Piggy Back

The "Fuel Crisis" has started again. From the mouth of Francis Maud (whom I've blogged about before) comes a miss guided tip, and the country goes into meltdown.

This is a great opportunity for you. It really is.

Every single Local Radio Station will be talking about the looming crisis, the panic buying and the queues at the pumps; all you need to do is call them and piggy back the story.

Here's how to piggy back.

1) Identify what everyone is talking about.
Last night there was talk of little else, so you should have been thinking of how this story affects your business / charity / organisation. Do you have people on the road? Are you a sole trader who works with their van? What about meals on wheels!

2) Think of a universal line.
If you can say "I bet lots of people are in the same boat" then great. If you can't then think harder. Transport troubles in the world of herpetology isn't shared experience; freelance self employed delivery driver (who happens to cater for herpetologists is) if it means one child will go without their snake then it's terrible.

3) Say what you feel not what you think.
You feel worried that if fuel stocks run out then the old ladies won't get their meals, you are angry at the people who are filling up cars that do tiny mileage a week when you have to fill up every second day, you feel disappointed that this crisis threatens your charities work. Feel don't think.

4) Sound good.
You need to be calm prepared and slick. There's no use calling a phone-in and getting your business a mention when you sound like a school child who's been caught smoking in the bogs. Get the terror out of your head, listen to how the presenter is treating other callers and take your cue from that.

Don't forget that you have to get past the producer first "I want to talk to [insert alliterative local radio name here] about the problems for small businesses / charities / health workers / etc.", they will want you to get to the point, tell them the story and then repeat that on air to the presenter. If you sound normal then you certainly will get on.

5) Don't plug too hard.
A couple of mentions of a company name are fine, but more than that the presenter will pull you up on it and embarrass you. No one wants a public telling off.

6) Don't get drawn into politics.
"So what should the government have done?" and the answer is "I'm not sure about that, all I'm sure of is that my clients won't be happy and I'm not happy about the situation. I've built up "Farnsbarns Industries" over a number of years and this sort of thing could really tarnish our reputation and loose us money; and there are loads of other businesses that are going through the same thing." Lovely. No political argument, well side stepped and moved on. Your company / charity / organisation, unless it is always overtly political shouldn't get into a political debate. When you're on air talking for THEM you can't let personal bias suddenly become your company stance.

7) Be brief enough to get a news clip.
The news clip is the great bit in a bulletin where they lift stuff out of the broadcast and recycle. f you give punchy answers and short sentences it's easier for them to lift what you say and play it all day long. If they don't credit your company name when they do use it, call them and ask them to.

You can learn more about controlling the news agenda here.

Don't Mention The Pie.

Yesterday anyone who was available in the afternoon was watching the slightly odd entertainment of the Commons Media Select Committee. It was without any doubt the highest viewing figures for any select committee proceedings because of the Murdochs. James and Rupert Murdoch were answering questions about the involvement of News International in the use of phone hacking by News Of The World Journalists. I’m not going to comment on whether I think their testimony was of any interest. I’ll leave that up to the blogs that deal with that subject. I don’t. I want to look at their performance as interviewees. What can they teach us for next time we face a hostile interviewer?

It was a game of two techniques and that is possibly the most impressive thing about their performance. It started a little shakily with a refusal to let them read a prepared statement, and then Murdoch Senior managed to interrupt proceedings to tell us all how humble he was. Humble people don’t interrupt to tell us how humble they are. From that clanging beginning however it turned into a tour de force of contrition manipulation and obfuscation.

James Murdoch has been very well taught in the methods used to diffuse a difficult interview. He was a picture of regret and sorrow when it came to the shortcomings of News International. His tone of voice didn’t really change from a low monotone of submission and his face rarely dropped the expression of a Public School Head Boy caught smoking in the quad. One of his key techniques, however, was the long and detailed answer. When faced with an interview that you know has a time limit make your answers detailed, relevant and long; throw in lots of context, sub-clauses and the occasional bit of technical data (think of the ramblings of Grandpa Simpson). There were a number of replies that seemed to take us back to his childhood and were so involved that even as a keen observer I’d lost track of what the question was.

Rupert Murdoch had a different technique. Most of the informed viewers were waiting for the questioning of Tom Watson MP, the back bencher who had been at the heart of the story of Murdoch’s power over Parliament; he was dogged, he was clear and he was forthright. Tom Watson hadn’t allowed for Rupert Murdoch’s reaction to the questioning. A bald slumped eighty year old man, looking confused beleaguered and harangued, he cut a pitiable figure as he paused before each vague answer and seemed to know little of what his company had been up to. As the questioning went on Murdoch looked more like a care home resident who was regretting giving his son power of attorney. However, later in proceedings he appeared to have facts at his finger tips; the steel trap of a mind was still well oiled and catching people out. Had he just used the great defence of being too old and feeble to stand trial? As for that nasty Tom Watson, he’d just beaten up an octogenarian on live television.

Emotional connection is the Murdoch’s biggest triumph. After appearing in front of the Select Committee they have become human, they are no longer faceless monsters who have the morals of a tabloid journalist, they are human and they are very sorry*. Genius.

*no, I haven’t addressed any of the content of what they said. They wriggled and shimmied and seemed to say very little of use. The defence of hampering criminal proceedings was trotted out regularly.  The Tom Watson questioning about corporate governance was very interesting but will be remembered for Rupert Murdoch’s reaction, not the substance.

Smug.

If you really want to give "good interview" then you need to be aware of your flaws, for me it's verbosity; why use one word when a florid collection of thirty will do?


My colleagues in the radio industry still talk (in hushed tones) about my fascinating, beautifully crafted and intricate link that went on for five and a half minutes. That's right, five and a half minutes, without hesitation and still with a coherent train of thought. It was, however, five and a half minutes when I could have done it in less than one. My boss pointed out the behemoth and since then I have always been aware that I can just go on a bit when the wind is behind me and it's something that I now watch very carefully.

Francis Maud MP Cabinet Office Minister has a problem with smug, and someone ought to tell him. I don't just want to pick on The Rt. Hon. Mr Maude, there are many others from all works of life that suffer from 'the smugs' it's just that this morning on BBC Breakfast he showed himself to be patient zero.

If you want to avoid the same fate as Francis Maud here are some tips...

1 - Do not steam roller over the end of questions. You may be eager to put your view to the nation but stepping on the end of the question gives the two pronged impression of being so clever that you don't need the rest of the question, and that it doesn't matter what you're being asked because you're just going to say what you want any way. (And in this case you make Sian Williams look cross and no one wants that)

2 - The kind voice, oooh the kind voice, if you're wondering what I mean then have a look at this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13773800 (this is the news clip not the Sian Williams live but the effect is the same) it's that tone that's a cross between the Doctor explaining that you're going to have your leg off, and the Headmaster who's terribly disappointed in you but doesn't want to be discouraging. Tone of voice is a hugely difficult thing to manage, and there seems to be a trend, probably since Thatcher to adopt a 'the Government really does know best' tone when talking about difficult issues. So how do you get around this? Being aware of it is a very good start...

3 - Careful with the eyebrow action. It's interesting to see that there are a number of research papers looking at eyebrows and the amount that they are raised, and they point to eyebrows being raised as a form of facial emphasis. In this case it's the sections starting '...cross party consensus...', '...proposals made by Lord Hutton a former Labour Secretary of State...' and then on '...asking their members to give up a days pay...'. The result of these dramatic eyebrow raises is to communicate a passing of the blame for the decisions and the subsequent hardship to someone else.

The problem is that when you're being smug, pompous, bolshie, cross, baity, snide, sarcastic, all the things that you should avoid in interviews, especially filmed interviews, you need someone looking at the tape to tell you what you're doing, and after that someone to work with you to stop doing it.