atkinson advisor

BP CEO Tony Hayward didn’t get June off to a great start. In an interview with Fox News, Hayward said, “There’s no one who wants this thing over more than I do. I would love my life back.”

To his credit, Hayward started off well at the beginning of the oil spill crisis by apologizing for the situation. He should have quit then.  

There’s a great quote about leadership that says, “Leadership is about them, not you.” Somebody should read this quote to Hayward every time before he goes on camera.

Was Hayward’s gaffe serious or just (oil-slicked) water under the bridge?

Interviews are part of every CEO’s job. Reporters often ask a question along the lines of, “So, tell me more about your company.”

Here’s a go-to answer CEOs can use every time.

“[Company name] has been in business since [insert date]. We help clients solve the following problems: [list three problems]. Do you mind if I tell you a quick client story?”

The reporter will inevitably say, “Sure.”

The CEO then tells the client story that illustrates at least one of the problems the company solves.

This introduction gives the reporter three key elements he or she needs to write a good story:

1. An opening. The client story will likely be the introduction – also known as the lede – to the story. It helps to engage readers and makes them want to know more about the story of the company.
2. The problems the company solves become the body of the story – here are two or three ways that clients benefit from using the company. The reporter will likely ask for elaboration on each of the problems and how your solution works.
3. The company history provides the perspective. If the company has been in business for a long time, the CEO has a platform to talk about the changes the company has made to adapt to the market. If the business is just starting, it’s the perfect opportunity to talk about the reasons for launching the business and the market potential.

In the endless prelude to Super Bowl XLIII, NBC’s Matt Lauer interviewed President Barack Obama live from the White House. The interview was clearly expected in its content – no breaking news or new information.

A welcome surprise was the president in a button-down shirt without a tie or a jacket in a national network interview. It was a rare combination of unexpected and completely on point.

Being cool has always been part of Obama’s appeal. He gave the impression that after the interview he was going to sit down and enjoy watching the Super Bowl like millions of Americans.

Give him and his handlers credit for matching the image with the moment – or maybe just being his cool self.

Many executives fear interviews with reporters like they fear an audit. More than anything, they fear they will be misquoted or have their words taken out of context. Assumptions about the interview are the culprits in most situations. Let’s take a look at the most common assumptions and how to overcome them.

Assumption #1: The reporter’s goal is to get a salacious quote. The reality is that reporters want facts and perspective on a particular story. They would also like to have a pithy, relevant quote to give the story personality. You want to sound professional and say something that helps accomplish a goal for your company (e.g. showing concern in a crisis, presenting your side of the story, clearing up misinformation, etc.).

Both you and the reporter can accomplish your goals when you keep your answers concise and on point. The reporter will be able to record what you say word for word (thus avoiding misquoting) and you will say only what you want to see in print.

Assumption #2: The reporter is your audience. Your audience is really whoever will read (print) or see (broadcast) what you say to the reporter during the interview. Speaking to them rather than the reporter will help you formulate key messages and stay on topic.

This approach is especially helpful when the story is potentially negative to your organization. It helps you remember that the reporter is someone trying to explain the issue for a broader audience rather than the personification of the negative issue. Your side of the story becomes more powerful when you speak to the broader audience rather than viewing tHe reporter as the issue itself.

Assumption #3: An interview is a conversation with a reporter. A conversation is an informal exchange of information. The informality allows us to express our views, argue points, and seek clarification.

By contrast, an interview is focused and controlled. The best interviews happen when you have a specific goal in mind and know exactly what you are willing and not willing to discuss in the interview. This principle helps you to avoid rambling answers or backtracking, which are two of the most common mistakes in an interview.

Something bad has happened, but the news media doesn’t know about it yet. If the word gets out, your company’s reputation could take a big hit. Should your company be proactive about releasing the news or wait to see if someone calls?

This is a difficult question. The answer is entirely up to you, your culture, and your confidence in working with the news media. The following decision tree will help you make a better assessment:

The first consideration is how likely the bad news will get out. If you consider all the possible ways the news could get out and decide that all are very unlikely, then your chances of negative media coverage are slim and you may opt not to communicate the news proactively.

The scenario changes when it is very likely the news will get out. Since you have a high suspicion the news will get out, you have to consider whether to use a proactive response or a reactive response. Proactive means that you release the news in a controlled way. Reactive means that you wait until the news breaks and then respond.

This decision is ultimately driven by many factors, particularly the likely tone (neutral, somewhat negative, or highly negative) of the news coverage. The proactive response has a greater likelihood of generating a neutral or somewhat negative article. By contrast, the reactive response has less likelihood of generating a neutral article or somewhat negative article since you are responding to the other side of a story that is already out.

There is neither a single nor a simple answer for these situations. Knowing how to assess them properly can improve your overall response.

For the record, going off the record in any interview is a risky proposition. It is one of the most misunderstood concepts in media relations. Let’s explore it from several angles:

• Off the record is a request more than a binding agreement. Any executive who goes off the record is simply trusting that the reporter will not use the information provided. Most reporters will honor this request because of journalism ethics and to maintain a relationship with the executive. However, they are under no obligation to do so.
• Off the record must be a mutual agreement. The executive cannot deem a portion of the interview to be off the record without the reporter’s agreement. Without the reporter’s agreement, the entire interview is still on the record.
• Off the record is not retroactive. Executives who are unfamiliar with the process sometimes provide information and then say to the reporter, “By the way, that’s off the record.” Unfortunately, it’s not. Off the record starts with the mutual agreement and extends until such time as the executive and the reporter agree to go back on the record.

The litmus test for off the record is the level of trust between the executive and the reporter. Absent that trust, it’s best to stay on the record and out of trouble.