A few unguarded words to the press can have far-reaching consequences. Witness Gerald Ratner describing his company's jewellery as “absolute crap”, Glen Hoddle suggesting disability might be punishment for sin in a previous life, and the British Rail official who blamed train delays on the “wrong kind of snow”. Taken out of context and blown up in headlines, those few words can damage your organisation and cost you your job.
Yet sooner or later, most senior executives have to face the media, whether by phone, at press conferences, or even on the doorstep. Without training, they do so at their peril.
Not all journalists deserve their trade's scurrilous reputation, but most pride themselves on challenging authority, questioning the status quo, unveiling hypocrisy and exposing the truth. They do not see their role as a company mouthpiece or a PR machine, preferring to seek out the weaknesses, flaws and facts you would rather keep covered up.
Nor is the boss the only one in the firing line. Middle managers are increasingly vulnerable, says Stephen Carver, head of the communications skills module of the MBA programme at Cranfield School of Management. “Many journalists target middle managers for comment rather than the company directors because they are less likely to have been on crisis management courses – and thus more likely to say something stupid and drop the company deeper in controversy.”
Of course, talking to the press is not mandatory. But opting out is risky. You miss out on free publicity and you fail to influence public debate. Moreover, the journalist is likely to turn to your competitors and opponents who get their say instead. Arguably, there is only one thing worse than being quoted, and that is not being quoted. The Financial Times based an entire advertising campaign on the notion that only a fool has “no comment”.
Michael Bland, a consultant and trainer in crisis management and corporate communications, is often contacted by people who have been invited to appear on TV's Watchdog. “They are looking for an excuse not to be interviewed because they're worried they'll be torn to shreds,” says Bland. “I tell them they're going to be torn to shreds anyway, so they might as well appear to defend themselves.”
His view is shared by Carver. “I think the days of no comment are over, except in extreme circumstances – you've got to say something. Every company should go through a ‘trial by ordeal’ in preparation for the inevitable.”
Knowing how to tackle difficult questions and make the most of an interview can reap huge rewards. It puts you in the limelight, gets the head-hunters on the phone, and generates free and credible coverage for your organisation. “Interviews can be terrifying, but they are a golden opportunity to sell yourself and your side of the story,” says Bland. A one-minute slot on prime-time TV would cost you about £500,000.
The techniques used in media interviews are not particularly difficult, but they do require planning and practice. “Most media disasters are caused, not by malicious interviewers but by interviewees who think they know it all and who go into the interview with a blank mind,” says Bland. Hence the need to prepare two or three clear, simple messages – and then ask yourself ‘So what?’
This type of exercise is now a key component of MBA programmes. At Cranfield, for example, students take part in simulations based on real-life situations. They are given a brief and a little time to prepare before they take on the roles of company directors teaming up to respond to a corporate crisis. The simulations culminate in a press conference in which they are quizzed by professional journalists.
The exercise is all about focus and trying to keep on track. “That's the hardest bit,” says Carver. “It's about managing what you're going to say and getting it across.” Journalists use a range of techniques to divert you from your key messages. They might bombard you with multiple questions, quote rumour and speculation, or switch the topic of the interview to a completely different subject.
They might also put words in your mouth or invite you to use negative, volatile phrases. When Manchester United was beaten by Bayern Muenchen in the Champions League, a TV interviewer asked team captain Roy Keane, “Is this the end of the road for Manchester United?” His reply: “Is it the end of the road? Maybe it is – I don't know.” The next day The Mirror ran a story under the headline: “Keane – This is the end of the road for Manchester United!”
This type of paraphrasing is likely to happen if you are using jargon or being obscure. The British Rail official never actually said it was the wrong kind of snow. It was just that he launched into a lengthy technical description of why the snow ploughs didn't work in those particular climatic conditions. The explanation was too complex and difficult to follow, so the reporter had to come up with his own summary.
Even a straight answer won't immediately satisfy hacks who think they are on to a good story. They will press on asking the same question from different angles, perhaps using a “bracketing” or “approximating” technique to get you to divulge more specific figures than you might intended. On the telephone, silence can be very effectively deployed to encourage you to keep talking, often digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.
Journalists are particularly fond of disaster stories such as financial losses, redundancies, hostile takeovers and competitive knock-outs. Even in these cases, however, it is almost always better to say something. Coverage may still be negative, but at least you'll get your say, and afterwards much of the audience won't really remember the details.
“Nowadays it has almost turned into sort of national sport,” says Carver. “Something goes wrong, so let's have a go at the company and make the situation a good guy versus bad guy story. At Cranfield we're trying to teach our MBAs how to come out of this as the good guy.” The trick is to turn a question, however hostile, into an opportunity rather than a threat.
When Jeremy Paxman asked Michael Howard, then home secretary, 17 times in one interview whether he had threatened to over-rule prison inspector Derek Lewis, the effect was counter-productive. Viewers simply became more and more conscious that Howard was refusing to answer the question. An open honest reply from Howard would probably have worked much better by defusing the issue and moving the interview forward.
“It's very important for the leader to grab the situation as a positive opportunity,” says Carver. “Even if it is a disaster for the company in terms of what's happened, their leadership counts. It is absolutely vital to make clear what the company is going to do about the negative situation and how they are going to move it forward, creating some positive momentum.”
Love them or hate them, media interviews are hard to avoid, and to do so can be an expensive mistake. Far better to anticipate the challenge, get some training, prepare your messages and be ready for those journalists when they call.
Jane Bird is a freelance journalist specialising in business and technology. She is former Technology Editor of The Sunday Times and contributes to a range of national newspapers and business magazines.