Interview Strategies
In an interview when confronted with negative statistics, an interviewee appears to be dishonest in merely refuting negative claims, as if listeners should take their word for it, ignoring all other reports or claims.
Audiences are not fooled by a spokesperson with a vested interest who is apparently determined to not acknowledge what could be either the obvious or well-substantiated fact.
Strategy:
- Prior to any interview, prepare. Read, study and role play questions.
- Review your case, points, topic thoroughly from all sides, and every conceivable angle.
- Consider the current conditions in your market, the latest news and developments.
- Public opinion, polls and independent research weigh heavily, and should also be reviewed.
- Have a well-developed statement and/or platform upon which you can solidly base your presentation and all responses.
If the information or conflicting claims an interviewer poses are diametrically opposed to your data, be prepared to present reliable findings and explain…
- Ignoring an interviewer’s question, statistics and information presented leaves unaddressed soundbites hanging out there in the air.
- Presumably you are the expert on the topic, and if you cannot answer the questions to the audience’s satisfaction you are losing ground by the millisecond.
- If you choose to ignore any and all claims, you and your company appear to be blatantly out of touch with your consumer base, target market or reality.
- “No comment” responses never worked. Be ready with a fact-based, truthful answer, unless you have something to hide. Which, if you answer like this, is left totally up to conjecture.
- View the interview as an opportunity to clear the air, answer questions, correct misinformation, clarify key points, to educate.
Why am I writing about this? I know, it seems like “everyone” already knows this… apparently not, as I recently saw a (non-political) interview and could not believe how ill-prepared the interviewee was. He exhibited needing to apply all of the above strategies. Because he was not ready for the interview, and would not acknowledge even being aware of the negative statistics that we, the audience were familiar with — weakened his position.
If it is not possible to present findings to support a counter argument through documentation, acknowledging familiarity with the general consensus is a minimalist step in the right direction. Taking it further, acknowledging the negative points (if relevant and potentially correct — or totally incorrect) gives the impression the interviewee is well-versed in the topic. By the simple fact that an interviewer is asking you about an issue or situation, the opportunity is freely presented to explain and discuss what is being done about the situation, to correct the problem, improve the product.
This can be a great PR opportunity, if you choose to allow it to be…
