Staying on Message
3rd May 2006 by Natasha Spring
I recently attended a conference on media relations. And once again I heard what I’ve heard to many times before. “The most critical aspect of communication with the media is to STAY ON MESSAGE.”
I’m fascinated by this idea, especially in light of what I hear from one of IABC’s authors, Eric Bergman, who is writing a manual (tome really) on media relations. Eric may want to put this in his own words and he’d do a much better job, but my take is that “staying on message” is really just a way of not dealing with the hard business of communication.
Of course you can’t blurt out information that is incorrect, but you can do your best to answer the questions in a candid straightforward manner. And this is not something that I hear when I go to these conferences. It’s just all about staying on message, and not about answering the question to the best of your abilities.
I can see why some journalists get frustrated and go to outside sources, such as blogs, for their information. If all they get from the official source is “THE MESSAGE” in response to just about any question, how is it possible to get any real information?
Now maybe there’s a whole art to media relations that I don’t understand. But from my vantage point as an editor it all seems pretty clear. Answer the questions you can answer. If you can’t answer a question, then do your best to give a clear explanation as to why you can’t provide an answer. And that doesn’t equate to just staying on message. Feel free to argue with me.
May 7th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
A media spokesperson repeating the very same message over and over again regardless of what question was really asked will leave the journalist no other choice but to tap into alternative sources such as competitors, industry experts and all kinds of mavens. I truly doubt whether the outcomes of such inquiries are desirable from the organization’s perspective.
What is needed, on the other hand (and what “staying on message” could also mean), is consistency of message. To ensure this, the organization will need to do much more than just agree on one stance and have that position cleared by its legal department. The organization must live a culture of continuously involving the communicator into the decision-making process and of giving openness priority over a bunker mentality of just saying the unavoidable minimum.
To stay on message in the sense of keeping one’s message consistent also needs courage, as e.g. for sticking to unpopular aspects. As long as the journalist feels that the communicator is doing her best to answer the question substantially and that she is as candid as she can in her answers, the journalist will usually treat the organization with a minimum of fairness and respect.
Recently, I was contacted by a staff writer for the online version of a leading German-speaking European financial newspaper. Although the topic was very much about technology, the journalist was bringing in political, social and economic aspects that are potential mine fields. I extensively documented her with a wide range of material and tried to put the technology into context. As a result, her story mentioned all the critical aspects, but none in connection with the company’s name.
Had I stayed “on mantra” instead, I doubt whether the outcome had been of similar quality.
May 7th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Looks like Rolf and Natasha are just touching different parts of the same elephant.
I, too, disagree with Natasha’s conference speaker’s admonition that “The most critical aspect of communication with the media is to STAY ON MESSAGE.” But I’ll post my own views on that separately.
Rolf takes this a bit overboard when he turns the speaker’s advice into “repeating the very same message over and over again regardless of what question was really asked.”
No one in their right mind advocates that. But in an interview, you have as much right to have key message points in mind as the interviewer does to pose prepared questions. And you should be looking for opportunities to drop them into the conversation as appropriate.
In order to do my company’s or client’s work, I certainly need to cooperate with, support, and assist the media. But, while part of my job is to make theirs easier, it is, first and most important, to support my company’s or client’s objectives. In case of a tie, the company wins, thank you very much.
The media’s preferences — and the specifics of their questions — come second to “job one.”
’round here, most of the MR — this is a Media Relations blog, so I can use the shorthand, right? — experts heartily and enthusiastically encourage bosses, clients, and other spokespersons to have message points in mind, and to repeat them several times during the course of an interview.
There’s excellent research — see Dr. Vincent Covello’s stuff if you want the real data — that strongly indicates repeating a key message three times in the course of an interview increases the chances that it will be reported accurately.
This gives the media rep more chances to hear it and get it right, and gives the person in the media’s gunsights a comfort zone to fall back on. If you know your key messages, you can always return to home base whenever appropriate, even if the questions make the spokesperson uncomfortable.
Natasha, my friend, you can answer questions straightforwardly and still stay on message. And, if you work for a corporation or a client, and have a communications or business agenda, answering the question in the way the reporter would like for you to answer it may simply not be the best way to serve your business purposes.
You can provide a direct, straightforward answer, and then bridge to one of your key message points, without doing harm to either the interview or your ethics.
Natasha says, “’staying on message’ is really just a way of not dealing with the hard business of communication.”
No, skillfully staying on message in the face of interview stress and difficult, sometimes hostile, questioning really is the hard business of communication.
May 7th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
I don’t disagree that it is important to balance the client’s perspective with the reporter’s. However, the practical reality of “stay on message” leaves much to be desired.
Too often, spokespeople end up sounding a lot like bad salespeople.
For example, suppose you’re in the market for a new home and a real estate agent is showing you a property.
You ask: “How far is the nearest school?”
“Talk of school often reminds me of talk of school taxes,” the agent replies, preparing to bridge to a feature (message) that paints the property in a positive light. “This house is located in one of the lowest assessed regions in the area. Imagine all the money you’ll be able to save to send your children to their post-secondary education.”
You try again. “But how far is the nearest school,” you ask.
“School time is important,” the agent replies, bridging yet again, “but so is after school time with your family. This house is located adjacent to a conservation area. In fact, you’ll be able to open up your gate and walk right out to the conservation area. It’s like having the tranquility of a country setting with all the convenience of the city.”
This may seem like an extreme example, but in my experience it isn’t. Test it yourself the next time you’re preparing a spokesperson for an interview. I think you’ll be suprised at how closely this resembles an exchange with a spokesperson, especially someone to whom the concept of “staying on message” has been intimated, let alone emphasized or repeated during pre-interview preparation.
May 7th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
And if you approach media interviews — and your own message points — with as little skill as the real estate agent Eric hypothecates, you deserve whatever bad press you generate.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:28 am
I think Rolf articulated it perfectly. Below I’ve excerpted my favorite paragraph from his post.
It’s this type of intelligent approach that makes an interaction transcend from spin to communication.
“To stay on message in the sense of keeping one’s message consistent also needs courage, as e.g. for sticking to unpopular aspects. As long as the journalist feels that the communicator is doing her best to answer the question substantially and that she is as candid as she can in her answers, the journalist will usually treat the organization with a minimum of fairness and respect.”
May 8th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
I guess the best description I can provide for my perspective on the advice of “staying on message” is that it is an outdated paradigm in an information-driven world.
And there are a number of reasons why I believe this to be the case.
The first is that, in Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, which arose from a study supported by the IABC Research Foundation, Professor James Grunig et al make the point that excellence in public relations parallels excellence in negotiation. And, as we know, in the majority of cases, the best possible outcome is when both parties walk away having gained or benefited from the relationship.
With this in mind, we have to ask ourselves: “Is it possible to achieve a win-win outcome when one party asks questions for a living and the other party is not taught to answer those questions clearly and concisely?”
In theory, yes. But the practical reality often leaves much to be desired.
Quite frankly, spokespeople who approach interviews from a message-driven perspective do not listen well. And, by definition, if you do not listen to the questions asked, you cannot answer them effectively. The result? A win-win outcome is unlikely and any relationship (not just those with reporters) can be negatively affected.
Second, by definition, a message-driven approach encourages spokespeole to talk too much. And this creates too much risk. As consultants, our job should be to mitigate risk, not create it.
If a print reporter asks a closed question and the proper answer is “no,” but the spokesperson cannot say “no” and stop talking, he or she is by definition providing more context.
More context equals more risk. Period.
In my next post, I’ll talk about why a simple strategy of P-A-S is the most important risk-management technique that a spokesperson can embrace.
June 24th, 2006 at 7:48 am
[...] Came across an interesting posting/discussion on the IABC Media Relations blog about “staying on message”. Natasha Spring was making the point that simply repeating your message and not directly answering the reporter/interviewer’s question is a bad idea. She’s talking about media relations spokespeople in particular, but it applies equally well to anyone who’s being interviewed. At best, mere repetition of the same point sounds like you’re a bad listener; at worst, it sounds like you’re hiding something. [...]
June 24th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Staying obsessively on message can in fact be simply embarassing.
A transcript from CBC TV Market place, on why not all chemical ingredients are listed in a pesticide.
Reporter: We wanted to speak to someone in charge of the pesticide policy about this. Instead, Ottawa put forward… an infromation officer. And a strange thing happened. She gave us the same answer 26 times, no matter what the question.
Communicator: Pesticides, by their nature, are toxic. They are meant to control a living organism. Pesticides, when used according to label direction, can be used safely.
Reporter: I have here a Canadian government report which lists Canada’s 50 most toxic chemical, and a full one-third [aren't listed on the label]. Shouldn’t we be concerned?
Voice-over: When we repeatedly presented evidence from both inside and outside the government about the toxicity of some of these unlisted chemicals, her answer was….
Communicator: Pesticides are poisons. They are meant to be used to control a living organism. When pesticides are used according to label instructions, they can be used safely.
Reporter: I can find out what’s in a box of coookies, things that might be harmful to my health, but I can’t find out what’s in a box of pesticides. You’re not telling us; isn’t that irresponsible?
Communicator: Pesticides by nature are toxic…
Reporter: OK, we’ve heard this before…
Communicator: … and they’re meant to be used according to label instructions.
The video is more gruesome than the transcript, and the various environmental activists and scientists interviewed for this story won the story. “staying on message” should mean “staying engaged”, and if one is not ready to assume the inherent risk of doing an interview, in which questions may be asked that are not the preferred questions the interviewee wishes to entertain, then don’t do the interview. In the above instance, if that was the attitude of government, I would have advised faxing a statement to the reporter and leaving it at that.
June 24th, 2006 at 9:51 am
A pretty fascinating exchange underway on the slippery topic of “staying on message,” it seems to me — with each participant in the discussion offering some cogent points and insights on the risks, rewards, psychological issues, and so on. It seems unequivocally clear that the term “staying on message” has many interpretations, and no universal one — except maybe the notion of a talking head with blinders on, programmed to push a singular message repeatedly in hopes of getting it through the clutter. Boy, that sounds much like the long-outdated hypodermic needle theory of communication, which posited that message is paramount above all else and that if a message can reach its target it will achieve everything virtuous.
Though I’m purposely overstating the case, what I’m taking away from the give-and-take underway here is that “staying on message” needs to be better defined, in conceptual and practical terms, in light of its extreme interpretations and applications. Perhaps a key point in the mix of definitions is that message, while important to an extent, is only one component, along with source, media, receiver, obstacles, and so on. No message exists in a vaccuum, and, as pointed out by Eric Bergman and Rich Barger, no question can be asked or answered free of the context and circumstances in which the Q&A occurs. Thus, holding tight to the overriding message will ebb and flow, particularly if the parties are listening to one another and not just parrying until it’s time to blurt out the next diatribe of more of the same.
Is this dastardly term merely a euphemism for one-way communication? I wonder. Or is it an open-ended term expressing an intention to attempt to remain consistently representative of one’s organization, stance or client? I wonder some more. Or, and here I really start to wonder, should the term be banned from our vocabulary because it has lost its usefulness due to too many potentially harmful and misleading interpretations and behavior? Hmmmmmmmmm . . .
June 26th, 2006 at 7:24 am
I think it is time to talk about what constitutes an excellent interview and put “staying on message” in that context. When I prepare a client for an interview, we focus on content first, then delivery. Inherent in the content are the points of view (messages) key to that client’s business. In the delivery those concepts come through without a mantra such as the examples of the real estate person or the government spokeswoman. David has an interesting point when he suggests that perhaps “staying on message” is outdated. I would suggest we put it in the same bucket as calling the media to ask if the press release was received, measuring by the column inch and trying to equate editorial coverage with ad equivalencies — and bury the bucket.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:10 am
As a veteran television reporter turned media and communications coach, I certainly agree with and understand the importance of staying on message. But, I also think it is equally important not to be so message focused that you sound like a media trained seal on one of the Sunday morning shows. Audiences—both business and public—are far more in tune today to “media trained” or “on message” spokespeople. And even if those people are delivering important information, it has become a real turn off. It’s not that staying on message is “outdated” as suggested–but rather in order for content to be absorbed by listeners, that content has to be delivered with perspective and context so it’s meaningful and relevant to the specific audiences. And it needs to be delivered plainly and simply. Leave the big words home. In my experience with newsmakers, spokespeople, pr agencies, celebrities etc–that’s where the mark is frequently missed.