Guy Clapperton, Author at Clapperton Media

Lead trainer Guy writes

Look, I’m a podcaster. I’ve been one since 2018 with my current offering, The Near Futurist, and years before that I had a thing called HR Podcast – so obscure even Google has forgotten about it (not that this needs to be a bad thing, it was pretty rough and ready).

So I do know a bit about podcasting. It was all a bit DIY and you could put it out onto the Internet and people could listen to it in their own time, unlike a radio broadcast. There are many such examples still being produced.

And as a useful concept I believe it’s dead. Let me explain.

The radio now carries podcasts

My wife and I generally listen to BBC Radio 4 in the mornings. First it’s the Today programme and if we’re not behind our desks at 9am then it can be a number of things: this week it’s been More Or Less, followed eventually by Woman’s Hour.

Thing is, you can search the BBC website for “Podcasts” and you’ll find that day’s Woman’s Hour, no problem.

You can listen to it in your own time by all means. But is scheduled radio that you timeshift actually a podcast or not? I’d edge towards “not” myself but the BBC says it is. So are The Infinite Monkey Cage, Desert Island Discs and a load more. One or two programmes actually announce themselves as podcasts while they’re on the air.

And that’s not all.

The Traitors

That’s not just a clickbaity subhead (although if you’ve clicked onto this piece and want to read about The Traitors, welcome – this is your bit!). The popular TV programme of this name is not a podcast, obviously – but the supporting programme, The Traitors Uncloaked, describes itself as a “visualised podcast”. This is broadcast at a fixed time, after the main programme, on BBC1 and is definitely a TV programme. To rub that in it is followed by ANOTHER, AUDIO-ONLY podcast.

Meanwhile one of the most popular podcasts that exists is Diary of a CEO with Stephen Bartlett. This doesn’t describe itself as visualised but you can watch it. It’s definitely on video.

Is it actually a style rather than a genre?

So, just to annoy people who want to train people for appearances on these things, a podcast might now be on audio or video or both, it can be broadcast to a schedule or downloadable, it may or may not be on a major broadcast platform and there are a load of programmes available to stream that aren’t podcasts at all.

Which is why I believe podcasts, as a useful category, are dead. If anyone wants training to appear on something they describe as a podcast then by all means my team and I can help – the attentive body language while you’re looking relaxed and the tone while you’re sounding casual but hitting important messages are things we can support. There’s definitely a podcast “style” that isn’t the same as a formal interview.

But things keep moving in the media. And if any trainer, PR person or other sort of media professional tells you “podcast” actually means something specific these days, I’d be concerned they’re looking at the media of 2018.

When PR teams prepare a client for a media opportunity, messaging quite rightly takes centre stage. But strong messaging alone doesn’t guarantee strong interviews. At Clapperton Media Associates, we regularly see spokespeople who know their content inside-out still fall short — not because they lack knowledge, but because they’ve missed three critical skills that shape how journalists receive and use their words.

These skills are often overlooked in pre-interview briefings, or dismissed by clients who believe they “sound fine already”. In practice, they make the difference between an effective interview and a frustrating one. Here are the three that matter most:

1. Tone: Expertise Isn’t Enough

A spokesperson can hold every relevant fact in their head and be a world-class expert — but if they sound dismissive, bored, defensive or aloof, the interview immediately suffers.

Tone determines whether a journalist warms to the speaker or braces for a difficult conversation. The goal is to sound engaged and engaging: confident without arrogance, warm without gushing, authoritative without condescension. It’s a balance many senior executives underestimate.

2. Structure: Think, Then Speak

A common issue is that a journalist asks a question and the spokesperson dives straight into an answer with no reflection. To the expert, it makes perfect sense — they can mentally stitch it all together. To the journalist, whose expertise lies in interviewing and shaping stories, the result can feel fragmented, unclear, or unmoored from the point.

Training clients to pause, structure, and signpost before they speak leads to clearer quotes, better coverage, and far fewer follow-up questions driven by confusion rather than curiosity.

3. Length: More Isn’t More

Well-meaning spokespeople often want to be as helpful as possible. If they have 20 years’ experience, they may feel obliged to offer every angle, nuance and historical footnote.

Unfortunately, this overwhelms rather than assists. Long, meandering answers encourage journalists to conflate issues, lose focus, or latch onto details the client didn’t intend to foreground.

Shorter, sharper answers maintain control of the narrative and make it easier for journalists to extract accurate, useful quotes.

Helping PR Teams Reduce Risk and Improve Results

These issues are rarely about lack of skill — they’re about lack of practice. The right training helps spokespeople communicate in ways journalists can immediately use, reducing the risk of poor coverage and increasing the likelihood of meaningful, positive stories.

Clapperton Media Associates specialises in preparing senior leaders, technical experts, and fast-moving startups for exactly these challenges. If your clients are heading into interviews, we can help ensure they deliver with clarity, confidence and impact.

To discuss tailored training for your team or clients, get in touch.

PR agencies large and small are under constant pressure to deliver results efficiently. Yet many teams find that one task quietly drains far more time and energy than they realise: ineffective media pitching.

For many agencies and in-house teams, the cycle is all too familiar. Drafts that don’t quite land. Endless rewrites. Promising stories that somehow never make it out of the inbox. Hours lost to a process that should take minutes, and opportunities slipping away simply because the initial pitch missed the mark. Journalists just don’t care, hence the shruggy image.

At Clapperton Media Training, this is exactly the problem our Pitch Perfect session is designed to solve.

An Investment in Skills — and in Efficiency

When PR managers send junior colleagues to our masterclasses, they’re not just supporting early-career development. They are strengthening their own pipeline. Stronger pitching skills mean fewer rewrites, fewer dead ends and fewer hours spent salvaging work that was never likely to succeed.

This isn’t just training. It’s an operational upgrade.

What Better Pitching Really Delivers

Our training helps delegates understand:

How journalists actually think — and what makes them respond.
What to cut from a pitch to avoid instant deletion.
How to spot weaknesses before the email is ever sent.
How to build long-term media relationships rather than chasing one-off wins.

The result?
Managers spend less time correcting and amending pitches. Success rates increase. Junior staff gain the confidence to craft smarter, tighter, more relevant story ideas. Teams become faster, sharper and more aligned with what journalists genuinely need.

A single story placement can be a success — but long-term relationships built on intelligent, relevant pitching are far more valuable. Our sessions are designed to help PR teams move from the former to the latter.

Upcoming Pitching Masterclass — 8 December

Clapperton Media Training still has places available on our 8th December morning and afternoon courses in London.

For agencies asking themselves where their time and energy are disappearing, this is often the most effective place to start.

For details, or to reserve a place, simply get in touch.

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.