The most important media interviews this year
Lindsay Williams

The Most Important Media Interviews This Year

/0 Comments/by

Anyone who thinks learning to manage a media interview is a rather self-indulgent and unnecessary skill should pause and consider the pressure on Jeremy Hunt in the last couple of days.

On Friday, he was apparently resigned to a quiet life on the back benches: on Saturday he was doing live TV interviews, knowing that the entire UK economy was finely balanced on every word he said.

I have studied two of his interviews: the live one on Sky News on Saturday and the sit-down with Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday, which was pre-recorded.

 

On Saturday, all his key messages were already in place and he did well but looked nervous. By Sunday he had hit his stride and, in my opinion, gave an almost textbook ‘good’ interview with only one ‘slip’ that I spotted.

 

I think Jeremy Hunt’s messages were:

I need to be honest with people – tough decisions ahead
We are compassionate Conservatives, we will remember the needs of the vulnerable
No specifics today, we need to look at everything
Remember we are a strong country, 4th largest economy in the world

These message come across and are repeated in both interviews.

Of course, we all understand that the tone is as important as the words. Hunt’s tone has everything I ask for in training: he spoke with ‘warmth, authority and animation’. He is a politician so good performance does not mean people ‘believe, like and trust’ him: but he is certainly more credible than his new boss.

For those of you who speak fast in interviews, please note Hunt’s very measured speed. He needed to stay in control and weigh every word, whilst sounding in control and confident. You can’t do this if you gabble. Also, by speaking slowly we get no filler words or sounds: no ‘you knows’ and ‘ums’ or ‘ers’. It gives the impression of confidence.
Read Eric Dixon’s blog: Getting Rid of Ums and Ers here.

Hunt had also clearly planned answers to tough questions. The one that brought a smile was when asked if he wanted to be leader he said: “Having fought two leadership campaigns and lost two, the desire to lead has been ‘surgically removed’.”

Humble, funny but also, we might note, not an absolute commitment not to run for leader again.

The one slip?

I think Kuenssberg was the first to say ‘off the table’. She asked directly is anything ‘off the table?’ when considering cuts in public spending. Hunt did not pick it up immediately, but by the end of the answer he said ‘nothing is off the table’. This is something we specifically teach people not to do.

How many times have we heard that one phrase referred to in the last 48 hours? My observation is – he said it by accident. He picked up Kuenssberg’s language and in fact, despite his preparation and control, it is her words (her sizzle to the initiated) that have led the bulletins, not his. That doesn’t mean he did not mean it but she wrote the quote, not him.

 

 

 

Communicate Risk Feature
Lindsay Williams

Don’t Trust Journalists to Communicate Risk

/1 Comment/by

Sharing a risk assessment with the media must be one of the most frustrating PR missions there can be. You can guarantee you will not like the headline!

Communicate Risk

Here are a selection of headlines prompted by the National Grid sharing it’s Winter Outlook report.

Daily Mail: Britain Battles to Keep the lights on – National grid warms of winter blackouts.

The Sun: Lights out: brits to face blackouts this winter – and power could be cut () three hours per day

BBC:  Homes face winter power cuts in worst case scenario says National Grid

Guardian: Homes could face three hour power cuts this winter, warns National Grid

Times: Why National Grid still can’t bring itself to talk about blackouts

Telegraph: Inside the ‘civil emergency’ planning for blackouts this winter

Sky News: Energy crisis: how worried should we be about the lights going out

Reading only the headlines, you would certainly get the impression that Britain is heading for a winter of power cuts. Only the BBC mentions worst case scenario in the headline. And yet, the authors of the report were at pains to explain very clearly, that only one of their modelled scenarios might lead to blackouts, and only in a worst case scenario.

This is not a one-off example of the exaggeration of risk.  Any risk is almost certain to be misrepresented by news headlines. And that makes any meaningful communication of risk to the public, extremely difficult.

I have written before about the nub of the problem:

Scientists and statisticians understand risk as a probability. There is a 20% chance of x happening means: possible but not very likely while an 85% chance means: really quite likely but not certain. However, most people do not think as clearly as this. And in general, they are encouraged by journalists, especially tabloid journalists, to read low risk as a likelihood. 

I have pulled out the two key paragraphs from the National Grid report that deal with the risk of blackout.

In the executive summary on page 3 is the following paragraph:

A second, more extreme scenario, looks at a hypothetical escalation of the energy crisis in Europe such that there is insufficient gas supply available in Great Britain (in addition to no electricity available to import from continental Europe as per above scenario). In the unlikely event …this would …. potentially lead to interruptions to customers for periods. All possible mitigating strategies, including our new measures, would be deployed to minimise the disruption.

There is further clarification on page 10

In the unlikely event we were in this situation, it would mean that some customers could be without power for pre-defined periods during a day – generally this is assumed to be for 3 hour blocks.

My view is that the authors of the report made every effort to signal that power cuts are unlikely. And it is true that if you read beyond the headlines, the ‘worst case scenario’ line is widely reported, but the headlines were wildly misleading but totally predictable.

The exaggeration or risk in this case created it’s own news cycle as various people came to the microphone to counteract the ‘blackouts’ hysteria, among them Cabinet Minister,  Nadhim Zahawi (linked here and here) who used the phrase ‘extremely unlikely’.

Communicate Risk

We are not going to change the British media in a hurry, so I have a couple of suggestions, if you find yourself needing to communicate risk to journalists.

  • Only talk about worst case scenarios if you feel you absolutely have to. (Of course, the National Grid does need to share their planning, but many commercial organisations do not need to publish full risk assessments).
  • Use quotable language around the caveats: if National Grid had said ‘there is a very small outside chance’ or ‘only if we are extremely unlucky’ or ‘we need to plan for a one in a hundred chance’ it would have been hard for the journalists not to write something that indicated this was an unlikely set of circumstances.
  • Put someone up for interview who is prepared – over and over again – to put the whole report in context.

My previous blog on reporting risk can be found here and for anyone interested in the complications of reporting data Tim Harford’s BBC show More or Less, is an excellent topical primer. I also  recommend Nate Silver’s book The Signal and the Noise, which deals in depth with the problem of understanding and reporting data and risk.

Given I have a large number of professional communicators amongst my readers, it would be great to hear your take on the pitfalls of, and tips for, communicating risk.

 

 

Why there's no such thing as local media
Eric Dixon

Why There’s No Such Thing as ‘Only Local’ Media

/0 Comments/by

Before Liz Truss’ now famous series of local radio interviews last Thursday, many media commentators were cynical.

Cynical not just about what the Prime Minister was going to say, but also how effective presenters from smaller stations would be at getting to the heart of the issues and give her the grilling a politician of her stature deserved.

Journalist Paul Mason summed-up the views of many in a tweet on the morning of the broadcasts:

only local

And in case anyone was in any doubt about what he meant, Mason accompanied the tweet with a picture of Steve Coogan’s character Alan Partridge, the hapless and cringeworthy presenter from Radio Norwich (a fictional station, although supposedly operating from the same city where the BBC’s Radio Norfolk is based – one of the outlets asking questions of the Prime Minister that day).

But how wrong he was. The questions were far from ‘soft’. Radio Leeds, Norfolk, Kent, Lancashire, Nottingham, Tees, Bristol and Stoke and their presenters Rima Ahmed, Chris Goreham, Anna Cookson, Graham Liver, Sarah Julian, Amy Oakden, James Hanson and John Acres did a superb job of making pertinent, difficult and tricky enquiries, which often led to some embarrassingly long pauses from their interviewee before she replied.

In fact, the quality of the interviewing was as strong as anything you would expect from Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme. So strong, in fact, that the following meme quickly started to circulate on social media:

Only local

As for highlights, you could find those on Twitter – which featured:

Only local

“Liz Truss embarrassing herself on local radio, condensed down to three awful, squirming, awkward, delicious minutes. Everyone should hear this…”

A few local radio interviews had gone viral on the world wide web within hours. And this whole experience – the huge gap between cynical expectation and hard-hitting reality – serves to illustrate just how careful PRs and interviewees should be about underestimating any media outlet.

Local does not necessarily mean soft. Or amateur. Or of so little consequence that serious preparation is unnecessary. Presenters can be just as hard-hitting as journalists. The national BBC stations often mine the audio from local BBC radio stations to fill their 24-hour news operation. In fact, even though Radio Leeds’ interview with the Prime Minister had taken place only minutes previously, Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme used a clip from the local broadcast to introduce their own national guest – Chris Philp, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury [2 hours, 10 minutes and 26 seconds in]:

Mishal Husain: “Liz Truss has been Prime Minister for three weeks and two days… But this morning she has just begun a series of planned BBC radio interviews with our colleagues in local radio and in the regions. Those began a few minutes ago, starting with BBC Leeds Breakfast presenter Rima Ahmed asking how Liz Truss thought last week’s statement had gone…”

Later that day – and, flicking between the stations at about the same time – I heard James O’Brien playing salient extracts from all the interviews on LBC, and Matt Chorley doing much the same thing on Times Radio – both national outlets.

And if you missed those programmes, or any of the interviews for that matter, the BBC Newscast podcast helpfully and conveniently assembled the full set.

But this is not just about broadcast interviews. The same warning would apply to local and regional papers too. It may not feel as exciting talking to the Saffron Walden Observer as it does to the Financial Times, but you risk treating the former as inconsequential at your peril.

Local hacks – and not just the ones who carried out the original interview – can make useful pin money by picking up local stories, rewriting them and selling them to the nationals. I know; I used to do it.

So, an interview which you expected to exist solely within the confines of the Kent Messenger can be in The Guardian later that day. Or on either of their corresponding websites within minutes. Or something which starts life as a local radio interview is picked up by a regional newspaper and then seized upon by the nationals. With this in mind, Press Gazette also listened to the Prime Minister’s local interviews and produced a full round-up of what happened.

But it doesn’t stop there. An original story about (say) a beachcomber finding valuable treasure on a Cornish coastline in the Western Morning News might get picked up by BBC Radio Cornwall, who do their own report, which then gets featured on Radio 2’s ‘’Jeremy Vine Show’, which then gets reported in The Daily Telegraph, which then initiates a feature on BBC1’s ‘The One Show’, and prompts another BBC local radio station (say) in Lincolnshire – 350 miles away – to use a clip from Radio Cornwall’s earlier interview to ask the question of their own listeners “what’s the most valuable item you’ve ever discovered on a Lincolnshire beach?”. It’s a never-ending media cycle of report and repeat – and as an interviewee, you could appear anywhere in it.

Similarly, at The Media Coach, we believe you should reduce any absolute distinction you might be tempted to make between print, radio and TV encounters. These days many newspapers and magazines also film their interviews (for edited highlights on social media or as a vlog) and many radio stations – both local and national – have cameras rolling during their programmes. Indeed, the majority of the output of what started out as Talk Radio (a digital radio station) is now broadcast simultaneously as Talk TV (a digital TV channel). For much of the time, one has morphed seamlessly into the other.

So, the take home message from all of this? It’s simple: treat every interview as seriously as any other, and expect them all to be filmed (because some of them will be).

Local, regional or national? Print, radio or TV? Hard copy or digital? The interview may originate as one thing, but there’s often no saying where it will end up. So, by way of preparation and managing expectations, it’s simpler – and safer – to assume all of the above.

 

Gotcha feature
Eric Dixon

How to cope with ‘Gotcha’ questions during media interviews

/0 Comments/by
Gotcha

Presenter Noel Edmunds used to hand out ‘Gotcha’ awards

“Gotcha!”

For those of us of a certain age, it was the triumphant cry from Noel Edmonds on primetime Saturday night TV, as he presented yet another fellow celebrity with the award of the same name, after secretly filming them being pranked.

“Caught you,” those two syllables meant, “and what’s more, we’ve got it on film! Ha – more fool you!”

In the world of media training, those same six letters are used to describe interviewer’s questions which are designed to catch the interviewee out – particularly by asking them something to which they already know the answer. The theory is that rather than the journalist revealing the damaging information, it’s more embarrassing for the interviewee if they are forced to reveal it themselves. I know this to be the case: when I was a national BBC radio presenter, I used to do it too.

There was an excellent example of an attempt at the genre with Kay Burley on Sky News last week, when she was interviewing the new Secretary of State for Digital, Michelle Donelan. But as you can see from the clip, it backfires:

 

 

To find out why this was less successful for the interviewer than she hoped, it’s worth analysing the dialogue moment by moment, to examine exactly what happened:

KB: Talk to me about when you were at education; I mean, you weren’t there very long, were you?

MD: Well, I was – I was there for over three years.

No doubt, Donelan knew what was happening here. Back in July she had resigned from her position as Education Secretary after less than two days, in protest over the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s reluctance to resign after the Chris Pincher scandal. But the vagueness of Burley’s phrase “at education” meant she could bring her entire time in office into play (she had been Minister of State for Higher and Further Education, and Lord Commissioner of the Treasury before that).

KB: As the Secretary of State, how long were you there?

MD: Well – as you know the answer already, Kay, it was 36 hours. But I was serving in the cabinet for ten months and before that, a minister in two different roles – so I was there for over three years.

The phrase “as you know the answer already…” is key here. It’s Donelan’s way of indicating to the interviewer that she knows exactly what is going on. She then goes on to succinctly reveal the short amount of time Burley is looking for (“36 hours”), before ending her response by reiterating the length of her entire time in office.

Undeterred, with that attempt over, Burley tries again:

KB: OK – £17,000 is what you got, apparently, as a payoff – which you said…

MD: And you know the answer to that one as well, Kay, I didn’t take that…

KB: OK – you said you were going to give it to a charity…

MD: No, I didn’t – I said that if I wasn’t able to reject the money, I would give it to a charity, but I rejected it, as you already know…

Notice the repeat of “and you know the answer to that one as well…”. But most impressive in the clip is how calm Donelan remains. She recognises what’s happening and knows she’s on firm ground. Therefore, she can continue to appear relaxed and smiling throughout:

KB: Oh, OK – I didn’t know that…

MD: And that’s on the record…

KB: I didn’t know that – that’s why I asked you the question. I’m surprised you didn’t give it to a charity, but there you go…

Oof – another dig! And at first glance, it seems Burley might have a point; charity is clearly a good thing, therefore giving money to charity must be a good thing to do – perhaps even a better thing to do. However, increasingly sure of herself in this interaction, Donelan gives an appropriate and perfectly-judged answer:

MD: Well, it was taxpayers’ money – so I think it would be wrong for me to take taxpayers’ money, then decide which charity I wanted to give it to. So, I was very clear that if I was able to reject it, I would reject it – and I did.

It’s a highly assured performance from Donelan – and a less successful one from Burley, who The Spectator magazine describes as being “clearly disappointed” by how the interview was going, in an article written shortly afterwards linked here.

Mind you, not every broadcaster is keen on this approach. During last month’s Conservative Party hustings, newscaster Alastair Stewart – formerly with ITN, now with GB News – said: “It is not our style to go in search of ‘gotcha’ moments or high-octane arguments between the candidates…”

Nevertheless, it’s a style which is sometimes used. And if you ever find yourself on the receiving end, here are my three tips to cope:

  • Maintain integrity. Continue being searingly honest – and this means avoiding exaggeration, ambiguity, or saying something which could be misinterpreted, which may later come back to bite you.
  • Keep calm. There’s no need to demonstrate your frustration or anger to the interviewer with the way the conversation is going; indeed, they’d probably like that! So, it’s more effective if you can remain cool and collected – and your authority will rocket as a result.
  • Stay smiling. There’s no better way to exude confidence than putting on a smile. It also indicates that you’re enjoying the experience – and the audience are more likely to remain on your side that way, too!

Dealing with ‘Gotcha’ interviews is just one part of our Media Training sessions, along with explanations of a whole host of tricks and traps that interviewees may fall prey to. You can find more details here.

And not a Noel Edmonds award in sight…

 

Images:
Noel Edmonds picture: Montage Communications CC BY-SA 2.0
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Noel_Edmonds_2006.jpg

dealing with presentation nerves
Lindsay Williams

Dealing with Presentation Nerves

/0 Comments/by

Lots of people suffer some presentation nerves. Some suffer terribly. There are dozens of strategies for dealing with the stress of presenting, speaking in public or doing a media interview. Here are mine.

Dealing with Presentation Nerves

Simple steps

  • Rehearse aloud
  • Research your audience as much as possible
  • If it is a media interview, read what the journalist has written or listen/watch the show you are appearing on
  • Arrive early
  • If you are presenting, check the room and the tech

These above are the basic tips for a professional approach to either a presentation or a television or radio interview. However, for some people this will not be enough, so here are some more ‘off-the-wall’ ideas.

Master your mind

  • If you don’t fancy an off the peg solution, you can do this for yourself.  Just get into a relaxed state (first thing in the morning as you wake up is good) and imagine the interview or presentation going really well. Imagine enjoying it and imagine other people afterwards telling you how good you were. This is usually remarkably effective for reducing my nerves. If like me you have done a lot of meditation, it’s relatively easy to get into the zone. Others may find it more difficult. What is the zone? Well if you want to get technical you need theta brain waves, this  should feel like relaxed day dreaming. The idea is that you are programming your unconscious mind to deliver the result you want: a great presentation.
    dealing with presentation nerves
  • Just before the event. You could try the Power Pose. This technique is supposed to have been debunked, but I suspect it depends on the individual. Anyway, you could try it. Go stand in the loo, or somewhere private and adopt the Power Pose (illustrated in this photo by Wonder Woman and Amy Cuddy) for at least a minute. Cuddy gave a Ted Talk on this idea in 2012. The theory is, that while we all accept the mind can influence the body, the opposite is also true. If you stand confidently, you will feel confident.
  • Deep breathing is not recommended. Holding your breath is. Apparently, you don’t want to increase the oxygen in your system if you are stressed, you want to decrease it. There is loads on the internet and written about this. If you want to deep dive read Breath by James Nestor.  If you want to give it a go, try this instructional video.
  • Another physical exercise comes from the work of neuroscientist
    Dr Andrew Huberman. He has two tricks for reducing stress that I use daily. One is look at the horizon. That’s it! just take a few seconds to focus on the horizon. Monitor your body: if it works for you, there will be a palpable physical change.
  • The other is to focus on a fixed point but turn your attention to your peripheral vision. What can you see at the periphery of your vision without moving your gaze. If you alternate between these two mindfulness exercises for just for a couple of minutes, my experience is you can feel your stress melt away. Dr Huberman has a large internet presence to explore but here is a starter video.

Finally, It may also help to understand stress is normal ahead of public speaking. Many people who appear in public regularly continue to suffer from nerves, but they do it anyway. Pay attention to it and you will see it is working to ensure you take the event seriously and do the preparation. Rehearsing aloud is essential.

Images: IStock, Flickr, Unsplash

Leaders Should Show Emotion
Lindsay Williams

Official: Leaders Should Show Emotion (Sparingly)

/0 Comments/by

My 91-year-old mother was not impressed with King Charles III’s first address to the nation last Friday.

‘What was wrong with it?’ I asked

‘Not very kingly.’

‘You mean too emotional?

‘Yes. Sentimental and emotional. That is not his job!’

My mother belongs to a dying generation where a stiff upper lip really meant something. It was the way she was raised. It was what she expected from her Monarch.

But times have changed and now showing you are human, moved and that you care is not just acceptable, it is de rigueur.

The Royal Family we know, learnt this the hard way. Hiding themselves away (with the exception of the then Prince Charles) when Princess Diana died in a car crash in Paris. Their struggle with an absolute requirement to show some emotion – as portrayed in the film The Queen in 2006 – was a turning point. Eventually, they did come out and we could see they were as shocked as the rest of us. The Queen made a television address that, whilst not exactly emotional, showed she was deeply affected. What was widely seen as a crisis for the Monarchy, quickly passed.

Prince Philip appeared never to have accepted the need to show emotion in public. He would likely have agreed with my mother that his son’s television address was much too sentimental. I can’t help speculating that Princess Anne probably thought the same.

King Charles’ broadcast on Friday evening, was calm and controlled but towards the end he was visibly moved. It is what modern Britain expects.

If you are a leader, and something shocking, sad, or threatening happens, you will be called upon to capture the moment and set the way forward. Nowadays, you are best advised to show that you, like others, are affected. But crucially the emotion must appear controlled.

Of course, your short timely speech will have other considerations: You must also remind everyone of what will outlast the death or the crisis, and what the path ahead is. You will want to give the impression that everything is under control.

Getting this balance right is not easy, and although our new King has had 60-plus years to plan for that moment, most leaders find themselves having to pull together a speech in under an hour.

The one I remember from my own career was in a regional BBC newsroom 35 years ago: we came into work expecting to hear good news about the birth of a baby to one of our colleagues. I remember knowing almost instantly that something was wrong, there was a terrible atmosphere. But no one knew what had happened. At 9 am, a relatively new editor (who also had young children) called a building-wide meeting, and we gathered very solemnly. He told us that mother and baby were doing fine but the child had Down’s Syndrome. He said that flowers had been sent in the usual manner. He acknowledged it was a shock but reminded us that the couple were resourceful and given time would adjust and cope fine. He asked us to refrain from talking about it in these first few hours and then made it clear he expected us to get on with the job of getting that day’s bulletins out in the normal way. I remember at the time thinking it was a remarkable mini-speech, portraying firmness and compassion, done without notes, at less than an hour’s notice.

It hit all the marks of showing he himself was affected and cared, but also reminding us it was not a tragedy, giving us guidance on how to behave and telling us to get on with the job.

Here are thoughts from other writers, on the issue of leaders and showing emotion.

Entrepreneur – Why it is Important Critical for Leaders to Show Emotion at Work

Forbes – Great Leaders Never Show Emotion, Until They Need to

 

 

 

Let the women speak feature
Lindsay Williams

Let the Women Speak

/0 Comments/by

We have a new Prime Minister – the third UK female prime minister. Some will love her, others will hate her, but it it’s another step forward for equality of opportunity in the UK.

Let the Women Speak That said, and despite the recent diversity on UK front benches, we are still missing out on hearing the voices of women in public life. So many women of substance, not just here but worldwide, hold back because they are surprisingly under-confident.

I recently trained a 30-something woman, online from Tokyo.

‘Is English your first or second language?’ I asked. I couldn’t tell.

‘It’s my fourth’ she replied. Without giving too much away, this woman is an authority on hydrogen power and also on the challenges of greening the global steel industry. She has a job with a clear purpose, to help ensure the international community tackles the climate crisis.

Why was I training her? Because she was an underconfident speaker! A woman with so much to offer, so many reasons to call herself an expert, nevertheless felt somehow not good enough.

I do not consider myself a card-carrying feminist, but this impressive woman is not alone. I regularly train amazing women who are, nevertheless, self-conscious or underconfident about their ability to communicate publicly.

Over the last 20 years I have run hundreds of media and presentation training sessions with the United Nations and I can remember literally dozens of amazing women, from many countries, that were similarly drop-dead impressive but underconfident about speaking publicly. I remember an extraordinary woman from Djibouti – I can picture her now – who was in a very senior public role and much loved by her colleagues, but who was underconfident about speaking in public. I remember an Indian woman who I predicted could be Prime Minister one day if only she could start to enjoy the limelight. In the Middle East there were an impressive number of capable, educated and informed women, who rarely spoke in meetings.

I could go on. I have found similarly impressive women, from very diverse backgrounds,  in investment banking, legal firms and above all not-for-profit think-tanks; all of whom have so much to say and so much to give, but hold themselves back.

A lot of these women are painfully self-conscious about the way they look. They worry about their hair (up or down? parted left or right?) they touch their faces, they use all sorts of body language that communicates subservience or discomfort. These things can typically be easily tackled with a couple of hours of coaching and a video camera, but it is sad and puzzling that it is necessary.

Of course, there are amazing men similarly afflicted with nerves but with 20 years of corporate training behind me, I can tell you I come across them less often.

I am not alone in noticing this. Dana Rubin, a US speaking coach, is doing a great job on LinkedIn reminding us of impressive women speakers from the past with her Speaking While Female Speech Bank. And I recently came across this article from Mette Johansson, another corporate coach who has a lot of experience in Asia, and who set up an Asian Women’s Speakers Bureau. Both campaign to encourage more women speakers on industry panels.

In the UK there are plenty of impressive women on TikTok telling us how to do our make-up but not nearly enough telling us how to build a fairer more inclusive society, or tackle climate change.

When women reach their potential, everyone benefits. This is now beginning to be understood. By the end of the century, I predict it will be as obvious as the idea that diversity brings better decision making. [If this idea is new to you Melinda Gates’ book The Moment of Lift is an easy-to-read introduction].

Few speakers, women or men, look or sound perfect, certainly not at the start of their career. The UK’s new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, has herself acknowledged presentation is not always her strong point. But she hasn’t let it stop her.

My question is, how can we help more young women feel confident enough to speak out?

Quick-fire questions feature
Eric Dixon

Quick-Fire Questions; Long-Term Consequences

/0 Comments/by

In a series of rapid questions to Liz Truss during the Tory leadership hustings, one was only five words long. And her initial answer was even shorter, even if her supplementary response added some context (1:46:39 in).

Julia Hartley-Brewer: President Macron: friend or foe?

Liz Truss: The jury’s out (applause). But if I become Prime Minister I would judge him on deeds, not words.

 

 

The brevity of the interaction was put into contrast by the acres of newsprint and hours of radio and TV time which followed, in the form of comment and analysis over the Bank Holiday weekend – much of it unfavourable.

From a media training perspective, this Q&A is useful because it illustrates three important points to keep in mind for any future interviews in which you are involved.

  1. You can go off-menu

When an interviewer offers a series of potential responses (in this case, “friend or foe?”), never feel that you are restricted to the options given. Often, the choices you are being offered are unhelpful because they either over-simplify the situation or limit your reply to a binary choice, when a better answer would be more nuanced. Remember – you can always come up with a reply of your own, add extra details, or suggest that the truth is a combination of some or all of the options outlined.

  1. Maintain perspective

Having said that, the answer Truss gave was risky. She may not yet be Prime Minister, but she is Foreign Secretary. So, her response is going to make an impact on the global stage. At a time of conflict in Ukraine, with international involvement, it could be considered tactless and inflammatory to suggest that a close and long-standing ally is anything other than a friend – particularly when the obvious foe is the one attacking a sovereign country. Worse, this is a ‘sizzled’ expression, using a powerful metaphor (there is no actual ‘jury’ debating this issue, of course), which makes her response even more quotable. A better media-trained reply would have been something like:

Julia Hartley-Brewer: President Macron: friend or foe?

Liz Truss: A friend, of course. But like many friendships, they are sometimes difficult and need hard graft to make sure that both parties are working together successfully.

By way of illustration, contrast her comments with Macron’s measured – some would say ‘statesmanlike’ – response, saying that if he were asked the question, he wouldn’t hesitate “for a second”:

The United Kingdom is a friend of France… the United Kingdom is a friendly, strong and allied nation, regardless of its leaders – and sometimes in spite of its leaders – or the little mistakes they may make in grandstanding.

So, if Truss does, as expected, become PM, that first meeting between the two leaders is going to have been made unnecessarily awkward as a result.

Quick-fire questions

  1. Your most important audience may not be in the room

Tempting though it is to ‘play to the gallery’, a televised debate is always about more than the people in the room with you. They may like what you say, and it’s easy to get spurred-on by their apparent support. However, they may or may not reflect the feelings of your wider intended audience – in this case the Conservative Party as a whole (who will be deciding your fate) or the nation (who you hope to serve).

Coping with questions such as these form part of our media training sessions – find out more here.

As we have seen, a small number of words can have a huge impact. And whilst quick-fire questions may appear simple, the consequences of what you say may stay with you for a long time.

What PR People Will Do For You feature
Lindsay Williams

What PR People Will Do For You and Why You Should Listen

/0 Comments/by

As a senior leader, your PR team may feel like another species. You may be slightly suspicious that they do not truly back your enthusiasm for something. You may wonder why they are paid so much.

What PR People Will Do For You

The wider world remains sceptical that PR people do anything useful; they tend to be treated as passengers, and in many but not all cases, disrespected by the journalists they work with. Internally, there is a strong tendency to side-line or ignore PR advice, although this is certainly not always true.

In my view, PR people are much maligned. They are essential to protecting and enhancing the reputation of both individuals and brands.

There are many different tasks that fall under the ‘PR’ banner – some more important in one organisation versus another.

Here are five essential things your PR team will do for you:

First and foremost PR people are the antidote to group think. Internally, for most people, it is extremely difficult to understand how something will play in public. Whether that is a decision to change the formula of a product, make some grand ESG commitments or agree to a profile interview with a mainstream newspaper.

What may sound like a reasonable, logical argument to a business leader, can be ‘taken out of context’ and used to prove the individual is out of touch or a villain, by a clever journalist. Your PR advisor is the person who will always warn you.

Recent examples of people who either did not consult or ignored PR advice:

Stuart Kirk at HSBC – ‘Who cares if Miami is under water in 100 years’ time’

BoE Governor Andrew Bailey – who agreed (rather than said) that people should modify their pay demands to
help fight inflation.

Secondly, good PR people know their journalists. They have extensive knowledge of and often personal or professional relationships with the journalists that you as the interviewee, are likely to meet once in your lifetime. This has a whole host of benefits from being able to predict how a journalist will react based on what they have written before, but also more influence if there is a misspeak that your organisation would prefer did not make it into print. No one can guarantee a damaging quote can be neutralised, but there is a better chance if there is already a relationship in place.

Thirdly, if you want good news to get out there, you will need someone who can work out what will interest either a journalist or journalists in general. A shiny new policy may be an important step-change for you and your organisation, but it’s unlikely a journalist will recognise or care without a clear explanation and some proof points.

What PR People Will Do For You

Fourthly, there is the strategy. Do you speak to one journalist or many and if many in what order? Do you release information under embargo, or drip it into the market? Do you provide an exclusive interview or spend all morning dealing with one journalist after another? Do you do print and web interviews but not broadcast, or trade interviews but not bother to try with mainstream media? Do you have a different set of messages for trade press compared to Bloomberg TV? This is what you pay your PR person to advise on.

Fifth, and perhaps least important, the PR people write the words. They check the facts, find the real numbers and get them signed off. Often, they will write the quotes. In short, they will do all the work that takes a general idea and transitions it into a signed-off press release or executive summary on Twitter.

Good PR people have to be able to ‘speak truth unto power’: good leaders have to recognise that PR is a professional skill that is always worth paying attention to.

I am sure I have missed some other really important things PR people do … let me know below or on LinkedIn.

Images from: 123rf.com

Truss v. Sunak Takeaway Lessons
Lindsay Williams

Truss v. Sunak: Takeaway Lessons

/0 Comments/by

Plenty of others are commenting on the political implications and the relative merits of the two candidates for party leader and prime minister in last night’s debate.

As you’d expect, I was watching with a more specialist lens. Before going further, I would say these debates are incredibly difficult for the candidates and a small misspeak could cost them the contest, so the stakes are very high. And actually, I thought both of them did pretty well.

Of the two, I think Sunak came across more polished and mostly more likeable but like others, his excessive interrupting and talking over his rival in the first 15-20 minutes played very badly with me.

By the end, I felt Truss who stayed calm and performed consistently throughout, never-the-less, knew that Sunak had outdone her and very interestingly said ‘I may not be the best presenter but I get things done’. I thought that was a smart thing to say and it stuck with me. Apparently, she has said this several times before so it is not a new line.

In terms of lessons for other presenters in less pressurised environments:

Don’t be rude! Whilst the odd, interruption or forceful disagreement on a particular point (to ensure it doesn’t go unchallenged) will be forgiven, constantly trying to hog the airtime is definitely bad manners and does not show anyone in a good light. Commentators have described it as bullying which is not a good look for a leader.

[There was also a lot of sexist reaction to this on Twitter and later on BBC Five Live with some saying Sunak ‘shouldn’t interrupt a woman’. One Truss supporter described his behaviour  as ‘mansplaining’  – which I gather means being patronising, or man-splaying which is what I heard and I thought was a metaphor for taking too much of the metaphorical space or time. Either way, this is sexist tosh. Is anyone seriously suggesting that a male candidate should treat a female rival with more deference than he would a male contender!]

We often talk about the need for warmth in a presenter. I feel Truss lacks warmth and charm. She is very focussed and last night was very frowny, perhaps genuinely confused by Sunak’s uncharacteristic aggression. I had never thought of it before, but I will now add ‘don’t frown’ to my list of things to say to presenters when reacting to an opposing point of view. You want to indicate that you disagree without, I think, showing internal distress.

I favour a shake of the head and a sad smile of recognition; more of ‘I’ve heard this before and you are still wrong’ than ‘what the hell are you talking about’.

‘Use metaphors and be quotable’ is always on my list of how to be a good public speaker. Sunak had the best soundbites of the night, without a doubt.

He described tax cuts as a ‘short-term sugar rush …’ and said ‘£40 billion of unfunded tax cuts, that’s £40 billion of borrowing’ (what we call a contrasting pair or see-saw phrase for students of The Media Coach) and then likened it to ‘the country’s credit card’. This use of metaphor is much more memorable than just stating the case as Truss did “Under my plans, we would start paying back the debt in three years’ time, so I’m not putting it on the never-never.”

Connecting with your audience is also on everyone’s list of how to be a good presenter. But in this sort of debate which audience is the one to speak to?

Personally, I thought both, but particularly Truss, spent too much time talking about Stoke-on-Trent. Whilst they were the audience in the room and a couple of mentions would be a good idea, no one was under any illusion that this was not the audience that counted. The audience that mattered were Conservative party members in the country. Mis-analysing the audience is a mistake on many levels but crucially in this case it did not sound authentic from either of them.

Providing some personal details is also important if you are seeking to persuade or lead. People need to know where you are coming from. Both shoe-horned in enough of their personal story to satisfy this.  Sunak mentioned more than once helping his mother with the accounts of her pharmacy in Southampton and Truss talked again about her schooling in Leeds.  They both sounded genuine and did this better than many other politicians have done.  Authenticity counts for a lot and is one of the subconscious scorecards that is so difficult to read as a performer.

And talking of subconscious judgements, what I saw was Sunak just a lot more comfortable than Truss. He mostly looked as if he was really enjoying himself, whereas she looked grim. As an audience, it is much more pleasurable if the presenter is having fun. It’s difficult to teach this and is something that really only comes from the experience of public speaking.

Trust is a really big issue in this contest and, of the two, Truss answered questions in a much more straightforward way than Sunak. On several occasions, it was obvious Sunak was sidestepping, whereas Truss was more direct. I have seen Truss dodge many questions in other interviews but last night she made a real effort to be direct, perhaps betting that any obvious obfuscation would have played badly. In our Media Training, we constantly stress you must address the questions of a journalist even if you don’t want to give a full and detailed answer. If you don’t you lose trust.

If you face a challenging public speaking event, consider personal coaching to help you address all considerations and all options for coming across as you would wish. Clients repeatedly tell us, that just a few hours of coaching can make a huge difference.