Manage your Message Media Training

How to finish your next media interview in 5 minutes or less

Fact: The longer your media interview lasts, the less control you'll have over the quotes that appear in the story.

Many spokespeople treat a media interview like a job interview. They sit there passively like a job applicant while the reporter asks question after question after question. The person being interviewed is like a human piñata, getting whacked with questions for 10, 15, even 20 minutes at a time.

The result? A decreased chance of your key messages making it into the story.Think about it. The average person speaks at a rate of approximately 120 words per minute (or perhaps faster when they're nervous). During the course of a 15-minute interview, that's about 1,800 words, or the length of a feature story in a magazine. You have 3-5 important lines you want to convey to the reporter, but you've given them 1,800 words to choose from. It's no wonder so many people say they were taken out of context. Often, what they really mean is that the reporter didn't select the quotes that they thought were most important.

The perfect media interview lasts about five minutes. If you know how to handle yourself in a media interview, five minutes is plenty of time to tell your story and to give the reporter everything they need to complete their piece.

When I tell people the ideal interview is five minutes long, they often ask, "So what happens when the reporter keeps asking questions?" Valid question. So here are four steps to help you get in and out of nearly any media interview in five minutes or less:

1. Develop 3-5 compelling key messages. These are positive, accurate points that tell your side of the story. Your messages should contain motive, they should answer more than one question and they need to be accurate and true. Hint: if you can't fit all of your messages for the interview on an 3" x 5" index card, you need to do some editing.

2. Time your interviews. A media interview can be like a rollercoaster in that it can mess with your sense of the passage of time. You might think the interview you just finished was three minutes long when in reality, it was actually more like nine minutes in length. Trust me. I've seen this happen dozens of times in our training sessions where I time the interview and then ask the interviewee how long they thought it was. The results can be surprising. Timing your interview is easy enough when it's being done over the phone. Use the stopwatch function on your smartphone. Start the timer when the reporter asks their first question. And if it's a TV interview, consider getting someone from your communications team to keep track of the time and give you a subtle cue (*ahem*) around the 4.5 minute mark.

3. Create your exit in advance. Before the reporter even asks the first question, say: "Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to your readers/listeners/viewers. We really appreciate it. I should probably tell you that I've only got about five minutes or so, so I hope I can give you what you need in that time." As long as you can actually deliver responses that help both of you meet your objectives, you should be golden.

4. Use that exit you created in Step 3. Around the 4.5 minute mark of the interview, you should have delivered the majority of your messages. At that point, you can politely remind the reporter, "As I mentioned, I'm a bit pressed for time right now...I think I've got time for two more questions." Answer up to two more questions, finish on a strong note, thank the reporter again for their interest and voila - the interview is over.

This technique does work. It works for trade media, mainstream media, print, radio and TV. This past summer, one of our clients did four network TV interviews in one day on a fairly sensitive and high profile topic. I timed each interview on my BlackBerry (I videotaped them too, but that's another post for another day). The shortest interview was 4.5 minutes long and the longest was just under 6. In each case, the client told the same story in an interesting, yet disciplined manner. And in each case, the reporters said they had everything they needed. The resulting media coverage was interesting. But more importantly from a communications perspective, it was predictable. The messages on the client's index card were the ones that made it onto the evening news.

Before you try this at home, be forewarned. There will be situations where this won't work. For example, if you stonewall the reporter with a string of one-word answers, you're in for a long, painful interview. That's because the reporter won't have anything to bring back to their newsroom and they're going to hear it from their editor. Likewise, this technique won't always work in an unfolding crisis situation, a technical briefing, an interview panel, etc.

If, however, you possess the chops to effectively navigate a media interview, in the majority of cases, this technique should help you wrap things up in five minutes or less. It will also help you increase your control over which quotes appear in the story and, perhaps more importantly, which ones don't.

 

Christine O'Donnell breaks 3 media relations rules in 60 seconds

Last November, Christine O'Donnell gave late-night talk show hosts a gift in her 'response to accusations of witchcraft' TV spot (which I addressed in this blog post). Yesterday, she reinforced her inability to handle the media by walking out of an on-camera interview with CNN's Piers Morgan.

O'Donnell was on the show to promote her new book, Troublemaker. But while she was happy to receive the free publicity, she clearly wasn't interested in answering any of Morgan's questions. The host quizzed her on a number of topics, including last year's 'witchcraft' flap. The question that made O'Donnell snap, however, was about her stance on gay marriage. By that point, she was becoming visibly frustrated and had accused Morgan of being "a little bit rude". She then looked to her PR handlers and bailed out of the interview, saying "I'm being pulled away...we turned down another interview for this." One of her people then stands in front of the camera to obstruct the view. Then, O'Donnell takes off her microphone and leaves.

The most revealing part of the interview occured just before O'Donnell pulled the plug, when she said to Morgan, "Don't you think as a host if I say 'This is what I want to talk about', that's what we should address?"

So...in less than 60 seconds, O'Donnell managed to break three important media relations rules:

1. She told the reporter how to do his job ("This is what I want to talk about"),

2. She attacked the reporter ("You're being a little bit rude"), and

3. She walked out of an on-camera interview.

If you haven't seen it yet, you can view the clip of her walk-off here.

 

6 ways to improve Sheen's Korner

Anyone who bothered to check out Charlie Sheen's webcast show 'Sheen's Korner' over the past few nights knows it's virtually unwatchable. I checked it out on night #1 and was impressed to see nearly 100,000 viewers logged on before the show had started. But shortly after it began, the numbers started to dwindle. And fast. And with good reason. The content and production quality were pretty lame.

No matter what you think of Charlie Sheen or his antics of late, the guy has a Twitter audience of two million (and growing) and the attention of the TMZ-loving public. And not that he's in the mood for advice, but here are some quick ways for him to elevate the quality of his online show - and these would apply to any company or individual trying to create and retain an online audience:

1) The first recommendation would be to cancel it altogether. Unless you have something of substance to say, maybe a show isn't for you. Sheen has proven that he can read someone else's scripts. But when it comes to writing his own stuff, the results were less than impressive.

2) Lose the Howard Stern format. After seeing his lively, manic interview on 20/20, I was surprised to see Sheen sitting at a desk with a crew of hangers-on chiming in with updates, sound effects, etc. like the Howard Stern show. In addition to being a blatant rip-off, the format didn't allow him to connect with his audience at all. It quickly became an impediment. He would have been better served to simply talk into the camera, give a tour of his house, etc.

3) Invest in decent sound/lighting. For a guy who makes $2 million per episode (well, until recently), the production quality was pretty shabby. Hell, the 10-year-old Lady Gaga fan had better production quality in her house in Winnipeg. For an online show to succeed, people need to be able to see and hear you. The lighting and sound were awful and could be fixed with a little forethought and a very small investment at Best Buy.

4) Rehearse. When the first episode of Sheen's Korner took to the air, it was clear that he was just winging it. Practice improves performance.

5) Look at the camera. If you're speaking to your online audience, we find it very disconcerting when you're looking off-screen while talking. Connection with viewers broken.

6) Less is more. At one point in the first broadcast, Sheen talked about making the show a nightly broadcast. Bad idea. When you have a bad show, people don't want more of it. The frequency should reflect the amount of quality content. And as we've seen, there hasn't been any yet.

Tweet

How not to respond to accusations of witchcraft

One of the more popular stories from our newsletter this month is about Christine O'Donnell, the Republican candidate in Delaware's general election Senate race. Leading up to the election, O'Donnell's campaign was dogged by speculation about her involvement in witchcraft (speculation fueled by comments O'Donnell herself made during a 1999 TV interview). In an attempt at damage control, O'Donnell issued a 30-second TV spot aimed at convincing the public she's an ordinary person, "just like you". In a shockingly poor attempt at addressing the issue head-on, however, a smiling O'Donnell begins her ad with the following four words: "I'm not a witch." You can view the ad here.

 

The public reaction to the ad wasn't quite what O'Donnell and her organizers were hoping for. Opponents and the media had a field day. The 30-second spot was even parodied on Saturday Night Live. In her attempt to change the conversation, O'Donnell actually made the situation worse.

 

The Lesson: There are two lessons here. The first one relates to the 1999 interview in which she referred to "dabbling into witchcraft". Even if you don't aspire to hold public office one day, this probably isn't the kind of life experience to bring up in a network TV interview. The other lesson is about not repeating negative language. The TV ad would have been more effective (or at least less damaging) without the phrase "I'm not a witch." Even though she's refuting the claim, her statement has the opposite effect, serving as fodder for her opponents, critics and the media. In the end, O'Donnell lost her election bid.

Note: This story is taken from our 'Manage your Message' e-newsletter. To get your own copy sent to your inbox each month, sign up here.

Spokespeople need to be ready for the media's tough questions

In our media training sessions, we tell participants that 90% of the success of a media interview is determined before the reporter asks their first question. It's in the homework you do to prepare for the interview. It's finding out the focus of the interview, researching the reporter's past stories on the topic, developing strong key messages and anticipating the questions you'll be asked (especially the 2-3 nightmare questions you hope you never get asked).

 

Going into a media interview unprepared is risky. Doing it on CNN is downright dangerous. Recently, Texas legislator Rep. Debbie Riddle appeared on CNN's 'Anderson Cooper 360' to talk about 'terror babies' - a supposed threat in which terrorist organizations send pregnant women to the US to have their children who would be US citizens, but who would be trained abroad to be terrorists and could return to the US without raising suspicion.

 

When Cooper asked for evidence about the controversial claim, Riddle alluded to conversations with 'former FBI officials'. Unsatisfied with her response, Cooper asked her several more times for evidence of these plots, saying that claims of this magnitude warranted proof. As the reporter continued to press, Riddle became visibly uncomfortable and finally said, "When your folks called me in the preliminary [interview]...they did not tell me that you were going to grill me for this specific information that I was not ready to give you tonight. They did not tell me that, sir." You can view the interview here.

 

The Lesson: Before your media interview, anticipate questions -- escpecially the bad ones. Take a few moments during your preparation to play the role of the reporter and think of the hardest questions you would ask yourself. Ask trusted colleagues to think of some difficult questions too. Then, figure out how you're going to address those questions if they come up in the interview. In most cases, those questions will never see the light of day. But if they do, at least you'll be prepared.

Note: This story is taken from our 'Manage your Message' e-newsletter. To get your own copy sent to your inbox each month, sign up here.

Is GM bending the truth with its latest TV ad?

Have you seen that new GM commercial? The one with the upbeat music, where CEO Ed Whitacre proudly states, "That's why I'm here to announce we have repaid our government loan - in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule."

If that line caused you to raise an eyebrow, you're not alone. The media has been all over GM for the claim (which, ironically, appears in a commercial titled 'Trust'). GM has paid off loans from the federal government, but the U.S. Treasury is still GM's majority shareholder at a cost of approximately $50 billion. Critics say GM's repayment actually came from another government bailout program. One TV commentator described it as "paying off your MasterCard with your Visa".

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has filed a complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, alleging deceptive advertising. GM says it is "confident that our ad meets the FTC's guidelines". We'll have to wait and see how this one plays out.

Don Cherry says doctor's accusations 'totally unfair'

This is a quick follow up on the story we've been following this week about the doctor who accused Don Cherry of being responsible for head injuries in the game of hockey.

In his December 19 Coach's Corner segment on Hockey Night in Canada, Cherry called Doctor Tator's accusations 'totally unfair'. He even went so far as to say, "I would hate to think Doctor Tator is doing it just to get his name in the paper."

You can view the Coach's Corner segment here.

The wrath of Grapes...

Quick follow up to yesterday's post about the brain surgeon who attacked Don Cherry as a way to get his story about head injuries in hockey in the media. It has only been one day but the payback has started to roll in. Check out Bruce Dowbiggin's story today in The Globe and Mail. 

And this link has an audio clip of Don Cherry refusing to do a radio interview on the topic. Warning - multiple expletives....

Coach's Corner should be more entertaining than usual this Saturday night.

David Letterman gives a lesson in crisis management

Even if you didn't watch the Late Show with David Letterman last Thursday night, you've likely seen the news coverage that followed it.

 

Letterman used 10 minutes of his show on October 1st to tell millions of people about an alleged extortion plot against him. If you're unfamiliar with the story, a CBS News employee was charged with trying to blackmail Letterman for $2 million in a plot that forced the late night host to acknowledge having intimate relationships with some of the women who have worked for him.

 

The 62-year-old Letterman has a reputation as an intensely private individual. So it might have seemed incongruous to many when he dedicated a significant portion of Thursday's broadcast to providing such a detailed account of the story -- an account that culminated with Letterman telling his audience, "I have had sex with women who work for me on this show."

 

While the 10-minute story/confession was surely unpleasant and embarrassing for Letterman, it was also a textbook example of good crisis management. Please note that this doesn't excuse or condone the veteran talk show host's behaviour. But given the situation in which he found himself, he handled the PR component well.

 

Letterman knew this story (which had been brewing for three weeks) was on the verge of becoming public and he knew that it was going to be big. Rather than hiding from the press or making denials after the fact, he got out in front of the story on his own terms and via his own show that has an audience of millions. If you haven't seen the video, it's worth watching. You can view it here (for now...CBS has been removing versions of the video from YouTube, so we will try to keep a current link posted).

 

Letterman delivers his 'story', as he calls it, with equal parts earnestness, sensitivity and self-deprecating humour. And at the end of the stunning monolgue, he indicates that this is his one and only statement on the matter, saying, "I don't plan to say much more about this particular topic."

 

Where others failed before him (Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards...the list goes on), Letterman succeeded. Rather than lying about his indiscretions, hiding from the media or blaming his behaviour on someone or something else, Letterman came clean in an honest, forthcoming, refreshing way. By acting swiftly, he was also able to control the first news cycle and set the tone for all of the media coverage and Internet chatter that followed. Just imagine how differently the situation might have unfolded if the story had been broken by TMZ or Entertainment Tonight.

 

While there is no real winner in this situation, Letterman opted for the best course of action in a difficult circumstance. So far, none of the show's advertisers have pulled out of the show (FYI, advertisers spent more than US$135 million on the Late Show from January to June of 2009). CBS also issued a message of support for Letterman on Friday, saying in a statement that, "We think it was appropriate for Dave to disclose the matter publicly as he has, and we are continuing to co-operate with authorities." The show also benefitted from a bit of a ratings bump, as pre-publicity for Thursday's broadcast led to ratings that were 22% higher than Letterman's average numbers for this season.

 

That's not to say Letterman will emerge from this crisis smelling like a rose. His actions have disappointed some viewers who may choose not to tune in again. And this public airing of his private life is likely to cause him some grief on the home front. Having said that, his PR strategy is a good example of getting in front of a story, taking accountability and being honest with the public. And so far, it seems to have worked for him.

Michael Vick - When media training isn't enough

If you're a football fan or a dog owner, you know who Michael Vick is. Once one of the most electrifying players in the NFL, Vick ended up in prison in November 2007 for his involvement in a dogfighting ring. Now, fresh out of prison, he is preparing to make his NFL comeback with the Philadelphia Eagles (with a two-year deal could earn him nearly $7 million).

 

Americans love their football. But not as much as they love their dogs. Because of the disgusting nature of Vick's crimes against defenseless animals, he would need to face the public and answer some tough questions before he'd be able to hit the field again. To his credit, he stepped into one of the most intense media spotlights in the world for his first major interview - 60 Minutes.

 

If you didn't get a chance to see Vick being interviewed by James Brown on 60 Minutes, it's worth watching (you can view it here).

 

It's clear that Vick was very well coached prior to the interview. He said all the things he needed to say in order to begin repairing his tarnished public image (e.g. that he was sorry, that he showed poor judgment, that he failed as a leader, that he let people down, that he was disgusted with himself, even that he deserved to lose his $130 million football contract).

 

In the days following the broadcast of the interview, a large number of media observers, bloggers and members of the public remarked that in their opinions, there was something crucial missing from the interview. Was it sincerity? Empathy? A certain look in Vick's eye that was supposed to show he was truly remorseful? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

The bottom line is that a significant portion of the viewing audience simply didn't believe him. As the interview progresses, it becomes clear that even Brown (the interviewer) is skeptical of Vick's authenticity, asking him, "Michael, is this you talking, or the Vick team of attorneys, image-shapers and the like?"

 

Despite Vick's exceptional handling of the mechanics of the interview, this was one of those times when media training simply wasn't enough. Public relations is about changing minds or changing behaviour. And while Vick said all the right things, it's not clear whether he actually changed any minds.