams

To save you time developing such comparison graphics, we designed an editable PowerPoint template with various pros and cons slides. Go and create engaging infographics, you can check the whole collection here:

Pros & Cons PPT Comparison Charts

You can also check the flat infographics deck  to make your slide readable and distinguishable.

Need to illustrate other business topics? You can also explore our tutorial video for step-by-step guidance on creating engaging All Hands Meeting presentations:

Author: Leona Henryson – freelance writer and UX designer. Also, she is a contributing writer for various blogs. When she is not writing or designing, she is swimming, hiking, and, weather permitting, snowboarding.

• Video Library
• Client Testimonials
• Testimonials
• Quick Tip Videos
• Leadership Library
• Leadership Hour
• Video Podcast
• Mini-Seminars
• Lessons in Leadership
• You Are the Brand
• Lessons in Leadership 2.0
• What Were They Thinking
• Make the Connection
• Speak from the Heart
• Communication
• Customer Service and Sales
• Featured in NJ Monthly
• Making Headlines
• Team Building, Mentoring and Coaching
• Presentation Skills & Public Speaking

Using Handouts for Presentations: The Pros and Cons

by Steve Adubato, PhD

Recently Jim, a middle manager, was asked to give a presentation to other members of his team regarding a new project he was working on. Jim was asked to present an update on where things stood and identify areas where his colleagues could provide valuable feedback.

The first thing he did was distribute a thick handout with lots of detailed information about the project. There were numerous charts and graphs along with about 20 pages of text. Within 30 seconds of Jim’s presentation, half of the 10 other managers started thumbing through the handout. This clearly distracted Jim and from that point on he had a really difficult time getting the audience’s full attention.

Some might think the moral of this communication story is that when making a presentation you should never distribute handouts. Well, it’s not that simple. With this in mind, consider some tips and tools as well as some pros and cons when it comes to handouts and your next presentation:

• If you are going to use a handout, never distribute something that is more than just a few pages. There is too much to thumb through. The best handouts are a page or two with bulleted, boldly typed information with key points, themes, statistics or questions. It is really a basic outline for your audience to follow.
• Your job is to fill in the white space in between the bulleted points on the handout. The more you read verbatim what you’ve handed out, the more you invite your audience to ignore you and become obsessed with what is on the printed page.
• Only provide a handout if it really enhances or supports your presentation. Don’t do it just to do it, because even the best handout will be somewhat of a distraction. Remember, while your audience is reading the handout, you’ve lost eye contact with them. So pick your spots.
• Make sure your handouts are practical and can be utilized by your audience AFTER your presentation. One of the handouts I use in a typical communications seminar is titled “Top 10 Keys to Making a Great Presentation.” It’s a simple list of ten practical tools. There is no detailed explanation, but it is helpful to audience members who want to remember the points raised in the actual presentation and share it with other colleagues in the workplace.
• Another option is to distribute the handout AFTER the presentation. Tell folks you will be providing that material to them to reinforce the messages communicated in your presentation. This is helpful because many professionals don’t take a presentation seriously unless there is some piece of paper they can take away from it. That’s just human nature.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Advantages and Disadvantages PowerPoint Templates

You can showcase the advantages and disadvantages of the topic you present in your presentation using our editable PowerPoint templates. Analyzing any strategy or product’s pros and cons is easy with these ready-to-use PowerPoint templates. These advantages and disadvantages ppt slides also help you to showcase the business growth drivers and risks using engaging infographics. It is essential to analyze the pros and cons before making any business decisions or a project. With our pre-designed advantages and disadvantages powerpoint templates help, you can highlight the positives and negative aspects of your business strategy, decision, and business process in your business presentations. These infographics will help you in your final decision-making by showing your business’s plus and minus points. Use our editable advantages & disadvantages templates designs to impress your audience. You can also use our ready-to-use google slides for free to deliver more engaging presentations in front of your stakeholders and clients. 

• Price <= $5.99
• Price > $5.99

Business Options Pros and Cons PowerPoint Template

Login to use this feature

Add-to-favs lets you build a list for inspiration and future use.

Log in now to start adding your favs.

If you don't have one. A free account also gives you access to our free templates library

Challenges and Solutions List PowerPoint Template

Pros And Cons 7 PowerPoint Template

Pros And Cons 9 PowerPoint Template

Pros and Cons Seesaw 1 PowerPoint Template

Pros and Cons 13 PowerPoint Template

Pros And Cons Templates for PowerPoint & Google Slides

Pros And Cons 1 PowerPoint Template

Business Case Pros And Cons PowerPoint Template

Pros And Cons 10 PowerPoint Template

Pros and Cons Infographics PowerPoint Template

Pros And Cons 2 PowerPoint Template

Advantages-disadvantages powerpoint templates for presentations:.

The Advantages-Disadvantages PowerPoint templates go beyond traditional static slides to make your professional presentations stand out. Given the sleek design and customized features, they can be used as PowerPoint as well as  Google Slides templates . Inculcated with visually appealing unique and creative designs, the templates will double your presentation value in front of your audience. You can browse through a vast library of Advantages-Disadvantages Google Slides templates,  PowerPoint themes  and  backgrounds  to stand out in your next presentation.

What Is A Advantages-Disadvantages PowerPoint Template?

A Advantages-Disadvantages PowerPoint template is a ready-made presentation template that provides a structured framework for creating professional Advantages-Disadvantages presentations. The Advantages-Disadvantages PPT presentation template includes design elements, layouts, and fonts that you can customize to fit your content and brand.

What Are The Advantages Of Advantages-Disadvantages Presentation Templates?

Advantages-Disadvantages PPT presentation templates can be beneficial because they:

• Add multiple visual and aesthetic layers to your slides.
• Ensure that complex information, insights and data is presented in a simplistic way.
• Enhance the overall visual appeal of the content.
• Save you a lot of time as you don’t have to start editing from scratch.
• Improve the professional outlook of your presentation.

How To Choose The Best Advantages-Disadvantages Presentation Templates?

Keep the following points in mind while choosing a Advantages-Disadvantages Presentation template for PowerPoint (PPT) or Google Slides:

• Understand your presentation goals and objectives.
• Make sure the Advantages-Disadvantages template aligns with your visual needs and appeal.
• Ensure the template is versatile enough to adapt to various types of content.
• Ensure the template is easily customizable.

Can I Edit The Elements In Advantages-Disadvantages PowerPoint Templates?

Yes, our Advantages-Disadvantages PowerPoint and Google Slides templates are fully editable. You can easily modify the individual elements including icons, fonts, colors, etc. while making your presentations using  professional PowerPoint templates .

Are Advantages-Disadvantages PowerPoint Templates Compatible With Google Slides?

Yes, all our Advantages-Disadvantages presentation templates are compatible and can be used as Advantages-Disadvantages Google Slides templates.

How To Download Advantages-Disadvantages PowerPoint Templates For Presentations?

To download Advantages-Disadvantages presentation templates, you can follow these steps:

• Select the resolution (16*9 or 4*3).
• Select the format you want to download the Advantages-Disadvantages template in (Google Slides or PowerPoint).
• Make the payment (SlideUpLift has a collection of paid as well as free Advantages-Disadvantages PowerPoint templates).
• You can download the file or open it in Google Slides.

Related Presentation Templates

Leading v/s lagging.

6 templates

Dos & Don'ts

24 templates

Positive Negative

64 templates

314 templates

Pros And Cons

Forgot Password?

Privacy Overview

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

9 Disadvantages of Using PowerPoint Presentations!

By: Author Shrot Katewa

If you frequently have to prepare and deliver presentations you normally want to use software that is suitable for the topics you’ll be covering. The software should also allow you to shape the presentation into a style you are comfortable with.

PowerPoint might have been recommended to you but now you are wondering whether a presenting tool with such a lot of features as PowerPoint is not perhaps giving just as many issues.

The biggest drawback of PowerPoint is that it has many features and requires adequate training to use them properly. If not used correctly, it can affect the reputation of the presenter. Other disadvantages include files don’t save automatically, and PowerPoint is not free to use.

In the end, you have to decide whether you can live with these disadvantages when you compare them to the advantages. In this article, we list for your convenience 9 of the most important disadvantages of PowerPoint.

Also Read – Advantages of Using Microsoft PowerPoint!

1. Text-heavy slides

Text-heavy slides give too much information with too much text. This makes the slide boring and the audience will lose interest in the whole presentation.

Many PowerPoint presentations are unsuccessful because the presenter or compiler of the slideshow has tried to put as much content as possible in text form on the slide. A good slide should ideally only have the headings and sub-headings of what the presenter is conveying to the audience.

And if more information in text form is necessary to make it easier for the audience to follow the presenter and comprehend the content, the text should be well organized.

The use of columns or blocks and even different colors will make the slide much more interesting. Unfortunately, the slides of many PowerPoint presentations are not well-designed. 

Compilers of presentations are sometimes in a hurry and just add all the content they‘ve found on the slide without actually designing the slide. They don’t discriminate between really needed content and content that can confuse the audience.

Research has found that text-heavy slides are often used when the presenter just wants to read the information from the slides to the audience, instead of using the PowerPoint slides as a tool to emphasize certain aspects.

2. Too many features can get overwhelming

The PowerPoint developers have over time put more and more features into the software to theoretically make it possible for the compilers of presentations to complete the task without using any other tools or software.  But too many features can confuse the user.

This can cause you to spend a lot of time compiling your presentation, as you first want to look at the available features for every aspect you use and figure out how it works. 

It is overwhelming to have to pick the right feature for literary every aspect of the presentation. This is often the reason provided by users when asked why they don’t use PowerPoint. They prefer software packages with lesser choices but which are easier and simpler to use.

3. Most features usually remain unexplored

Because of the overwhelming effect of the large number of features offered by PowerPoint, most compilers of presentations using PowerPoint simplifies the process when they use it for the first time.

They search for features they understand and which seem easy to use. They then tend to stick to these features and don’t explore other features.  

Many of the slide designing features are for example not fully explored by compilers. Generally, a compiler will search for templates to use and when they have found a few they like, they are not interested in looking for more or designing their own.

PowerPoint users have indicated in surveys that a feature like the adding of video snippets into the presentation is for instance an example of features that usually remain unexplored.    

4. Can affect reputation if not used correctly

The presenter or compiler of the presentation might be trusting PowerPoint to always automatically create well-designed presentations. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

The result can be a presentation with uninteresting and poorly designed slides.  And sometimes the presenter is a very good speaker but an inexperienced PowerPoint user. The combination of a poorly designed presentation with an inexperienced PowerPoint user can affect the reputation of the speaker.

Thus, the bottom line is that a good speaker has to ensure that every slide in the presentation is interesting and conveys just enough information to keep the audience focused.

The presenter should also use the presentation without reading from the screen. Eye contact with the audience is necessary to keep them focused.

5. Real-time collaboration is not the best

Real-time collaboration allows you to work with some of your other colleagues on the same presentation at the same time! This can for example be done with Google Slides. It is a great feature that is especially helpful when working from distant locations or working from home!

Must Read – PowerPoint vs Google Slides: Which Presentation Application Should You Use?

Unfortunately, only the PowerPoint in Office 365 has this real-time feature . If you use any other version of PowerPoint you will not be able to have real-time collaboration.

6. Requires downloading

Another disadvantage of PowerPoint is that you can’t run the application on the cloud as you can do with Google Slides for instance. The Office 365 PowerPoint software is the one exception.

You have to download the PowerPoint software onto your device to be able to use it.

7. Files are not automatically saved

One of the most frustrating things when compiling a presentation is to lose some of the already created slides because they haven’t been saved.  The ideal is that the software saves continuously as you are creating the presentation.

With PowerPoint (except for Office 365) you have to save manually. To ensure that work is not lost, you have to keep on pressing Ctrl+S from time to time. (Ctrl+S is the shortcut for saving a PowerPoint file.)

User reviews indicate that this is also one of the disadvantages that let presentation compilers move away from PowerPoint. In practice, you often just forget to save files manually and unsaved work can easily be lost.    

8. Files often too large to mail

 PowerPoint presentations can quickly become very large. Although you sometimes only want to mail a few files or slides, it often happens that you have to mail the whole presentation. When it exceeds the 10 MB or 25 MB file size it becomes difficult and sometimes impossible to mail.

9. A variety of errors can occur

Although the many features of PowerPoint might be an advantage for some users, the possibility of errors is very high when there are such a large number of features built into a program.  Presentations with fewer features normally develop fewer errors.

PowerPoint online support groups are full of questions. All these questions are an indication that users constantly encounter issues or don’t understand how the features work.  If you look at the answers on these forums it becomes clear that in some instances nobody actually has the correct answer.

Compared to other presentation applications there are much more errors when you use PowerPoint. 

Credit to Nakaridore (on Freepik) for the featured image of this article (further edited)

Pros and cons of the online meetings

Webinar platform » Blog » Holding meetings and events » Pros and cons of the online meetings

Online meetings can be generally termed as virtual meetings based upon a specific aim, without considering national and international boundaries.

Positives and negatives of online meetings

Virtual presence discards the space-time concept because anyone can use online meetings in any place and at any time. One can see that web conferencing is a popular term in business, education and other sectors. In this article, we highlight the main advantages and disadvantages of online meetings.

Table of contents

Communication ability, easy access, time-saving, cost-effectiveness, increased attendance, sharing of information, decrease in personal contact, instability in connection, chance for hacking, potential for poor planning, conclusions.

For instance, with VoIP use , audio communication can also be possible, using speakers and headphones. Performing online presentations also makes it possible to record the presentation on the client’s side for future viewing.

Real-time point-to-point communication is one of the main benefits of online meetings, and it is an important factor in the field of business. Without the help of technology, it is difficult to maintain business.

Learn how to start an online meeting to avoid negatives and get only positives from your audience.

The pros and cons of online meetings are indicated below.

Benefits of online meetings

Online meetings are essential in every sector. A person involved in an online meeting can chat with others from different countries using special video conferencing software . To be specific, distance is not a barrier in this case.

The software offers a strong and productive relationship between more distantly placed persons. It improves the connection between people.

Online meetings provide a platform for uninterrupted communication without considering any disruption.

So the modern world considers online meetings among the more effective methods of communication.

It is not easy for every stakeholder to meet at one place for business meetings, especially when the stakeholders are in different countries.

The physical presence of the stakeholders will increase the cost. In this situation, online meetings are more accessible than any other medium.

Online meetings help every person to interact without moving from one place to another. Everybody can access this service at their fingertips.

Another advantage of online meetings is time-saving. According to a business entrepreneur, time is precious and similar to money. So time is very important in every sector, for great success. If one can save time and use it for productive purposes, one is saving money.

Setting up an online meeting saves plenty of time. For instance, it can be considered as a method of time management to avoid a business trip.

You can organize online meetings at any time and in any location . The only thing that you need is an Internet connection.

Are you interested in hosting webinar or online meeting? Register at MyOwnConference and host online meetings for 20 attendees for free .

Any business wants to use its finances wisely. This includes cutting back on spending. Hosting meetings online saves on expenditure because the business does not have to pay travel and accommodation costs for attendees.

It’s also worth noting that hosting meetings face to face may mean that a business has to pay for a meeting room and refreshments. This does not apply when meetings are hosted online.

Attendees do not have to travel to attend a meeting that takes place online. This means that attending involves less commitment of time. Attendees may also be able to drop in and out of the meeting, if they have urgent business matters to deal with.

These factors provide an increased level of flexibility. This means that more people are likely to be able to attend meetings that are planned.

Often, when face to face meetings are held, attendees are presented with a hard copy of the agenda and relevant papers. This is not necessary for an online meeting. Attendees can view the necessary paperwork digitally.

This saves on the cost of printing off paperwork. It also saves on time as no printing is necessary.

Drawbacks of online meetings

The best mode of communication is face-to-face communication. This is because many things can be understood from facial expressions or body language.

Facial expression is important for effective communication; it is among the most effective ways to deeply understand a person. With the absence of proper body language, there is a chance of misunderstanding.

While we interact through an online meeting, it is not possible to understand a person deeply. Lots of things may be missed in an online meeting.

It is foolish to completely trust technology because it can be used for fraudulent purposes. Similarly, one cannot expect an uninterrupted Internet connection because disconnection is always possible while participating in online meetings.

This sort of interruption can reduce the effectiveness of an online meeting, whether it is a business meeting or not. Sometimes it happens because of low-quality equipment. So it is important to maintain high-quality equipment for business purposes.

Reduce human contact

An online meeting is not suitable for all gatherings. It is important to maintain a social relationships. Using online meeting software means that social contact is missing. Online meetings makes the relationship dry.

Using technology means that meetings become business-centred, and there is less chance for general talk.

There is a high risk of security when hosting an online meeting. This is due to the chance of hacking, which can compromise the confidentiality of matters in the case of business.

Hackers can exploit the information and misuse it. So, it is important to maintain high security while sharing information through modern technology.

There is no doubt that some of the planning processes are made easier in an online meeting. For instance, there are no meeting rooms to book or agendas to print out.

However, it’s still necessary for a business to carry out sufficient planning for the meeting to be successful. There is a danger that a business may become lax in this area as the planning process is different from that for face-to-face meetings.

Online meetings, like any other thing, have pros and cons. Indeed, they are perhaps the most cost-effective, convenient, and time-saving mode of communication so far. But they also greatly reduce personal connection and make a company vulnerable to hackers’ attacks.

The dangers can be reduced, though. Use reliable online meeting tools like MyOwnConference and still meet in person from time to time. Online meetings will help you stay informed, trained, and updated, regardless of your time zone, location, and financial situation.

An online meeting is a virtual meeting conducted over the internet using video conferencing technology. It allows individuals or teams to connect and collaborate remotely, saving time and reducing the need for travel.

Online meetings offer increased flexibility, cost savings, improved accessibility, and the ability to communicate with individuals and teams globally. They enhance productivity, collaboration, and communication in today’s world.

The disadvantages of online meetings include technical difficulties, lack of personal interaction, potential privacy and security issues, and increased screen time fatigue

An expert behind the simplified online meeting and webinar software platform, MyOwnConference. In today’s flexible work environment, Dan offers invaluable life hacks, in-depth reviews, and savvy tips for organizing, promoting, and excelling in virtual conferences and webinars.

Nice post? Share it with friends!

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.