communications Archives - 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.

At Clapperton Media Associates, we work closely with public relations professionals who want their clients to be visible, credible, and memorable. But one phrase keeps resurfacing in conversations that makes us wince slightly: “thought leadership.”

Like many bits of jargon, it began with good intentions. The idea was simple: if a client has genuinely original insight or a fresh perspective on their market, then helping them share that view is an invaluable service. Done well, it can spark discussion, shape perception, and position a business as an authority worth listening to.

Unfortunately, “thought leadership” has been overused to the point of meaning very little. Somewhere along the line, it became something to tick off a to-do list. We’ve seen well-intentioned PR teams ask clients for “thought leadership content” as if it’s a deliverable that can be produced to order. Occasionally, that works – a founder or expert may have untapped insight they didn’t realise was valuable. But more often, it leads to clients feeling pressured to produce opinions that sound authoritative without offering anything new.

When “thought leadership” becomes a formula rather than a spark, it risks doing the opposite of what’s intended. Instead of making someone sound like an innovator, it makes them look like they haven’t done their research. And it gets worse when that phrase – “thought leadership” – is used with journalists. Talking about “offering thought leadership” to an editor is like a magician explaining an illusion before performing it. Everyone knows it’s positioning, but it’s best not to draw attention to the wires.

The solution? Focus less on “leadership” as a label and more on what’s genuinely interesting or useful. A strong opinion, a data point that challenges assumptions, or a story that reveals something new – those are the real currency of influence.

At its best, great communications work helps ideas travel. But when every article, quote, and podcast appearance is branded as “thought leadership,” the words lose their meaning. So, by all means, help clients share their insights and opinions – just don’t call every thought a leading one.