Tag: why presentations fail

The presentation was perfect. The rejection took eleven words.

“This is great work. Let’s revisit it next quarter when we have bandwidth.”

Translation: No.

I’ve watched this scene play out repeatedly across 24 years in corporate banking. A senior professional delivers a polished, well-researched, beautifully designed presentation. The executives nod along. They ask a few questions. Then they defer, delay, or decline—with compliments that feel like consolation prizes.

The presenter leaves confused. The deck was solid. The data was compelling. The delivery was confident. What went wrong?

Here’s what nobody tells you: the presentation wasn’t rejected because it was bad. It was rejected because it was structured wrong.

Quick answer: Most presentation rejections aren’t about content quality—they’re about cognitive load. Executives reject presentations that make them work too hard to find what matters. If your recommendation is on slide 15 of 20, you’ve already lost. If your executive summary requires reading to understand, it’s not executive. The fix isn’t better slides or more data. It’s restructuring so the decision point is unmissable in the first 60 seconds. This article shows you exactly why good presentations get rejected and the structural changes that get them approved.

The Real Reason Presentations Get Rejected

After 24 years in corporate banking—JPMorgan Chase, PwC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Commerzbank—I’ve seen the pattern clearly. The presentations that get rejected usually aren’t worse than the ones that get approved. They’re structured differently.

Here’s what’s actually happening when executives say “let’s revisit this later”:

They couldn’t find the decision point fast enough.

Executives don’t read presentations the way you build them. You build sequentially: context, then analysis, then options, then recommendation. They scan for one thing: What do you want me to decide, and why should I decide it now?

If they can’t answer that question in 60 seconds, they mentally categorise your presentation as “not ready for decision”—regardless of how polished it is.

The feedback you receive won’t tell you this directly. Executives rarely say “your structure made me work too hard.” Instead, they say:

• “Great work—let’s discuss timing”
• “I’d like to see more analysis on X”
• “Can you socialise this with the team first?”
• “Let’s table this until Q2”

These sound like legitimate concerns. Sometimes they are. But often, they’re polite ways of saying: “I couldn’t figure out what you wanted me to do, so I’m deferring rather than deciding.”

If you’re also dealing with the anxiety that comes after rejection, the techniques in my article on managing presentation fear can help you recover and approach the next one with confidence.

The Cognitive Load Problem

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: your audience’s attention is not a renewable resource.

The average executive sits through 6-8 presentations per week. Each one competes for limited mental bandwidth. By the time they reach yours, they’re not evaluating your content fresh—they’re triaging it against everything else demanding their attention.

When your presentation requires them to:

• Read through 10 slides of context before understanding the ask
• Mentally piece together scattered data points
• Figure out which of three options you actually recommend
• Calculate the implications themselves

…you’re asking them to do work. And executives don’t do work during presentations. They make decisions.

The presentations that get approved do the cognitive work FOR the executive. The recommendation is obvious. The supporting logic is clear. The ask is unmissable. The decision is easy.

This isn’t about dumbing things down. It’s about respecting how busy decision-makers actually process information.

The 60-Second Structure Test

Before your next high-stakes presentation, run this test:

Give your deck to someone unfamiliar with the project. Set a timer for 60 seconds. Ask them to review only the first three slides, then answer:

1. What decision is being requested?
2. What’s the recommendation?
3. Why does this matter now?

If they can’t answer all three confidently, your structure is working against you.

Most rejected presentations fail this test. The decision is buried in slide 12. The recommendation is hedged across multiple options. The urgency is implied rather than stated.

Contrast this with presentations that consistently get approved. Within 60 seconds, any viewer can articulate: “They’re asking for £X to do Y because Z is happening. They recommend Option A because of these three reasons.”

That clarity doesn’t happen by accident. It happens through deliberate structure.

3 Common Structures That Get Rejected

After reviewing thousands of presentations, I’ve identified three structural patterns that consistently lead to rejection—even when the content is excellent.

1. The Academic Structure

Pattern: Background → Methodology → Findings → Analysis → Conclusion → Recommendation

This structure works beautifully for research papers and academic presentations. It builds logically from foundation to conclusion. It shows your work.

Why it fails: Executives don’t care about your methodology. They care about what you’re recommending and why. By the time you reach your conclusion, they’ve mentally checked out or already formed opinions based on incomplete information.

I watched a brilliant analyst present market research this way at Commerzbank. Eighteen slides of rigorous analysis, building to a clear recommendation on slide 19. The managing director interrupted on slide 7: “What’s your point?” The analyst had to skip ahead, losing all the carefully constructed logic.

2. The Menu Structure

Pattern: Option A (pros/cons) → Option B (pros/cons) → Option C (pros/cons) → “Thoughts?”

This structure feels collaborative and thorough. You’re presenting all the options fairly and letting the executives decide.

Why it fails: Executives don’t want menus. They want recommendations. When you present three options without a clear recommendation, you’re asking them to do your job. They defer not because the options are bad, but because making the choice requires work they weren’t prepared to do. For more on what executives actually want to see, read my guide on what executives want in presentations.

3. The Narrative Structure

Pattern: Story of the problem → Journey of discovery → Revelation of solution → Call to action

This structure is engaging and memorable. It works well for keynotes, sales presentations, and all-hands meetings.

Why it fails for executive decisions: The dramatic tension that makes narratives compelling also delays the decision point. Executives in decision-making mode want the ending first. They’ll engage with the story after they know where it’s going.

The Structure That Gets Approved

The presentations that consistently get approved follow what I call the Recommendation-First structure. It’s counterintuitive if you’re used to building arguments sequentially, but it aligns perfectly with how executives actually process information.

The Recommendation-First Framework:

1. Decision Requested (Slide 1): What you’re asking them to decide, stated in one sentence
2. Recommendation (Slide 2): What you recommend and why, in three bullets maximum
3. Implications (Slide 3): What happens if they approve, what happens if they don’t
4. Supporting Logic (Slides 4-8): The analysis that supports your recommendation
5. Risks and Mitigation (Slide 9): Anticipated concerns, already addressed
6. Ask and Timeline (Slide 10): Specific approval needed, specific next steps

Notice what this structure does: it frontloads the decision. By slide 3, the executive knows exactly what you want and why. Everything after that is supporting evidence they can engage with or skip, depending on their questions.

This is fundamentally different from “saving the best for last.” You’re not building to a crescendo—you’re establishing the destination immediately, then providing the map for anyone who wants it.

For a deep dive on the opening slide specifically, see my article on how to write an executive summary slide.

How to Fix a Rejected Presentation

If your presentation was recently rejected (or politely deferred), here’s how to restructure it for a better outcome:

Step 1: Identify the Buried Decision

Find the slide where you actually state what you want them to decide. In most rejected presentations, this is somewhere between slide 10 and slide 20. Note the slide number.

Step 2: Move It to Position 1

Create a new slide 1 that states the decision in one sentence: “I’m requesting approval for [X] by [date] to [achieve Y].” No context. No buildup. Just the ask.

Step 3: Create a Recommendation Slide

Slide 2 should answer: “What do you recommend and why?” Use three bullets maximum. If you can’t summarise your recommendation in three bullets, you don’t yet have a clear recommendation.

Step 4: Add Implications

Slide 3 shows two paths: “If approved, here’s what happens. If not approved, here’s what happens.” This creates appropriate urgency without artificial pressure.

Step 5: Restructure Supporting Content

Everything else becomes supporting material. Reorganise it to answer the questions executives are most likely to ask, in the order they’re likely to ask them. Delete anything that doesn’t directly support the recommendation.

Step 6: Run the 60-Second Test Again

Show someone your restructured deck. Can they identify the decision, recommendation, and urgency within 60 seconds? If yes, you’re ready to re-present. If no, keep simplifying.

Why do good presentations get rejected?

Good presentations get rejected when the structure makes executives work too hard to find the decision point. If your recommendation is buried in slide 15, your “executive summary” requires reading, or you’re presenting options without a clear recommendation, executives will defer rather than decide. The rejection isn’t about content quality—it’s about cognitive load. Restructure to put the decision and recommendation in the first 60 seconds, and the same content often gets approved.

How do you respond to presentation rejection?

First, get specific feedback if possible: “What would need to be different for this to get approved?” Second, run the 60-second structure test—have someone review your first three slides and see if they can identify the decision, recommendation, and urgency. Third, restructure using the Recommendation-First framework before re-presenting. Often the same content, restructured for decision-first clarity, gets approved on the second attempt.

What do executives actually want in presentations?

Executives want three things within 60 seconds: what decision you’re requesting, what you recommend, and why it matters now. Everything else is supporting material. They don’t want to hunt for the point, piece together scattered data, or choose between options you should have already evaluated. Do the cognitive work for them, and they can focus on deciding rather than deciphering.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I know if my presentation structure is the problem?

Run the 60-second test: show your first three slides to someone unfamiliar with the project and ask them to identify the decision requested, your recommendation, and why it matters now. If they struggle with any of these, structure is likely your issue. Also review where your actual recommendation appears—if it’s past slide 10, you’re burying the lead. Common signs of structural problems include feedback like “great work, let’s revisit later” or requests for “more analysis” when you’ve already provided extensive data.

Can I fix a rejected presentation or should I start over?

Most rejected presentations can be fixed without starting over. The content is usually fine—it’s the structure that needs work. Move your decision request to slide 1, your recommendation to slide 2, and reorganise everything else as supporting material. This restructuring typically takes 1-2 hours and dramatically improves approval rates. Only start over if the fundamental analysis or recommendation was flawed, which feedback usually makes clear.

What’s the fastest way to restructure for executive approval?

Use the Recommendation-First framework: Decision (slide 1) → Recommendation (slide 2) → Implications (slide 3) → Supporting logic (slides 4-8) → Risks (slide 9) → Ask and timeline (slide 10). Copy your existing content into this structure, delete anything that doesn’t directly support the recommendation, and run the 60-second test before re-presenting. The Executive Slide System includes templates that make this restructuring straightforward.

How do I get honest feedback after a presentation rejection?

Ask specific questions rather than general ones. Instead of “what did you think?”, try: “What would need to be different for this to get approved?” or “Was the recommendation clear in the first few slides?” or “Were there questions I didn’t anticipate?” Executives are more likely to give actionable feedback when you make it easy for them. Also ask trusted colleagues who were in the room—they often notice reactions you missed while presenting.

Your Next Step

That presentation you’re still thinking about—the one that should have been approved but wasn’t—probably didn’t fail because of the content. It failed because the structure made executives work too hard to find your point.

The good news: structure is fixable. Often in an afternoon.

Run the 60-second test on your next presentation. If someone can’t immediately identify your decision, recommendation, and urgency from the first three slides, restructure before you present. The Recommendation-First framework isn’t complicated—it just requires putting the ending at the beginning.

Executives don’t reject good ideas. They reject good ideas that are hard to find.

Make yours impossible to miss.

Related: If presentation anxiety is affecting your delivery alongside structural issues, see my article on overcoming glossophobia for techniques that address the fear component.