Top 10 Mistakes Executives Make When Engaging With Media…and How to Avoid Them

Media engagement is both a science and an art, both of which need to be applied strategically in order to achieve the desired results. Science teaches us that everything from the tone of voice to body language and eye contact have been studied to determine the many ways in which these factors have an impact on how we are perceived in an interview. However, establishing a connection with the interviewer and motivating them to publish our information and key messages is an art and skill that is often mastered through trial and error. This list of common mistakes and ways to avoid them is a good start to successful media interactions.

1.     An interview is not a battle. Interviews can be stressful, particularly if the interviewee does not have a clear game plan that includes key messages and talking points in advance. The situation is made more complicated by the fact that, unlike other everyday conversations that may soon be forgotten, this one will be published, and it is the journalist who will decide what to write. This level of stress, coupled with any bias that the executive might have regarding the reporter or the outlet (reporters also bring biases of their own), could lead to tensions between the two. This is particularly risky when an executive is a spokesperson in a crisis situation, in which the company will need to express facts that may be countered by the reporter. Rather than enter into warrior mode, the executive should view the interaction strategically, focusing on the message they need to get across to target audiences through the reporter. Maintaining a calm demeanor and conversational tone will ease tensions and could help establish a more productive connection between both parties.

2.     “Jargon” is not a universal language. Knowing the comprehension level of both the reporter and their audience ahead of an interview is critical in determining the type of language to use in the interaction. This could mean having to bring the terminology down to a more basic level more easily understood by all, or it could also mean the executive can speak freely using the high-level language that will resonate with a particular audience. Yet, the interviewee should not use jargon only understood by a very niche audience, limiting the potential reach of their message. This is particularly complicated when an executive inserts words or acronyms commonly used within their company but mean nothing to a general audience. Every company has its own language which everyone within its ranks understands and uses, but we can never assume anyone outside the company will have a clue as to what it means. It is best to exclude any internal terms or acronyms and avoid using jargon not easily understood by the greatest number of people possible. Some of the best spokespersons are those who can take complex ideas and explain them simply.

3.     Drop the “marketing speak”. Reporters want to get a good story and not feel they are being sold a product or service. That is to say, executives who push too hard to present their companies from a marketing perspective will not likely get the results they expect. Presenting a product or service with enthusiasm is definitely positive since we cannot expect the journalist to get excited over something if they don’t sense that excitement from the other side. However, nobody likes a “hard sell”, especially serious reporters who do not want to feel they are being made part of the interviewee’s marketing and advertising campaign. That is best left for the “paid media” realm in which companies pay to position their products and services. In an interview, we are engaged in what strategic communications practitioners call “earned media” because getting the message across effectively is something that needs to be “earned” and not “bought”. Instead, executives are best served by putting aside their “marketing speak” and focusing more on convincing the reporter that their messages, products, and services are worth sharing with their audiences.

4.     Rational + Emotional = Success. Executives are most often experts in their respective fields and have generally been trained to state their points using data, which translates into meetings and reports filled with PowerPoint presentations, charts, graphs, and spreadsheets. These tools are great ways to provide facts and figures to highlight issues and results. While they are also useful for reporters, particularly in highlighting or backing up certain points, these contribute only to the “rational” side of the conversation. Interviewees often make the mistake of staying exclusively within the rational realm, instead of also providing more “emotional” elements. These emotional elements involve information that gives greater context or “color” to the facts and figures. Saying that your company grew its sales by 20% year-on-year is a great data point. But going a step further to indicate how this impacted workers or consumers adds an emotional element that will make the data point more “real” than a simple data point. It’s the leap between just stating the “what?” and answering the “so what?”. Strong key messages are a combination of both rational and emotional elements, particularly as this allows you to make use of more interesting “storytelling” techniques that are scientifically proven to yield more positive impacts on target audiences.  

5.     Arrogance is a slippery slope. Being an expert, pioneer, thought leader or innovator are always great elements in presenting a good story, whether these descriptions refer to you personally or to your company. These elements lead to interviews that contain the type of exciting information reporters crave, as they seek new insights and story angles. They also allow you and your company to differentiate yourselves from the rest. However, stating these elements takes some skill. Depending on tone and word choices, executives can sound arrogant or boastful, neither of which add value to the interaction. Reporters will most likely be turned off by someone whose ego gets in the way of a good story. Instead, some level of humility may prove useful. Instead of arrogance, a good dose of healthy excitement over what you are saying may spark greater engagement with the reporter. Backing up your claims with third-party validations (awards, ratings, rankings, endorsements, certifications, etc.) will also go a long way, allowing you to show that what you are claiming is true. Such third-party validations not only help mitigate signs of arrogance, but also tend to carry greater credibility. If I say I’m great that generates one reaction, while if someone else says I’m great then the reaction/perception is completely different.  

6.     Too much or not enough? Executives are sometimes unsure about how much, or how little, to say in an interview. Striking the right balance could be challenging but may be an important factor in whether a connection can be established with the reporter and if the resulting coverage will be positive. Saying too much is problematic for several reasons. Long-winded responses to questions mean the interviewee is probably delivering several key messages at once. This means it will ultimately be up to the reporter to sift through the verbiage and determine what they consider relevant. Responses should be concise enough not to appear to be run-on sentences or stream of consciousness monologues. Yet, they must also strategically include focused key messages that indicate to the reporter what is important. There are various techniques we teach in our media training sessions to do this successfully. On the other hand, not saying enough poses other issues, such as the fact that the reporter will have to pursue follow-up questions or may leave with a half-baked story. “Yes” and “No” answers are both annoying to the reporter (remember we want to keep them engaged) and prolong the interaction unnecessarily. Such curt answers may also diminish your credibility.  Say enough to provide a good story but do so strategically.

7.     Who are you? An issue that reporters sometimes raise is that interviewees introduce themselves in ways that do not make it clear what they do at their companies or do not properly establish their qualifications. Part of the problem is that we are used to introducing ourselves simply with our names and job titles. However, unless you have a title that clearly identifies your role (CEO, CFO, etc.), you will need to contextualize it by briefly adding what your responsibilities are. It’s one thing to say that I am a Product Manager, and another is to say that I am a Product Manager in charge of selling widgets for the automotive industry in South America. The latter explains what I do and sends the message that I am qualified to talk about the automotive industry. I remember the very first time someone introduced themselves as a Chief People Officer and how I had no idea what that meant (I still have my doubts).  Remember the old adage about having only one chance to make a first impression, so let’s make it count.

8.     Wait, wait. Engaging in a media interaction requires being fully present and focused. While we always advise clients to maintain a conversational and collaborative tone, an interview requires a strategic time and energy investment. If you cannot commit to the time required, then it would be best to leave the interaction for a time that works better for all involved. A mistake executives make is trying to squeeze in an interview between other tasks, not leaving enough time or appearing to rush through the interaction. Some may interrupt the interview to continue taking calls or answering emails. Imagine how you would feel if the reporter decided to act accordingly. You would likely feel disrespected. Your PR agency or communications team should work closely with you to set aside the right amount of time and make the appropriate scheduling arrangements so that you get the best results from each interview. If the timing is not right and you cannot make the necessary commitment, it is better to wait than to rush.

9.     What do you mean? One of the key outcomes of the fast-changing media environment is that reporters are having to become “generalists”. Rather than being specialists in one sector or subject, they must now divide their time between a wide variety of sectors and sources. This means they may not always have the time to get up to speed on each company with which they engage. Naturally, they will conduct some research, but that may not always be enough to reach an adequate understanding of the subject matter to be discussed. Many of the reporter’s gaps will become evident in their questions. While we have stressed the goal of engaging positively with reporters, some executives do not take the time to correct misinformation or expand a reporter’s knowledge of a subject for fear of possible awkwardness. It is perfectly acceptable, and desirable, to pause the interview and take time to “educate” the reporter – in a friendly and collaborative tone, of course. This is much better than assuming the reporter will get the story right.

10.  We are not BFFs. Reporters are not our enemies. Quite the contrary, they are an essential conduit through which we can deliver key messages to target audiences. However, this does not mean they are your best buddies, even when they show themselves to be overly friendly and accessible. While many are sincere in their approach, others use it as a tactic to get executives to feel at ease and open up, perhaps sharing information that is best left unshared. Remember that an executive is a company representative 24/7 and a reporter is also a reporter 24/7. Each has a job to do and should stick to their respective roles. Executives must beware of the potential pitfall. That also includes not providing the reporter with direct contact information, such as a cell phone number, that they can use to try to circumvent a company’s communications processes. That role is best left to PR liaisons.

Ivicomm CEO Ivis C. Fernandez is an experienced strategic communications specialist with over 20 years of experience in the public relations field. She has a Graduate degree in Journalism, a Postgraduate degree in Digital Marketing and Community Management, and an MA in Corporate Communications. As the founder of Ivicomm, she leads strategic planning and customer service by establishing a personal connection with each of the clients to best meet their specific needs. For more information on how Ivicomm can help you and your company with proven media engagement strategies, including preparing you for successful media interactions, please visit www.ivicomm.com.