How to approach a newspaper interview

Okay, a few final thoughts before I return to the tech stuff. This is for small firms and start-ups who have landed an interview with a newspaper.

How should you approach it? What should you say? What shouldn't you say? Here are some pointers that should make your interview go smoother and (should) result in a better article. (Note these are mostly aimed at small Irish companies: for larger firms and corporates, slightly different rules apply.)

Maximise figures, minimise opinions. Journalists love numbers. Let me repeat that -- we LOVE numbers. Throw in a few numbers to back up what you're saying and there's an 80 per cent chance that that quote will make it into the piece. Why? Because it gives the article substance. Opinions are cheap, everyone has them. And usually, yours are the same as every other Tom, Dick or Harry's. Most opinions are far less interesting than facts and figures.

Don't be afraid to talk about competitors. Some companies think that they should observe one of two rules: (a) never mention a competitor as it will give them publicity or (b) only talk about competitors disparagingly. Both precepts are flawed. Being able to reference competitors shows confidence, realism and a grasp of the industry. You don't have to put the boot into them, either, as newspapers are unlikely to publish gratuitous attacks on a competitor just because you uttered the words.

Don't keep deferring answers to someone else who's absent. A constant irritation is the middle-ranking executive interviewee who shrinks in terror from answering a question because they worry they might get into trouble with their boss. First of all, your boss won't kill you unless they're a maniac. Second, have a bit of faith in yourself. A shrinking violet approach is very unimpressive.

Don't go into an interview thinking you can stick religiously to some pre-cooked three point memo and ignore all other questions. American corporates operating in Ireland sometimes do this and it rankles. I'll name and shame one offender here: Ebay. In any dealings I have ever had with Ebay executives themselves (as opposed to their long-suffering PR people), they simply want to stick to a dull, three-point memo. And they repeat old figures and statistics. It's very frustrating.

Talk like a normal person. Please, please do not descend into jargon and industry cliché. It's like talking to an automated answering service. I'm from Dublin, so I talk like a normal Dubliner. It's far more impressive if someone talks in their ordinary voice and not like a Californian or a jargonista.

Don't be afraid of a Dictaphone. It's amazing how many interviewees seem relaxed and jovial when chatting, but stiffen up noticeably -- sometimes even with voice cracking -- if a Dictaphone is produced. This is purely a journalistic aide to get the quotes right: it's not going to be submitted to the Grand Jury. Just ignore it and talk normally.

Don't shy away from your company's core figures. Answering a question as to your firm's revenue and profitability makes you look confident and open. It impresses journalists and creates goodwill. The question won't always be asked, but if it is, just answer. If you dodge the question, it looks like you're hiding something important. And you're setting up an adversarial situation between you and the journalist. You're throwing down a challenge. You're saying: you play your game, I'll play mine. But guess what? In most cases, your revenue figures are available anyway from the Companies Office! I recall quoting a company's revenue figures back to them from a Companies Office search and they were outraged. "Where did you obtain that information?" they demanded.

Don't talk for 20 minutes and then say that "all of that is off the record, by the way". This is infuriating. It wastes time and energy and creates a huge element of badwill. Technically, it is not even binding: if you talk to a journalist about an issue in a business (ie not social) context (for example, if a journalist rings you up and asks you to comment on a certain issue), there is a clear understanding that this is on the record. Changing your mind about it later is very frustrating. Whether or not the journalist will comply with your request is entirely up to them and, in reality, will depend on the strength of your existing relationship.

Don't waste time talking about 'value'. Don't think that any journalist anywhere will ever include statements like: "This is only one of the ways that [yourfirm] is offering superb value to its customers."

Don't quote Gartner or IDC. Okay, this is a personal one, but I believe lots of other journalists feel this way, too. "Gartner says that the market for this vertical application will, in 2012, be blah blah blah." This is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Admittedly, a desperate journalist may revert to this. But no editor mistakes this kind of 'fact' for a genuinely interesting point.

Don't try to show a laptop presentation in the interview. No, no, no! If you have figures or graphs, print them out beforehand and hand them over for perusal at the journalist's own leisure. There's nothing more boring than a powerpoint presentation as part of an interview: just talk about the relevant figures, if you have any.

Don't try and push the journalist to come out to your facility in Sandyford/Bray/Swords so he/she can see the 'set-up'. Or, if you do, you better have one impressive set-up. Because we've seen a call-centre and an operations centre before. And going all the way out there is very unappealing.

Try not to request that the interview take place on a conference call with three other people. This is also a little frustrating. And it sets up an 'us versus them' context. How can you build a relationship with someone when a gang of others are listening in? It's like an Amish date. Oh, we'll agree to it, alright. But it's very impersonal. And it's of little importance that your company's 'policy' is that person X be involved in all 'marketing activities'.

Relax and be confident. Honestly, journalists are generally not out to trick you or trip you up. In fact, most journalists are looking for something positive to impress their editors -- a good story about a company doing well. Yes, a company making horrific losses or getting into trouble is also of interest, But, presuming this doesn't apply to you, there's no reason why a journalist would, by default, seek to write a piece that makes you look bad. This is especially so in Ireland, where the chances are that both parties will run into each other again repeatedly.

Be wary of asking for journalists' questions to be e-mailed days before interview. Some people ask: "can you send through the questions you're going to ask?" Well, yes, that is possible. But know that:
(a) this makes you look pompous or
(b) not on top of your brief, if you have to prepare or research answers about your own company or your own industry and
(c) it gives a journalist less cause to give you the benefit of the doubt in situations where remarks can be interpreted in a positive or negative light. After all, if you had lots of time to prepare answers, it must be pre-meditated, right?

Don't ask to see an article before publication. "Can you send through the article before publication for review?" No, and this is a golden rule. Don't ask, as a refusal can offend. This isn't because you're a target, it's because a) it becomes a practical and logistical problem with deadlines approaching and b) it's not really on to be 'correcting' your quotes and seeking control of the editorial process.
If this sounds like too much trust in the whole thing, don't go into the interview.
Now, there is a caveat to this. Occasionally, some journalists will agree to providing some level of pre-publication review. This, usually, is when they are trying to establish a relationship with a potentially very important or lucrative source eg a key government minister or some very elusive business plutocrat. Ethically, it is very poor. But the reality is that if it ensures a steady pipeline of communication with a very eminent source, the result will sometimes outweigh the ethical consideration. However, I don't do this, so don't ask! (Shows my limited ambition!)

Trust the journalist a little. You may be worried or anxious about how something "will sound" in an interview. But you have to have a little trust that the journalist has a degree of professionalism and can sort out what's important and what's not, in a balanced and contextualised way. If you make a gaffe, you can politely ask that it not be printed. The journalist isn't obliged to abide, but 80 per cent of the time they will anyway, to generate a bit of goodwill.

If it doesn't turn out perfect, it's not the end of the world. It is true that some journalists, sometimes, write an interview with a pre-meditated agenda. And it is true that journalists sometimes get the wrong end of the stick. But you know what? That's life. You can't really control that. All you can do is try and make it as positive as you can from your end. And know that the journalist with a negative agenda is rarely the case for interviews involving small to medium sized businesses. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if there is ever an agenda in SME interviews it is overwhelmingly a positive one, to highlight a company's activities. Look in any newspaper and see for yourself the way that SME interviews are used.

If you feel wronged, don't be afraid to ring the journalist up and say so, stating why. Believe it or not, journalists take professional pride in being accurate and balanced. If you make a complaint that a piece was unfair, unbalanced or (worst) inaccurate, it is taken quite seriously. And editors take such complaints very seriously, treating them as black marks if they're substantiated. A rider to this: if you're simply unhappy with what you actually said, it mightn't wash. Ask yourself, honestly, whether your complaint is a fair one.

On a positive note…
I'll give you an example of a few people who almost always give/gave a good interview, producing good copy, and why. (None of these are mates, by the way.)

Joe Macri, Microsoft (former head of Microsoft Ireland)
Reason: Although he had a premeditated agenda, he addressed points of interest in a very plain-English, expansive way. He never shirked questions, either.

Brendan Butler, Ibec director of strategy for EU trade (but formerly head of ICT Ireland)
Reason: He was never afraid to make strong points about issues he cared about. He was confident enough in his own positions that he could do this. He would also substantively answer incidental questions on related topics in a way that few others did.

Stephen Mackarel, The Carphone Warehouse (current country manager, Ireland)
Reason: Again, very confident. He's not afraid to talk expansively, on and off the record about what's going on in the industry and the relationships between manufacturers, retailers and mobile operators.

Comments

[Justin Mason]

This is really great advice, Adrian! I've bookmarked this, and I don't even work in PR ;)

[Dan]

This was an excellent read; I passed it along to some friends with startups and saved it for myself.

[Tom]

Some great tips there. I love the one about throwing in some numbers for concrete facts. Presumably the numbers have to be relevant ;)

[Annemarie]

Great advice even for a California gal who (at times) wish she'd sound like a Dubliner.
Thanks, from a distant Irish cousin.