Posts Tagged ‘media training analysis’
Australian rugby player Andrew Fifita recently made a comment that cost him a four-year, $3.5 million contract ($3.2 million U.S.).
The 24-year-old announced that he would be changing teams, from the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks to the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs. But before he even put on his new uniform, he expressed disloyalty to his new team. Here’s the story via news.com.au:
“On Friday he let slip in an interview that he wished he’d chosen rugby union [a different league] instead. Then yesterday, the Dogs effectively said fine, forget the whole deal.
Oh, the Bulldogs cited a bunch of legalese. But reading between the lines, they appeared to be saying “You’ve got no loyalty? Then we don’t want you.”
What caught my eye were comments made by his teammate, Paul Gallen, who offered this solution:
“I think he’s really going to have to be micromanaged, I really think they have to get him some kind of media training or something.”
The columnist agreed:
“Gallen is right. If Fifita doesn’t have any natural humility, he desperately needs a slick professional to drum it into him.”
Both Gallen and the unnamed columnist have a distorted view of media training.
A media trainer’s job is not to “drum” humility into someone. Good practitioners are not slick professionals who attempt to create personality traits where they do not exist (we can help people emphasize traits they do possess). Doing so would be doomed to failure, as the public can usually tell when someone is faking it.
We can only be successful when working with somewhat self-aware people who have a desire to change. If Fifita is not naturally humble, I would never try an approach intended to make him fake humility.
What would I do? I’d focus on helping him reduce the likelihood of a future “seven-second stray.” I would try to accomplish that by invoking his competitive spirit and analogizing his public comments to rugby. Every time he prevents himself from making a potentially controversial comment, he should award himself a point. Every time he makes one, he should view it as voluntarily allowing the other team to score.
That’s it. No drumming false humility into him. But by getting him to be as competitive with the use of his words as he is during play, it might serve the same purpose—he’d learn to bite his tongue more often, which might result in him genuinely appearing more humble. And it wouldn’t take a “slick” professional to help him do it.
That’s my take. What’s yours? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Tags: Andrew Fifita, media training analysis, media training disasters, sports
Posted in Media Training Disasters | Please Comment »
In dozens of books and hundreds of articles, you’ll find media trainers, presentation coaches, and communications experts offering a startling statistic:
Only 7 percent of the way someone forms an impression of you comes from your words! The remaining portion comes from your voice (38 percent) and your body language (55 percent)!
There’s only one problem: Those statistics are wrong. Completely wrong.
Their root comes from a 1960s study by a UCLA professor named Dr. Albert Mehrabian. But Mehrabian never intended for his research to be used—or misused—that way.
Mehrabian’s study was very limited in scope—it looked only at single words, focused solely on positive or negative feelings, and didn’t include men—and yet, I see articles at least once a week touting these numbers as gospel, as if they have much broader implications than they actually do.
Had these communications “experts” taken the time to look at the original research (or simply look at Dr. Mehrabian’s Wikipedia page, which debunks this myth), they wouldn’t have made this mistake. So I can only conclude that communications professionals who use this data are ignorant, lazy, or willfully misusing this data to sound smarter than they are.
As an example, I came across a video from Stanford Business Professor Deborah Gruenfeld last week. I saw the video because it was a “Sponsored Post” on Twitter. The link led me to a YouTube video, which had this in the video description:
“When people want to make an impression, most think a lot about what they want to say. Stanford Business Professor Deborah Gruenfeld cautions you to think twice about that approach. The factors influencing how people see you are surprising: Words account for 7% of what they take away, while body language counts for 55%.”
In the video, Gruenfeld says:
“When people are forming an impression of you, what you say accounts for only seven percent of what they come away with.”
Creativity Works, a U.K.-based communications firm, produced this video called “Busting the Mehrabian Myth.” It’s a well-produced (and humorous) video. UPDATE: Several readers have correctly pointed out that this video goes too far in the opposite direction, prioritizing words over delivery. That, too, is wrong — the right balance of words and delivery is highly contextual, and it’s too reductionist to say that one generally matters more than the other.
Have thoughts about body language and the Mehrabian Myth? Please leave them in the comments section below.
The PowerPoint slide in this post comes from the Presentation Zen website; to their credit, they acknowledged that this graphic isn’t quite right.
Tags: Albert Mehrabian, body language, communications analysis, media training analysis
Posted in Media Training: Performance | 7 Comments »
Anita Lopez, a Democratic mayoral candidate in Toledo, Ohio, likes to prepare carefully for her media interviews. She requires her staff to ask questions of reporters before any interview and to complete a form containing details about the story.
So far, I’m on board. That’s a rather typical media strategy, and it’s the kind of responsible due diligence that any smart candidate would employ. But The Toledo Blade suggests she’s going overboard:
“Among the information Ms. Lopez wants in advance is a list of the reporter’s questions; if anyone already has been interviewed; who else will be interviewed; what the other sources said to the reporter; if she can use visuals, and if the reporter is knowledgeable.”
In The Media Training Bible, I warn spokespersons dealing with hard news reporters to avoid asking for questions in advance—and Ms. Lopez shouldn’t insist on questions as a pre-condition for an interview. But the rest of her interview prep looks like the type of typical media relations policy that many businesses, organizations, and candidates employ as a standard operating procedure.
Although that may seem obstructionist, there are legitimate reasons for requesting information in advance. Knowing a reporter’s focus can help a candidate find key statistics or details that may not be top of mind, give the candidate warning that the reporter is on an unwarranted fishing expedition, and prevent them from committing the type of “gotcha” moment that sells newspapers but destroys reputations.
The Blade also knocks Lopez for using “bridging” statements. That’s a cheap shot. Those statements are used by virtually every experienced spokesperson in the country. Perhaps you don’t think politicians should use them—but singling her out for their use is journalistic hackery.
But the most ridiculous comment in the piece goes to Independent Councilman D. Michael Collins, who maintains that the truest response is “one that is extemporaneous.” Any experienced public figure should know the hazards of making it up while you go along: just ask Todd “legitimate rape” Akin, Mitt “47 percent” Romney, or Barack “cling to their guns and religion” Obama. According to his logic, no one should ever practice a speech again.
The bottom line is that it’s a good idea to prepare for interviews in advance. Perhaps it requires a defter touch than the one Ms. Lopez has been using. But many parts of The Blade’s piece feel like a highly selective singling out.
Of course, this is a bit less defensible.
What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Tags: Anita Lopez, media training analysis, Toledo Blade, working with reporters
Posted in Media Training Analysis | 9 Comments »
Reporters for the college newspaper The Daily Princetonian are no longer allowed to conduct interviews through email. Neither are reporters for The Stanford Daily or The Oracle, the University of South Florida’s paper.
What’s behind this seemingly urgent push for “no email interview” policies? To find out, writer Mark Lisheron wrote a thoughtful and well-researched piece for the April issue of the American Journalism Review. (Disclosure: I’m quoted in the article.)
Unsurprisingly, his investigation revealed deep passions on both sides of the debate. Supporters of the email ban argued their side thusly, as summarized by Lisheron:
“E-mail deprives the reporter of all of the sensory advantages of the other interview styles. Facial expressions, gestures, posture. The sound and the cadence of the voice. The emphasis on words or phrases. The pauses.
As fast and convenient as they are, e-mail interviews are never really conducted in real time. The timing of the response, the allowance for measured and edited replies create an artificiality readers recognize.”
The then-editor of The Daily Princetonian, Henry Rome, explained his decision to ban email interviews by writing:
“Interviews are meant to be genuine, spontaneous conversations that allow a reporter to gain a greater understanding of a source’s perspective. However, the use of the email interview — and its widespread presence in our News articles — has resulted in stories filled with stilted, manicured quotes that often hide any real meaning and make it extremely difficult for reporters to ask follow-up questions or build relationships with sources.”
On the other side of the debate are those who make the case for email interviews. One past president of the National Information Officers Association said this, as summarized by Lisheron:
“Reporters, he says, have no inherent right to a statement from him. He reserves the right to ask for questions in writing and provide answers in writing, usually through e-mail.
Departments like his are trying harder to control the message, not because they are deceptive and evil, but because relationships with the media have changed.”
And another public information officer told him that getting questions in writing is:
“…not only a way to form more complete and accurate answers, but to be better able to parry inquiries designed to elicit specific responses.”
So who’s right? Both sides have a point, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Like anything else (say, PowerPoint slides) the problem is less with the tool itself than with the way that tool gets used. That said, far too many spokespersons rely on email. They think they’re maintaining control by only offering written statements—and sometimes they are—but too often, they’re unnecessarily undermining their relationships with the press.
You can read more about my view on this issue in my article called “Three Reasons to Interview by Phone Instead of Email.”
I hope you’ll read Mark’s excellent article in full. You can find it here. And please leave your thoughts on this topic in the comments section below.
Tags: American Journalism Review, Mark Lisheron, media analysis, media training analysis, working with reporters
Posted in Media Training Analysis | 5 Comments »
Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg, recently appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to promote her new book, Lean In: Women, Work, And The Will To Lead.
Ms. Sandberg had many terrific communications traits. She made an articulate and persuasive case, used her body language to reinforce her verbal points, and laughed heartily at Mr. Stewart’s jokes.
Something about her interview bothered me. I wanted to like her and agreed with every point she made—but I had a difficult time connecting with her. It took me a week and three viewings of her segment to figure out why.
If you can’t view this video on your mobile device, click here.
First, and perhaps most glaringly, she oversold her book. In a six-minute segment, she mentioned Lean In five times (Jon Stewart also mentioned it at the beginning and end of the segment; the name of the book also appeared in a giant on-set graphic, an on-screen book graphic, and a lower third graphic).
In total, viewers saw or heard Lean In no fewer than 10 times in six minutes.
It may surprise you that a media trainer who encourages people to remain on message was chagrined by that. But there’s a fine line between selling and over-selling, between being on message and over-messaged.
Mentioning her book title a couple of times would have been fine. But her continual mentions had the effect of pulling me out of her interview and reminding me that she was there to pitch a product, which compromised my ability to relate with her. Perhaps part of that wasn’t just the repetition—it may have just been that Ms. Sandberg didn’t pull it off without sounding a bit forced.
That leads me to my second point. Sandberg sounded a bit too rehearsed. And that’s a shame, because she did a lot of things right. Her anecdotes were tight and effective (e.g. “Pretty like Mommy” t-shirts, her friend’s five-year-old daughter), and her sound bites were great (e.g. “Men still run the world. And I’m not sure that’s going that well.”)
If I was working with her, I’d advise her to stop trying to deliver her lines as she rehearsed them and to start delivering them like she was talking to an elderly neighbor or a high school friend instead. From her less rehearsed moments in this interview, she appeared to have that ability. She should use it more often. She should be going for “real,” not “polished.”
The bottom line? Ms. Sandberg did a great job with the precision of her words, but didn’t do as well in terms of relating with the audience. (I’ve written more about that common challenge here.) The good news for Sandberg is that she’s really, really close. And with a little more work, she can do a better job of making that all-elusive audience connection.
If Facebook doesn’t shut down my account after writing this story, please stay in touch with me at www.Facebook.com/MrMediaTraining.
Tags: Facebook, jon stewart, media training analysis, Sheryl Sandberg, The Daily Show
Posted in Media Training Analysis | 5 Comments »
There’s a cute little cupcake shop on our town’s main street.
The store’s décor is welcoming and whimsical. The walls are painted bright pink, and the stools are shaped like something you might see in Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory.
My wife and I have passed the shop many times, each time looking longingly through the store window at the display cases, filled with cupcakes lined up in perfect rows—banana cream cupcakes next to chocolate ganache cupcakes next to peanut butter and jelly cupcakes.
We finally stopped in last week. And something the clerk said instantly removed the shop’s magic and made us unlikely to return.
When we entered the shop, I noticed that the store also sold brownies, my favorite. I asked the clerk if the brownies were also homemade, to which she said:
“Nothing in the store is homemade. We get it all delivered.”
With those 11 deflating words, nothing in the shop looked as cute anymore. And for the first time, I noticed that the shop smelled like nothing—it didn’t smell badly, but it also didn’t smell like baked goods. I purchased the brownie, ate it without enthusiasm, and decided to support a different store next time instead.
As we walked away, my wife remarked how different it would have been if the clerk had said something like this:
“We have an exclusive relationship with an award-winning bakery, and we’re the only store in our city that carries them. Our bakery makes 25 types of cupcakes for us every day, and they deliver them fresh every morning.”
We might have still been a little disappointed, but at least that type of response would have preserved some of the shop’s magic for us.
As readers of this blog know, I hate the word “spin.” So this incident serves as a perfect example of the difference between spin and smart strategic communications. Assuming for a moment that both of the quotes above are true, then neither is spin. But only the second message is smart and strategic—and therefore effective.
Tags: media training analysis, media training messages
Posted in Media Training Analysis | 2 Comments »
When Harvard’s Center for Media and Public Affairs studied the average length of a sound bite in 2000, they found that the typical television quote lasted just 7.3 seconds. It’s probably even shorter today. And that’s down from 42 seconds in 1968. (PDF of study here.)
Since most of us speak an average of two or three words per second, that translates to a measly 18 words per quote.
Many spokespersons complain that they couldn’t possibly say anything of meaning in that short time period. And they’re right—it’s a major challenge. But it is possible.
I recently saw a tweet that contained the “world’s shortest horror story.” It read:
“The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door.”
Those 17 words send chills down my spine. If you’re like me, you probably created a strong mental picture of the room, how the man was sitting, and the terror he felt when he heard that unexpected knock. With just 17 words, this story elicits a strong visceral reaction.
That tweet made me think of another terrifying line, this one from the 1979 classic horror movie, “When a Stranger Calls.” You may remember the set up to that film: a babysitter is alone in a house with the young children she’s looking after. She keeps getting threatening phone calls. She calls the police, who ask her to keep the caller on the line when he phones again to allow them to trace the origin of the call. She complies. After the police trace it, they call the babysitter back and say:
“We’ve traced the call. It’s coming from inside the house.”
I saw that movie as a teenager. And whenever I’m alone in my house and hear a strange sound, I’m reminded of those 10 terrifying words.
So next time someone tells you it’s impossible to say something of meaning in just 7.3 seconds, remember the lesson from those horror stories. Sometimes, the most evocative ideas require the fewest words.
Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.
Tags: media training, media training analysis
Posted in Media Training Tips | 2 Comments »
Last week, as Hurricane Sandy claimed dozens of lives, demolished homes, and wreaked havoc on millions of people in the eastern United States, I noticed an interesting debate playing out in my Twitter feed.
Some of my Twitter friends took the opportunity to advocate for stronger policies aimed at curbing climate change, for which they blamed Hurricane Sandy. Others took offense at that suggestion, claiming that it was inappropriate to “politicize” tragedy.
These tweets tell the story:
— Spocko (@spockosbrain) October 31, 2012
— Aqil (@shaqfu75) November 1, 2012
I’m not sure I agree with those who argue that it’s wrong to push an agenda during a tragedy. News organizations are fickle: they cover breaking news extensively but for a brief period of time, then move off the story and provide little follow-up coverage. When’s the last time you saw the Aurora movie theater shooting in the news, for example?
Therefore, PR professionals representing a cause—say climate change or gun control—face a choice: Strike immediately to capitalize on the media’s short-term focus on their issue but risk the wrath of the public, or let the moment pass to avoid criticism but lose the media spotlight.
In the case Hurricane Sandy, for example, I believe that PR pros advocating for better climate change policies should make their case while Sandy is still part of the news cycle. I believe that gun control advocates should make their case in the dark days following a mass shooting. The public will be able to create a much stronger cause and effect during a media event than weeks or months after it passes.
Of course, there’s a right and a wrong way to “politicize” tragedy. Pitches for commercial products, like this idiotic one for American Apparel, never have a place:
Advocating for an inherently political cause during a tragic event is a skill that requires incredible deftness, sensitivity, and tact. Tone matters. If you appear to be taking advantage of those who are suffering great losses during the tragedy, the public will rightly hold it against you. But I wouldn’t take this approach completely off the table as a way of bringing attention to important causes.
What do you think? Please vote below.
Tags: media training analysis, PR, Public Relations
Posted in Media Training Analysis | 1 Comment »