• The Colab Brief
  • Posts
  • The Colab Brief - 112: Tricky, Tricky šŸ¤« Interview Tactics to Make You Talk

The Colab Brief - 112: Tricky, Tricky šŸ¤« Interview Tactics to Make You Talk

Welcome to The Colab Brief

Thanks for joining us again this week! For those of you who are new, this is The Colab Brief, a weekly newsletter covering all things comms. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, reach out.

Read Time: 3 minutes. 

We love a good interview. In prior Brief editions, weā€™ve discussed spokesperson prep, messaging, and media training at length. But today, weā€™re flipping the script and discussing the tactics the best interviewers use to get more out of people who want to say less. 

These are the top tactics weā€™ve seen from writers who are looking to get a bit of a scoop - or just a longer soundbite - out of our spokespeople. 

The Long Pauser šŸ„€

A classic. The long pause is a classic journalistic tactic to make the interviewee slightly uncomfortable. And when they start to feel uncomfortable, most people seek to fill the silence. Suddenly, the spokesperson is rambling, and rambling is where all the media prep starts to unravel. 

In this situation, we often see spokespeople disclose more than they initially intended to say, or simply get themselves into a line of questioning they didnā€™t anticipate. Itā€™s natural to want to preserve the conversational flow, and a tinge of nervousness can make even the most uptight spokesperson a siphon of information. 

The Workaround: 

We get it. Pauses are awkward, but they donā€™t have to be. Our favorite way to work around the deafening silence is to put ownership back on the interviewer. A simple, ā€œDid that answer your question?ā€ can be a great way to initiate a response from the writer and get your spokesperson out of the hot seat.

The On-Background Bargainer āš–ļø

We encountered this one just this week! Offering a comment on background is a great way for a writer to get more information from a source without the source being named. It sounds like a killer compromiseā€”you get to speak and not have the weight of the attribution. Win-win. But speaking on background is tricky, especially if youā€™re already into the interview. 

During one of our interviews this week, the spokesperson was already halfway through the call when the writer said, ā€œI have an interesting question, and this can be on background if it needs to beā€¦ā€

Immediately, our ears perked up. The spokesperson kept things neutral, but the offer to divulge details was there. 

Our advice? If you arenā€™t willing to say something with your name attached, itā€™s probably best not to say it at all. Speaking on background has many nuances. For one, you both have to agree on what portions of the interview are on background BEFORE any tea is spilled. This can get tricky, and weā€™ve had several instances where our spokesperson thought they were speaking anonymously about a subject, and the journalist thought the topic was on the record. Whoops.

The Workaround:

In todayā€™s social-media-heavy world, itā€™s impossible to reel back a story after it's published, so avoiding ā€˜on backgroundā€™ conversations is usually your safest bet. A simple, ā€œI canā€™t speak on that today, but what I can say isā€¦ā€ is often enough to get the interview back to safe ground. 

The Overeager Repeater šŸ—£ļø

ā€œSo, what Iā€™m hearing you say isā€¦ā€

Reporters repeat things a lot. In most cases, they confirm what was said to ensure their story is accurateā€”no harm there. In other cases, they hope to gently nudge the interviewee into a stronger position by overstating the sentiment a touch.

When this happens, itā€™s a good idea to take note. It can be an indication that the source is not providing enough information, or the right type of information, to produce a story. When the interview is about a general thought leadership topic, it signals that the spokesperson needs to expand, speak more clearly, or even amp things up a bit. The writer isnā€™t getting what they need. 

If itā€™s an interview about a product, company, competitors, or performance metrics, the reporter adding additional flair to the spokesperson's quotes may be a red flag. In an effort to be agreeable, itā€™s easy to let the writer skate by with a few liberties. Still, itā€™s crucial that each quote is represented accurately so that the entire story doesnā€™t become skewed (or more forceful than intended). 

The Workaround:

This one is pretty straightforward. The interviewee (or the PR person on the call) must clarify what was said without exaggeration. Reemphasize the initial point and make sure the writer understands exactly what was meant, minus creative liberties. 

ā€œActually, I saidā€¦ā€ 

ā€œI can see why youā€™d make that connection, but really, I thinkā€¦ā€

Teammates, Not Rivals  šŸ‘Æ

Interviewing is a skill set. Just as we prepare our spokespeople for media conversations and train them on the proper ways to engage, reporters are also honing their skills, looking for ways to get the strongest story from every interview. 

The relationship is symbiotic. Each person needs the other in order to make the resulting article a success. When both participants are skilled at their positions, everyone wins. 

Until next week,

Like The Colab Brief?