Yesterday our lead trainer Guy was media training in Hemel Hempstead (and although our media training clients are confidential unless they say otherwise, if they’re reading we want to thank them for their hospitality). The chief executive at the client had one core question initially. Why was it worth talking to the media at all? He wasn’t being aggressive, he genuinely wanted to understand the benefit.

Without divulging identities we can confirm this was a decades-old business with a solid, reliable customer base and hundreds of employees. The CEO was a man of roughly Guy’s age (he’s in denial about having slipped into his late fifties) so an experienced person.

It set us thinking on two topics. First, why had he paid to engage an excellent PR company and invested cash in our turning up to his premises if he didn’t understand the benefit? (The answer became clear: he trusted his marketing team and if they wanted to invest in enhanced services that was fine – he just wanted to understand in a little more depth). Second, since someone had asked the question, what were the benefits of speaking to the media?

Media coverage might not lead to sales

We do ask our clients why they want to speak to the media and some of the time the answer is that they want more sales.

Whoops.

Let’s ask the question. When did you last allow yourself to be persuaded to buy something thanks to a bit of media coverage? Actually let’s rephrase. When did you last allow yourself to be persuaded to buy something that you hadn’t already planned to buy thanks to a bit of media coverage? We’d be willing to bet that the answer is “not recently”. Loads of people check the reviews and social media feedback when they want to buy a new phone, a new dishwasher, choose a restaurant to visit. Note, though, that they had already decided they were in the market for these things.

Let’s clear something up before we go any further. We are talking here about “earned media” – in other words not an ad that you’ or a client has paid for, not a sponsored supplement in which you have final say. We are talking about independent reportage, something the journalist has found interesting in and of itself, or a thought leadership piece an editor thought was worth commissioning.

Inevitably there are different thoughts on just how useful this traditional media actually is but, for example, Sapience Communication in 2022 published a blog post citing figures that said a third of British adults came to the traditional media for their news rather than social media.

Nonetheless we’d query whether someone is going to the Financial Times when they want advice on a new phone. So an automatic addition to your sales funnel isn’t necessarily going to happen because you’ve been published somewhere.

Thought leadership stock image for media entry

The media can help indirectly through thought leadership

It’s not all about sales, of course. Actually let’s refine that a little bit. It is absolutely all about sales, completely and in every conceivable form. You’re reading this because you want to improve your company’s profile and go to the top of people’s shortlist when they are going to spend something. It doesn’t, however, have to be a direct link. This is where we encounter the idea of “thought leadership”.

Now, let’s be honest; Clapperton Media Training comes across all sorts of guff under the guise of “thought leadership”. As an experiment we entered the term into an online image library and had quite a choice, including the stock image above. And if it can be mass produced that often then there’s going to be the odd charlatan at it – in our time we’ve had pitches from people insisting that adding value to something before selling it rather than shifting commodities is “thought leadership” when we thought it was obvious.

There are counter-examples, however. When Guy was editor of Intelligent Sourcing magazine a contributor annoyed the publisher by coining a new word; he was advocating a local approach to global business and called it “glocalisation” and the publisher insisted it was a mistake. It didn’t catch on as it happened but it was an original thought or an original way of expressing an existing thought.

So yes, there is scope for publishing and establishing yourself or your company as leaders in your field. It’s also worth considering whether that’s going to achieve your objective, though.

Leadership isn’t everything

If we’re frank, we hear from a lot of people wanting to be thought leaders. We’re not convinced that’s going to lead to a business result every time, To some people this is a terrible point of view but to us it’s just logical and we can offer examples.

Let’s take one of the largest companies in the world, Amazon. The company certainly innovated when it first set up and it’s done a fine job in many ways since but we’re not quite convinced it’s a thought leader any more. Its logistics and of course its web platform is incredible but if you want to know loads about books you’re probably better off visiting a small local bookshop or something.

Ditto Apple. Yes we know they’re seen as market leaders and many of our trainers are iPhone users. If you can read this text then it means that typing on an Apple Macintosh computer works. However, Apple didn’t make the first smartphone. There were phones with satnav built in well before the first iPhone even came to the market.

The point we want to make is not that these are bad companies, far from it. However, becoming thought leaders does not appear to have been part of their mission when they set up and that’s actually perfectly reasonable. It just makes it a little baffling that so many organisations want to get quoted and published as innovators in their industry when this might not lead them to the position they want to achieve.

We just mentioned satnav

The satnav image is one of those that we come to often in our media training sessions, simply because of the way they work. You probably use one quite often because they’re automatically in vehicles and on phones nowadays. If you want to get somewhere you put the location in and then let the system work out the best route. If you have stipulations and stopping points in mind that’s fine but you accept that you may arrive a little later than if you were travelling more directly.

People abandon this approach when it comes to working with the media. Colleagues in the public relations industry tell us that their clients will insist they “want to be in the Financial Times” or that they “want to publish some thought leadership”. When asked why, the answer might be to do with sales, it might be to do with branding and mind share but one thing is pretty certain; it’s rarely clear how the steps they have envisaged are expected to get them to the point at which they want to arrive.

Whether you use a public relations company or not (and if you want a profile of any scale then it can be well worth doing) it’s worth taking that satnav approach and looking at where you want to get to first. You can then work backwards and see how best to get there, perhaps needing advice from an external agency on the way.

This entry started with the title “Why talk to the media?” because a client asked the question. The honest answer from us as a media training company is that we have no idea – why do you want to talk to the media? Only when we have the answer can we and your PR company help you with anything but the most generalised course. When you’ve got that target, we’ll help you hit it!

Our lead trainer Guy was at a session yesterday in which there was a lot of focus on messaging. Yes, he was there to deliver input on delivery but understandably the client wanted to talk about what they were saying as well as the way they were saying it.

One notable area under discussion was the extent to which you believe you should tailor your message according to the medium. To paraphrase the client, he basically said:

If I’m talking to someone for broadcast then I keep it brief and factual. If it’s for a written piece then I take it as read that I can go on for longer.

Those weren’t his exact words. You get the idea though; he wanted to change his tone according to who he was speaking to.

This can be a good idea or it can be a disaster. It’s worth taking a look at some of the reasoning.

They have more space in written media

It’s often true that someone researching something to go and write about it will have more space. If they don’t have more space then they are likely to have more bandwidth in their heads to edit down your long(ish) statements into digestible chunks. So it’s OK to go on at some length, some might think.

Well, yes and no (we know that’s unhelpful). Depending on the broadcast you may well be right. If it’s news then they will indeed want to get the facts pretty quickly but that’s what they want.

What you want or need may be quite different.

Make sure you don’t sound shifty

You’re likely to have some messaging you want to get into an interview and the first thing you need to ask if you’re going to keep it factual is: how much of a message can you get into a one-word answer? Have a quick look at this interview if you have the time. If you don’t, it’s the then-chief executive of the British Dental Association answering the BBC’s queries about mercury in fillings. His first and third answers are the ones you’re looking for: he says “yes” and “mmhmm”.

Consider how much more value he could have added to that. He could have added “yes but” or my favourite, “yes and the reason for that is…” and continued into something that would have shared a lot more of his expertise. Later on in the interview, when they let him do his retake, he gets it right but the damage is done.

In his first take, he ignores the opportunity to put some messaging in place. His organisation gets no benefit and equally seriously in my independent view, the audience misses out as well. Those earlier monosyllabic answers sound more like evasions than anything else.

Transferring the messaging power

The flip side of the client’s view is his belief that you can speak at some length to the written media because they have more space or at least mental bandwidth. They can translate what you’re saying into journalese so why not let them?

In principle that’s fine as long as you have a completely trustworthy journalist who is not only on your side but also understands the exact point you want to make. Except it’s unlikely to be like that.

The first point to make is that a journalist should never be on your side, they should be independent. We always assure clients that if they make thirty-three trillion dollars in a week they will be reported accurately. They will be reported just the same if they lose the same amount. The journalist’s job is to report the facts.

Another issue is that if you offer the journalist a 100-word quote and they only need ten for their article, you’re handing them the power to choose whichever parts of your quote they want. It won’t be inaccurate but let’s say you wanted them to write about your new international expansion and you mention the investment you secured to make it happen. The journalist then goes away and writes about the investment while your priority was to make new markets aware of your presence.

Essentially if you want the press to focus on something then focus on it yourself while you’re speaking. They can only write what you’ve given them and if you give them a lot they’ll do their best to prioritise.

Messaging prep takes time

There are two more basic reasons to be consistent in messaging across the media, however:

  • Timing. Let’s be perfectly honest, if you’re managing a business that’s attracting media attention there’s a very good chance you’re quite busy. You have to ask yourself just how granular you want to go: short sentences for TV? Long ones for print? And if you’re doing an interview for a profile piece on TV or radio, then you’ll have to vary those rules anyway. Just how much time can you allocate to tailoring the length of your messages to every individual outlet, even if you had the aptitude to do it?
  • Consistency. Journalists and other media professionals do check each other’s work, it’s how they stay up to date. It’s therefore worth prioritising a consistent message and making sure you don’t trip over yourself trying to cater for different media the whole time.

This doesn’t mean you should never prepare for different media and different audiences. We always advise, however, that people should think about the audience rather than the medium. If you’re in business and you’re speaking to one of the financial press (the sort of thing we might have Pádraig help you with) then you might well be able to talk about EBITDA, P&L, all sorts of stuff like that. If you were speaking to the technical press, Guy or Chris might comment that the technologists who write it will know their bytes from their blockchain so you should be fine with a bit of jargon. If you were speaking to the Nationals or even mainstream international press you’d need to assume a bit less knowledge

Our client from yesterday is happy tailoring his message to the medium he’s addressing and we’re really fine with that. If you’re new to communicating with the media, though, we’d suggest your time is better spent thinking of who you need to talk to and what messaging they will take away from your words.

The Mediamentor Tips YouTube channel

Sometimes you don’t want to read yet more in terms of blogs. You want some quick media tips on how to cope with those difficult and searching questions but you’re concerned about eye strain and the writing on your phone or tablet is all blurring into one in spite of the care we’ve taken choosing fonts.

That’s fine – it’s exactly why we started offering video tips as well. The link above takes you to a playlist on Clapperton Media Training’s YouTube channel which is packed with over 50 one or two minute videos on something that’s struck us during media training sessions. We just like to share stuff as soon as it occurs to us.

Hosted primarily by lead trainer Guy Clapperton, we hope you’ll find the media tips on offer useful. Just help yourself – it’s what the videos are there for!

How a couple of hundred years has changed things. The stridency of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, possibly stemming from Margaret Thatcher’s “The Lady’s not for turning” speech, now seems to have embedded the idea that admitting to an error, whether factual or an error of judgement, is an appalling thing to do and will make you look weak. This morning we had the hapless chancellor of the exchequer in the UK trawling the media performing a u-turn on his scrapping of the 45% tax rate for people earning over £150,000. At no stage did he concede that it had been a bad idea.It was just, he said, distracting from the good his party and by extension, the government was doing.

A media training client lies

This is not an approach we would ever advise our media training delegates to take. It’s second only to an outright lie. The reason is that both can come and bite you painfully later on.

One of our senior associates once media-trained someone who decided to use the session to practice a bit of dishonesty. The trainer been around for a while and asked the delegate about a particular event his company had arranged which hadn’t quite worked out. No harm had been done but his business hadn’t achieved the desired outcome. We asked about it and the client said he didn’t actually remember the event.

After the practice was over we said how surprised we were that he’d forgotten something about which there had been such a noise at the time. This was when he admitted he remembered it all too well but didn’t want journalists to have the quotes from him that admitted an idea had been unsuccessful.

So we pointed out that an informed journalist, had he been in a proper interview rather than a practice session, the headline would most probably have been “CEO forgets the occasion he let shareholders down completely”.

Which was fine in a media training session. It’s what we’re there for.

Nobody expects you to be other than human

The crazy thing is that all he had to do was to say the idea was implemented too early. There was a happy ending, he repeated the idea several years later and many of his crowdfunding shareholders profited handsomely. He wasn’t to know that at the time but what was the problem with admitting something hadn’t worked?

As we hinted at the beginning of this entry, the chances appear very good that this is a trend that started in the world of politics. “The Lady’s not for turning”, said Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. This rather suggested that turning would have been a sign of weakness, which 40 years earlier when we were at war might have been true, but in peacetime some reflection and maybe realignment can be a good idea.

Nonetheless, I can’t remember the last time I saw a politician of any political stripe being terribly ready to abandon a policy and concede it was a complete error. Even when they u-turn on something they dress it up as something it’s not. This isn’t something most of our clients should have to do.

You’re probably not in politics

Readers of this blog are highly unlikely to be in politics. There are therefore two pressures you won’t be facing. One is that you won’t be accountable to the public. People, including journalists, bloggers, podcasters, whoever, have no divine right to demand a response from you just because they have thought of a question they believe will catch you. If something is confidential, you can say so.

Second, you’re not dependent on a public vote for your job. There is unlikely to be much mileage in trying to bluff that you haven’t made a mistake. Whatever your politics, there is no denying that prime minister Liz Truss and chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng have made a very shaky start to their incumbency. It’s quite possible that their reluctance to admit any culpability will follow them around for quite a while.

Watch this apology

Here’s an example. You might remember that Ovo Energy received a lot of criticism when it advised people to combat the energy crisis by cuddling a pet or loved one. The CEO Stephen Fitzpatrick went onto TV and here’s what came out.


No nonsense, no “it wasn’t our fault”, no spin. Let’s not suggest for a moment that he particularly enjoyed this appearance and we can only hope that the person who put the offending social media content online was offered training and support rather than anger and criticism.

Nonetheless, this honest admission that someone made a bad mistake, coupled with an open apology, is how we advise our clients to behave when there’s been a screw-up. They happen and other than being played to leaders as an example of how to conduct yourself when something bad has happened, this is highly unlikely to turn around and damage the company in future. It leaves Fitzpatrick able to deal with the issues of the day rather than the issues of yesterday, and goodness knows in the energy industry there are going to be enough problems coming up in the near term without having to deal with something in the past.

So our advice is always to face a problem head on. Address it, neutralise it and admit to mistakes. No sensible reader is going to assume you’re perfect, why should you pretend?

Do you or your clients need help with your interview style? We can help – contact Lindsay@Clapperton.co.uk and she will arrange an initial discussion to explore which of our team will be best able to assist.