I once had a conversation with a colleague when I was working as a journalist for Central European Business Weekly in former Czechoslovakia. Tom complained that he was self-conscious about our profession. Every time he mentioned what he was doing for a living at a dinner party, he would end up attracting looks full of hatred from the rest of the table. I did not get this at the time and assumed that Tom had had too much beer or Becherovka and had fallen pray to an attack of paranoia.
Only today, about ten years after this late night exchange with Tom, I realised that he had not been drinking and that the “enemy” ist still out there…
I was reading an article in PRBusiness, a new publication I have been getting in the mail here in the UK, and was horrified to read a quote from someone who had attended a media training:”There are two things that will stay with me: assume the journalist knows nothing, and never trust a journalist”.
Over the years I lost contact with Tom (I believe he moved to Australia), but my first instinct today was to give him a call and to scream…not at him but with him.
If spokespersons countinue to receive such terrifying training, no wonder we have so many people out there who perform so poorly when interviewed. And how on earth are you supposed to establish a sustainable relationship with someone you do not trust!!
Sorry, Tom, you were not drunk after all….

In some circles, it is common for media trainers to use ambush interviews at the start of their training. One or more participants are singled out and asked (but more often forced or coerced) into participating in an interview at the start of the training — without any preparation or guidance. Theoretically, this demonstrates the value of being prepared, although it seems to underscore a message that there may be a reporter lurking around any corner or under any rock.

Realistically, ambush interviews are extremely rare in a non-training environment. Most organizations, when they have serious issues brewing, are aware that such issues could erupt at any time. How many of us have attended meetings in which someone in the management group says, “I really hope reporters don’t get a hold of this”? If such a comment is ever made at a meeting, the organization should never be ambushed. It needs no other warning because it has, quite frankly, warned itself.

Admittedly, there are rare occasions in which an organization is truly ambushed. I have had two clients who experienced such situations recently. In one, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) securities investigation team swooped down on a major bank to investigate the financial activities of one of the bank’s publicly-traded clients. In another, a not-for-profit organization had a staff member arrested (at home, not at the office) in a high-profile criminal investigation. In both of these cases, and in virtually every other, the spokesperson and/or the organization can buy enough time to get their facts in order and prepare a response.

If you speak to people who have been ambushed in media training and ask them about the experience, you’ll find that this tactic does not build confidence. More often than not, it has exactly the reverse effect. It has a negative impact on the person ambushed, and a similar impact on others in the training session.

I suspect that the ambush interview is often used to set the facilitator in a position of power for the day. The message appears to be: “Pay attention … or else!” I agree with Dr. Dorothy Billington, who has studied adult learners extensively and writes that facilitators should create an environment in which they treat “adult students as peers—accepted and respected as intelligent experienced adults whose opinions are listened to, honored, appreciated.” In Dr. Billington’s worldview, there needs to be a relatively equal relationship between facilitator and learner because “adults learn best in an environment in which they feel safe and supported.” Certainly, the person conducting the media training is the expert. But the more equal the footing between facilitator and learner, the better the experience from the learner’s perspective. And isn’t that the only perspective that truly counts?

I do not use ambush interviews. In fact, I have twice turned down lucrative engagements in which clients insisted that I use the technique.

But then, mine is only one opinion. What has your experience been? Is it a tactic you’ve used or seen used? Did it work? If so, why? If not, why not?

As always, we welcome your opinions.

At IABC’s international conference in Vancouver last week, I had a fascinating conversation with Barbara Gibson, ABC, who recently left her job at Adobe in the UK to form her own company, SpokesComm, which she has established to provide media spokesperson assessment and development services.

She was motivated to start her own business because, during her career, she has noticed that there can be large differences between the number of interviews in which spokespeople participate and the number of articles actually written.

“In my last job, our PR agency did a great job in getting interviews,” she told me over soup and sandwiches in downtown Vancouver. “The opportunities were targeted and should have led to excellent results. But when I analyzed the outcome, I realized that one-twelfth of the interviews actually turned into stories.”

Obviously, there is a disconnect here, especially when you consider that both the spokesperson and his or her public relations advisor agreed that “the interview had gone well.” In other words, from their perspective, they had been successful in inserting numerous organizational messages into the interview process.

If a reporter spends time conducting an interview and uses nothing from the exchange, we have to ask ourselves whether a win-win was achieved. It may be, especially if the reporter is gathering background information. But let’s face it, gathering background is unlikely to occur 92 per cent (i.e. eleven-twelfths) of the time.

To prepare herself for her new entrepreneurial endeavour, Barbara interviewed 100 journalists in the UK and the US to determine, from their perspective, what makes a good interview. From this, she developed a tool to evaluate spokespeople in 12 key areas. The ultimate goal is to get them to the point that any messages actually making it into the interview are so seamless that an outsider looking in would not even notice they were there.

What’s your experience been? Do you have a better average than one in twelve? If so, why? If not , why not?