Guy Clapperton, Author at Clapperton Media

At media training sessions and roundtable discussions, one of the most valuable aspects is the freedom participants feel to exchange ideas openly. These conversations spark fresh thinking and help people see issues from new perspectives.

Often, that sense of safety comes from operating under the Chatham House Rule. It’s meant to create space for honest dialogue — but as many professionals have discovered, it’s also one of the most misunderstood concepts in modern business communication.

One Rule, Not “Rules”

People frequently refer to “Chatham House Rules,” as though there’s a whole set of them. In fact, there’s only one — and it’s surprisingly short. Here’s what Chatham House itself says:

When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

That’s it. One sentence.

This means anyone who attends such a meeting is entirely free to share what was said — provided they don’t identify who said it. In journalistic terms, that’s easy enough to navigate: a quick “sources close to the company said…” and the Chatham House Rule is technically upheld.

Where It Goes Wrong

The problem is that many professionals assume the phrase means total confidentiality — that nothing said under the Rule can leave the room. It’s a common misunderstanding, even at senior levels. One senior banker once argued fiercely online that the Rule guaranteed complete secrecy and that any breach would have consequences.

That’s simply not what the Rule says. It was never designed as a confidentiality agreement, and it’s not legally binding. It’s an understanding — and one that depends on everyone in the room knowing what they’ve actually agreed to.

Off the Record? Be Careful There Too

Chatham House itself advises that if something truly must remain private, it should be kept “off the record.” Even that, however, can be risky. Journalists and other media professionals sometimes interpret “off the record” differently — often as “unattributable” rather than “secret.”

The Case for Simplicity

So what’s the safest approach? Simplicity. If you genuinely need something to remain confidential, say so — directly and clearly. “Confidential” is unambiguous. Everyone knows what it means.

By contrast, saying “Chatham House Rules” (plural) can signal uncertainty. It’s often used to sound authoritative or sophisticated, but it can actually blur the boundaries of what’s permitted. When it comes to professional communication, clarity beats elegance every time.

The Takeaway

In media interactions, roundtables, or any kind of professional exchange, precision in language matters. It protects reputations, ensures trust, and avoids misunderstanding.

So next time you’re setting the ground rules for a sensitive discussion, skip the fancy phrasing. Just say “confidential” — and mean it.

And you can tell anyone you like that this came from Clapperton Media Training.

Attention public relations professionals!

Have you ever spent ages on a story pitch, combed through it for accuracy, made sure it says exactly what you want to say, hit “send” to the press, influencers, podcasters and everyone who might be interested – and then been met by the proverbial wall of silence?

You could be making the classic error of telling the media professional what you want to say rather than what their audience needs to know. Journalists aren’t thinking about your client’s milestone, partnership or new product — they’re thinking about what will make their readers click, share, or stay tuned. So before you hit send, ask:

👉 “If I were the journalist’s audience, why would this matter to me?”

If you can’t answer that in one sentence, you don’t yet have a story — you have a press release waiting to be ignored.

And if you’d like your team to learn how to think like a journalist — to craft story ideas that actually land — that’s exactly what I’ll be covering in my very interactive “Pitch Perfect” Masterclass on 8th December in central London. If you’d like to come or would like to send delegates, ask me about pricing.

Plus…

This time around the price will include a rebate on any media training or staff training you might book with Clapperton Media Associates during 2026.

Go on, drop me a note at Guy@Clapperton.co.uk – you know you want to!

We recently had a chat with a colleague who had a familiar dilemma: how do you make LinkedIn posts engaging when you have to talk about a product?

The colleague’s concern was valid — they didn’t want to bore their audience by focusing only on features and specifications. They wanted to post something more engaging, something that resonated. And they were right to think that way. In the world of press releases as well as social media, people will switch off if you start talking about products for which they are not searching.

Whenever possible, content — whether for LinkedIn or the press — should be built around issues and client pain points, not the product itself. That’s what connects.

But in media relations, things aren’t always that simple. Sometimes there is a product launch that needs attention, and unless the client happens to be Apple, Samsung or Google (where “a company known for making phones is going to make another phone” is apparently thrillint), it can be difficult to make that story sparkle.

Or so it seems.

Issues with wheels

To illustrate the point, one of our trainers tried to think of the dullest but most useful product imaginable — and searched for a picture of a wheel.

Thousands appeared. Car wheels, bicycle wheels, haycart wheels, even the London Eye. It turns out that a wheel isn’t dull at all — it depends entirely on the story you tell about your wheel.

If you’re trying to attract a journalist’s attention to a new wheel, you need to explain what makes your wheel in particular matter. What problem does it solve that other wheels don’t? Who benefits from it, and how? Is there a bigger market trend around wheels that you could comment on?

Of course, even then, not every journalist will be interested. That’s where Plan B comes in: stop talking about the product altogether, and start talking about the issues it solves — the problem it fixes for your audience.

A wheel, after all, helps people travel farther than they can walk. A bicycle wheel adds exercise to the equation. A car wheel might improve safety or reduce costs if it’s more durable. Each story is different because each audience is different.

And that’s the key.

Whether you’re writing a press release or a LinkedIn post, the focus should always be on the reader, not the writer. The best messages are about the audience’s challenges and aspirations, not the speaker’s achievements.

A useful exercise is to review your own content — LinkedIn posts, website copy, even pitch emails — and ask: Is this about us, or about them? If it’s too much about you, reframe it around your ideal client’s needs and concerns.

Don’t expect instant results — the payoff is in the quality of the engagement you attract, not the quantity.

In both media training and communications, the same truth applies: the message that resonates isn’t about what you sell — it’s about the issue you address. And if you’ve read the market right then your target readers will recognise themselcves immediately you start talking about those issues.

Prospective clients often begin with a straightforward question: “How much does media training cost?”

If we already know each other, that’s fine — a few details over email and we can send a sensible proposal. But for first-time contacts, we always insist on a short conversation first. Not a long one, but an essential one.

That’s because the cost of media training depends on what you actually need. The question “how much?” needs to be followed by “for whom?”, “for what purpose?”, and “in what format?” before anyone can give a realistic answer.

We once saw someone ask for media training rates in a Facebook group. A well-meaning contact immediately offered a (very low) number. What they didn’t do was ask how many delegates were involved, what the objectives were, whether the target media required a camera operator or a studio setup, or even whether suitable training space was available.

If someone quotes a fee without asking those questions, it’s worth walking away. You’re not being quoted for what you need — you’re being quoted for what they happen to sell.

Preparation Gets the Best Out of Everyone

A detailed brief always leads to better results — for both trainers and delegates.

If, for example, your chief executive is preparing for a Bloomberg interview, the training focus will be very different from a friendly appearance on BBC Breakfast. (We even offer studio sessions with sofas for that purpose.) If there’s no broadcast media in sight, investing in a camera operator might be unnecessary.

And if someone promises to train “as many people as you want” in half a day, beware. That’s not tailored coaching — it’s a workshop in disguise.

A good trainer will also want to understand the delegate’s key messages, even if those aren’t used explicitly in the exercises. Knowing the objectives helps us test whether your spokespeople can introduce those messages naturally in conversation.

It’s also vital to understand the people themselves. Are they confident or cautious? Do they go too technical for a general audience, or not technical enough for the trade press? A five-minute call to discuss those dynamics makes a world of difference.

The Right Brief Builds Better Spokespeople

At Clapperton Media Associates, we’re proud of the testimonials and feedback our training receives. But the best sessions don’t just happen — they’re built on smart preparation and clear expectations.

If you’re in PR and want your client’s media training to be outstanding rather than just adequate, be a great briefer. Five minutes of planning can make hours of difference on the day.

(Image: Kalyan Shah)