Oh what the heck. It's Sunday evening, and I may as well post another piece.
I said I'd talk about content. Think of it in layers. You have to hook your listener/reader/whoever. With a news journalist, it's a bit like telling a joke backwards. Deliver the punchline and, if they like that, you can give them the rest of the joke.
A few years ago, I went to interview a man who was launching a new online service. It looked interesting but I needed to be clear about how it differed from what already existed. So as soon as the pleasantries were over, I asked what the essential differences were between his service and one or two others I knew of.
"Before I tell you that, I want to tell you how the idea came to me."
He would not be moved. When he started with "I was lying in a hospital bed, having been very ill.", I could see that I was in for a 'lifestyle' pitch, but I was writing a short news piece.
We were both frustrated. Neither of us was prepared to accommodate the other, so we parted company, story untold. My loss, because I then had to set up another interview. His loss because he didn't get his much needed coverage.
What went wrong? He didn't think about his audience and he didn't structure his content to suit.
If he'd said "This is going to make your readers a ton of dough" or "this is going to save an average of five working hours per week, per employee", my ears would have pricked up. I'd be gasping for the story.
If you're talking with a journalist, start with a reader benefit. Nothing like a nice benefit to get people on-side. Make sure you have proof up your sleeve. A lot of people make airy claims and have no evidence other than wishful thinking to support them.
Make sure that what you have to say is different to what others are saying. Journalists are swamped with 'me too' stories. This is a classic situation: you write a story about something. You file it and it gets published. By this time you've almost forgotten you've written it. Then you get emails and calls to ask if you would write about similar things. Why? If we've already written about something, aired the surrounding issues, why the heck would we want to do it again?
So have a story - a sentence will do. Be sure it's focused to the needs of the audience (either the person you're talking to or, in the case of a journalist, their readers). Be sure it's different and interesting and delivers a benefit. Have your evidence marshalled - independent statistics or an analyst's report would be good. Customer success stories are okay, but they tend to be anecdotal. Good maybe as part of other evidence.
Once you're through the first major topic and you've secured interest, the rest of the interview should be fine. If the listener is barely keeping up or if they're in a hurry, terminate as soon you've told your main story and answered any questions. Don't overwhelm, you'll just end up getting misquoted. Some collateral might be good in this situation, you might even find great chunks of your own material being quoted in the article.
Later, I'll discuss control. How to seize control of an interview but still keep the interviewer's goodwill.
Feel free to comment, ask questions, anything really.
RSS feed
This is great stuff. Extremely useful and logical. In fact, it is so obvious that I am wondring how I couldn't see it before, yet, I guess I did not. Good journalists are good at listening and I find they rarely give me much guidance. I am not as arrogant as to think that is because I am saying such wonderous things, but because they know how to process it later, I guess.
The benefit point is crucial, journalists have a job to do and if I can help them do it, the world is a better place for both of us. :-)
Posted by: Adriana | February 23, 2005 at 05:01 PM