Off the Record or Off your Head?

I'm often asked during media training sessions when people want to know about handling the media whether they should ever go off the record with a journalist.
The first question is, of course, what does "off the record" mean? Asking people this question, whatever their experience of the media, produces some interesting definitions:

"The information can't be used."
"They can use the information you've given but not as a quote."
"They can simply state it is fact."
"They can quote it but can't attribute it to anyone in particular."

The last is probably what most journalists would accept as what happens with an off the record comment". We'll use it but say something like: "One industry expert said to me..." or "Someone close to the company put it like this..."

For journalists, off the record information is usually much more appealing than official, on the record statements because it's more likely to be nearer the truth. When giving advice and tips on handling the media I point out that it's also a great way of releasing information into the public domain in a subtle, arm's length way.

You didn't win a contract so your official statement might say that you quite understand and that you've got other deals to pursue. Off the record you might say that it's really disappointing but the client wanted a bigger operation and you're not up there yet - give it two years.

But off record is great for mischief making - hence why it's so widely used in politics. Officially a company describes its poor annual results as "disappointing but offering scope for growth." My source at the company tells me off the record: "Morale is rock bottom here. I saw the FD with his head in his hands last week and we're expecting redundancies." Great stuff!

The issue for communicators, as I explain, during my media training courses, is firstly to decide whether you trust a journalist enough to go off the record and, secondly, how to decide how you as an off the record source are to be described. For instance, one company insider said: "Blah, blah, blah," could be anyone but if you're described as someone close to the Finance Director or a source who was involved in the leadership of the project then it will be a lot easier for others to identify you.

The second is to decide quite simply whether you trust the journalist sufficiently. "I'll buy her a nice lunch - she'll be fine," said one fellow hack after he had revealed the name of a source to help stand up a story and give it credence. Broadly speaking you need to calculate that upsetting you would do the journalist some considerable harm. Are you a good source for future stories? Will losing your cooperation make his or her life difficult? Will you be advertising with the publication?

If you - and the journalist - are sure about this then going off the record is an option.

That said, the advice given in my press training courses to anyone who is concerned about handling the media is simply to assume that everything you say to a journalist will be published and attributed to you.