Blogg off?

Preparation is key to doing a good interview. In my media training courses I point out that so often people will devote a day to preparing for a presentation to ten colleagues - but when they're about to do a media interview which will mean talking not to ten but to tens of thousands of people, they often just dive straight in.

But these days, part of this this preparation is increasingly about Googling your organisation, the subject matter, the product you're discussing and even yourself. This will soon reveal how the world sees what you're going to talk about and what they know of it. Blogs and social networks are an increasingly important way in which people receive information these days and if you're doing an interview you need to know what they're saying about the subject matter of that interview. Checking out Twitter is also very important before you start an interview.

Increasingly large corporations are setting up dedicated social network or community units within their PR departments. Take brewer Molson Molson Canada. Last December, it sent 10,000 cans of beer to Canadian troops serving around the world. But rather than issue a press release or even contact journalists with the story, the PR activity around this clever stunt focussed solely in blogging. Soon seven other Canadian bloggers followed up the story, spreading it in a way that gave it more credibility than a conventional media compaign could.

Googling, Twittering and reading blogs and social network references is an important part of your preparation - not least because the chances are that the journalist who is going to interview you will also be doing exactly the same thing.

I hate to kick someone when they're down...but what the heck! Haringey Council must surely win awards for their dreadful handling of the Baby P case.
By refusing to take any action until the government made them, they looked complacent, hostile and inward looking. The result of this stance has been a wave of public outrage.
What should they have done, then? With years of experience of handling companies, organisations and individuals in these difficult situations and carrying out media training exercises with them my advice would be to act quickly.
An organisation in this situation needs to start by offering sympathy and regret. This is not the same as apologising because it doesn't accept responsibility - I can sympathise with the fact that you were very ill after you left my restaurant but it doesn't mean that I admit that it was my food made that you ill.
Organisations then have to offer to carry out a full investigation - again this doesn't accept responsibility or admit liability but it does make it clear that they care, that they are not complacent and that they are taking action.
As my media training clients discover - doing interviews with the media well in this situation is easier than they think. This is because the only answer you can give to almost any question is to tell the interviewer that you'll have to wait for the results of the inquiry.
It's not ideal, as I point out in my media training sessions, but it will dig you out of a hole and avid the negative coverage currently suffered by Haringey.

Harrow Council speaks plain English

Aah, jargon - where would we be without it? The news that Harrow Council has banned staff from using management-speak and insisted on the use of plain English will bring a sigh of relief from employees and the public.
During my media training courses I battle with jargon on a regular basis. One local council I provided some media training for explained that their dinner ladies were "meal operatives" while a pharmaceutical client insisted on talking about "local clinical management" - going to the doctors to you and me. I'll leave "loose stool urgency" to your imagination!
Another retail client who wanted help with handling the media and advice on doing interviews assumed that the public would understand the term "footfall" and that "delivering an enhanced customer experience" would mean something to readers of a local newspaper or listeners to the afternoon radio show. Also part of their daily language was "varied product offering" and "customer proposition." Come again? On the other hand, I don't think many customers would come in the first place!
Weaning clients off jargon and helping them to use plain language is essential if you want to handle the media effectively. It's not about dumbing down - it's just good, clear communication. Look at some of the greatest speeches in the English language - most of th e words in Churchill's fight on the beaches speech are just on syllable.
The psychologist Flesch developed a reading score relating to complexity of language. In good corporate communications the simpler the language the most trusted the company. As Enron became engulfed in its financial difficulties, the language its senior executives and company spokespeople used became more opaque and jargon-ridden, according to the Flesch score.
My pharmaceutical clients soon understand that every day language would engage their audience while, by the end of the media training course, the retailer was explaining to his audience: "When you come into our shop, you'll see a wonderful range of fresh fruit and vegetables and immediately you'll smell the fresh bread from our bakery". Painting pictures is the best way to communicate and persuade when doing interviews and in everyday life.
What will be really interesting to see is whether Harrow Council sticks to their resolution or ends up seeking stakeholder engagement by going for the low hanging fruit by opting for a meaningful dialogue at this moment in time.
Pardon?

Too much of a good thing

Alistair Darling must be ruing his relaxing weekend with the Guardian journalist Decca Aitkenhead.  Logs fires, walks along the beach, dinner round the kitchen table - it must have been lovely but the Chancellor is certainly regretting it now.

So what went wrong? The short answer is that Darling spent too much time with Aitkenhead. During their two days together, the Chancellor clearly felt relaxed with a journalist from a friendly paper and he chatted away.  Of all the thousands of words he spoke during the weekend his comments about the worst recession for 60 years stood out to Aitkenhead and her editor when they looked at her notes and so this what made the headline.

The increasingly popular phenomenon of reality television might seem to have nothing in common with serious reporting of a very senior government minister but there are parallels. 

Reality TV producers film for hours and edit out a tiny proportion for broadcast.  Needless to say these moments are not those which show the subject in a relaxed, positive mood - rows, chaos and disasters are what make good telly - as we all know.

During media training sessions I explain to those who want to handle the media effectively that they need to focus and say less.  In practical terms if you want to do a media interview properly you need to focus - choose two or three key messages and stick to them when you talk to the journalist.  Don't give him or her anything else to go on.  If when you're doing a media interview you provide a variety of different thoughts, observations, facts and arguments you don't know what the journalist is going to take away with them.

Similarly if you want to do a media interview well spend less time on it.  Appear helpful and open but make it clear that you only have a limited amount of time.  This will allow you to handle the media effectively by focussing on two or three key messages which the journalist will have to use as they won't have anything else.

Alistair Darling would do better to concentrate on short, focussed interviews and save the fireside chats for family and friends.  As for reality TV - if you're approached just say no.  

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.

Where’s the fire?

Listening to Ed Balls, the UK’s Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families on the radio this morning I was struck by a change in his manner. He sounded more considered, more thoughtful and basically more convincing.
Then I suddenly realised what had changed about the interview style of one of British politics’ brightest talents but worst media performers.
He had slowed down. It was as simple as that.
During media training courses participants will usually ask me about how they can ensure that the journalist has taken on board what they’re saying and has got the facts down correctly as the interviewee sees them. At least one participant will usually rail against journalists who have interviewed him or her but apparently got things wrong or not included what they see as a key point.
So, what should you do to improve the chances of printing your comments correctly? You can never have complete control over what is written about you unless you take out advertising space which is obviously far more expensive than editorial coverage which costs nothing and, according to research from the US, is somewhere between three and nine times more convincing to readers than an ad.
But one of the best ways in which to gain more control during a press interview is very simple and easy to do.
Just slow down.
The adrenaline might be running, you might have so much to say and you might even fear, as some people do, that you’ll forget what you were going to say unless you get it out quickly but speaking fast increases the chances of the journalist getting it wrong.
Even with reasonable shorthand (a rarity these days) journalists can struggle to get every word down properly and clearly. The interpretation of a messy little scribble in a notebook turns into hard facts in black and white on the printed page or the website. Time pressure these days means that journalists rarely have time to ring back to check on something.
As a working journalist, I can tell you that listening to an interviewee who goes like a speeding train, pumping out facts, figures, jargon and disparate thoughts is a nightmare but doing an interview with someone who speaks slowly and clearly is almost always a joy.
So, to ensure that a print journalist gets down what you’re saying accurately:

1. Speak slowly and clearly.
2. Check beforehand how much the journalist knows about the subject area. Are they an expert? Or have they a general reporter who has just started their research? This will enable you to decide how to pitch your comments in terms of their complexity. Incorrectly assuming a level of knowledge on the part of a journalist is a classic error.
3. At the end of the conversation repeat your key points just to ensure that the journalist has got them down correctly. Make this sound like a natural part of the conversation. “Good to talk to you, X, as I say, the really interesting thing here is…”
4. Very importantly, email something over to the journalist after you’ve finished. Make it short and snappy and do it as soon as possible. This will ensure that things like statistics, job titles and product names are correct – or more likely to be so anyway.
5. Finally, never expect to see something before it goes to print – there’s not time and besides this in my article not yours! However, you can always offer to check your quotes. “I hope I’ve made myself clear and understandable. If you want to check anything or email over my quotes to make sure that I’ve got my points across clearly then please do.” Flatter the journalist by suggesting that it’s your fault if there is any confusion not theirs!

This will help you to improve journalistic accuracy and help you to get your message across properly when you’re talking to a press journalist.
But as Ed Balls as obviously realised, it also helps when doing a broadcast interview too.

To err is human

People are often concerned when they do interviews about what they see as excessive 'umming' and 'erring'. But this really isn't a problem. It's much better to 'um' and 'er' and to take your time, choosing your words carefully.

Just think about two UK politicians: John Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister never 'ums' during his interviews - but as a result he speaks too quickly, says things he shouldn't say and is often difficult to understand. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, on the hand, regularly inserts these pauses into his comments. The result is that he takes his time, chooses his words carefully and emphasises key words and phrases.

In fact, there is new evidence to suggest that these 'disfluencies' as they are known, help listeners to focus on the words and sentences being spoken. At Edinburgh University's School of Philosophy, Psychology, and Language Sciences, subjects were invited to listen to two speakers. An hour after hearing typical sentences, the subjects remembered 62 per cent of the words correctly where 'er's had been inserted into the sentence recited by one speaker. This compares to 55 per cent where there were no such comments.

Certainly, as a print journalist, I'd rather people included ums and ers simply because it gives me more time to write down their comments.

One media training client I worked with spoke so eloquently and without any apparent pauses that we had to actively insert some 'er's into his comments to make them sound more human and less pat and rehearsed. He was surprised when I asked him to do this and rather sceptical but thanked me for it in the end.

Obviously it's not good to stumble and halt too much but including these speech 'speed bumps' into your comments really helps people take in what you're trying to tell them.