A Bridge By Any Other Name

November 18, 2013 Leave a comment

This is the first of several posts for those who are building their capabilities as spokespersons. 

Probably the core and most important communications technique discussed and practiced in a training session is called – by me and many others – “bridging.”  It comes up in every discussion of media training (or should), though it may be referred to by other words that also convey a sense that the speaker is making a transition from one topic to another.  Two additional terms I have frequently heard for this are, “pivoting” and “steering.”  Those are good words, too, each presenting a slightly different image of the transition process.

Pivoting, or making a pivot,  implies a quick and radical turn, the way a ball player pivots to throw the ball toward first or a politician pivots from one topic to another in a campaign.  Steering carries the image of a speaker leading the listener toward a goal, which is useful.   I like bridging because, for one thing, that’s the way I learned to talk about the process.  More to the point, “bridging” clearly states what speakers must do to move from one topic or aspect of a discussion to another:   create a bridge, a meaningful verbal linkage between an answer to a question and the important information they want to communicate.

Bridging, pivoting, steering – all work best, or work at all, when they happen after an interviewee has answered or at least awknowledged the question at hand.  Bridging is not a process for ignoring questions.  Reporters questions should be answered or addressed in some way.  (The answer could be as simple as, “I don’t know.”)   Bridging is the process of moving on to what you want to talk about after the answer.

At Burson, we used to hand out a booklet with a page of bridging phrases.  Waggish media trainers would occasionally break out in bridging-speak.  “Good point, Rich, but there’s another way to look at this.”  “I hear what you’re saying Don, but let’s not forget the key issue here.”  “That’s an interesting question, Vickee, but let me remind you of something else.”  “Before we go on, Gail, I think we need to put that in perspective.”  “Let’s step back a moment and remind ourselves why we’re here.”

I don’t hand out that page of bridges any more.  As you can see, they can be useful in illustrating what a bridge looks like.  But what really makes bridging (pivoting, steering) happen is the speaker’s determination to tell the story, distilled into specific messages, he or she is passionate about.  Setting important objectives is the driver;  bridging – or whatever term you choose to use – is the enabling technique.

Filed under For Any Speaker, For PR Pro's, For Spokespersons Tagged with

“Don’t Lie”

October 21, 2012 Leave a comment

I was explaining the slides in a standard media training deck to a young colleague and had gone through the material about preparation and messaging, the section on techniques for giving the interview and the various caution areas, when she said, with a slight tone of surprise: “You don’t have a slide that says, ‘Don’t Lie.'”

Slightly surprised myself, I said I hoped that the entire approach to messaging based on supported, illustrated facts made it clear that honesty and a strong measure of transparencey were built into the process and that if a client needed to be told not to lie, there was a deeper problem somewhere.

“I guess you can see I come out of politics,” she said.

We both laughed.  Indeed, in a realm where reaction is often guided by belief rather than reason and where campaigns playing hard ball have had success hurling negatives that the opposition must then spend time defending against whether they are true or not, the recommendation not to lie is probably a good idea.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I don’t use political candidates as examples in media training because people’s reactions to how politicians handle interviews is largely guided by their own politics.  And I don’t want to let politics get in the way of learning about technique.

So I gave her the deck and went away feeling vaguely superior that I worked in a world where I didn’t have to tell people not to lie.

Or did I?  I pondered this for a few days and concluded I could feel good that after a couple of decades as a media trainer I had consistently guided clients to be truthful in all communications.  That I didn’t have to explicitly say, “Don’t lie.”  In fact, clients themselves have almost universally sought reality-based messaging.

However — let’s be clear — we do spend a great deal of time counseling clients to tell their stories, and that includes giving their perspective on things.  Perspective – some would call it point of view – is an interesting and very important thing.  Even without disputing the basic facts, there can be varying perspectives on issues and realities.  The receptacle filled to the mid-point with a liquid can be called either half-empty or half-full.  Both are correct.  Perspective and context will guide which description we use.

And, let’s be clear again, people’s deepest beliefs will guide their perspectives and color their points of view.  Modern polling and focus group research has been developed to find out what people believe, feel and think — and determine what messages will move the needle on specific issues.

But the traditional elements of proof — facts, data, and examples that bolster and illustrate — are still the most valuable tools to reach a broad spectrum of the public.  But even these elements need careful examination and selection.

And in many instances, that is what happens in media training and coaching.  Clients have a chance to road test communications, watch and hear their own story in their own voice, handle tough and probing series of questions, and consider expert reactions and recommendations.  At the end of the day, the spokesperson client gets to join the evaluative process:  is this credible — am I credible?

I’ve spoken about the “imperative” of communications coaching even for practiced and capable executives — this is another reason I believe it’s true.

Filed under For PR Pro's, For Spokespersons Tagged with ,

The Modern CEO – When Good Isn’t Good Enough

August 27, 2012 Leave a comment

One of the benefits and great pleasures of the business I focus on at Burson-Marsteller is the opportunity to meet many senior level executives from companies and organizations large and small around the country. It’s an impressive group of men and women, as one would expect.

I recently worked with the CEO of a small company under somewhat unusual circumstances, in that the PR person who signed me up  left the company and had not been replaced before the session.  So I had very little to go on to prepare, save a couple of media clips — one radio, one print — and material from the website, including transcripts from quarterly calls. Based on that evidence, my impression was that this CEO was a very congenial and capable communicator.

In addition to my original call with the person who left, I also spoke with the compliance executive.  What she told me corresponded closely to my impressions based on the materials I’d seen.  She even went so far as to say, “He’s very good — I don’t know why he’s doing this.”

So I knew that, as is generally the case even when I’ve been given a massive amount of preparation material, I would do what I always do:  assess the client’s needs and deliver the insights and technical support to meet them.

The day of the session eventually arrived.  I met a man with boyish good looks who conformed to my previous impression of great natural communicator.  Bright, energetic, full of insights about his company and industry, he possessed a good story line about his business and why it was a good investment.  He exuded that CEO strength and confidence that is either a prerequisite for or consequence of the position.

I took him through our approach and techniques for media interviews.  He asked smart questions and made perceptive comments.  Together, we sketched out three key messages that distilled his business story line, discussed the major issues facing his company, and I grilled him pretty hard in a couple of interviews.  He was good.

But I thought he could be better.  He needed more work on his key messages.  They needed to be more crisp, and a more carefully selected set of data and examples had to be developed.   More focuesd responses to the challenging issues were warranted.  Replacing his PR person would be critical to make this happen, and I’m happy to say he knew that.  Armed with tighter material, he could make responses more brief, bridge more effectively to his points and drive a more focused story line — the areas where he needed work.

At the end of our time together, I asked why he had pushed through with the session, after his PR executive had left.  His answer did not surprise me.  He said he knew he was good.  But when he thought about his answers to fairly straightforward questions from the local, positive business press, he felt he wasn’t good enough.

That sentiment echoed what I’ve heard for many years from CEOs, who realize that communications is as or more important than anything else they do.  So good really isn’t good enough.

Filed under For PR Pro's, For Spokespersons Tagged with , ,

Who’s the Audience, Again?

August 13, 2012 Leave a comment

The most recent internet tempest created by CEO comments — this time by the chief of Papa John’s — has been cited as another instance of wading into the “red state/blue state divide” by Todd Wasserman at Mashable.

It is that, though I suspect there is also a deeper communications issue at play.  First, I’ll go on record and say I don’t have a problem with CEOs or anybody stating their beliefs in public.  Of course, I’d recommend they think through what they have to say ahead of time, paying attention to the impact of their comments on a broad spectrum of audiences.

And that — the impact on multiple audiences — is likely the underlying issue here.  It’s a consequence of a communications universe that has become more complex and fragmented over the past 25 years and totally blown open in the age of the internet and social media.  In this environment you are never speaking to just one audience — not any more.  No one can totally wall off statements to analysts or investors from consumers or other interested parties.

That’s a lesson we emphasize again and again throughout the preparation and communications process.  It complements the lesson that audience is always the right starting place in communications, particularly when your objective is to persuade.

Filed under For PR Pro's, For Spokespersons Tagged with ,

A Useful Pattern for Three Key Messages

July 9, 2012 Leave a comment

The need for key messages — specifically three key messages —  is among the most widely accepted concepts in communications. Helping clients develop these messages is one of the most important tasks in public relations. That’s why discussion or development of key messages is an agenda item for every media, speech or general communications session I and my colleagues – and probably every other coach in the world – do.

And though plenty of very smart people I meet do not know about the value of three key messages, the concept is an easy sell.  It’s difficult to dispute the idea that audiences take away very little of what they hear – there is simply too much evidence for that.  And it’s easy to grasp how a few, clearly articulated and relevant points will help focus both the speaker and the audience.  In thousands of encounters with clients, I can’t think of a single instance of push back on this.

I do occasionally get questions like, “Why three messages?  Why not two — or one?”  That is to say, if it’s true that most listeners will forget most of what a speaker says within hours, then why not limit the number of messages as much as possible?  Wouldn’t one message be more effective?

No, not if the objective is to tell a story, which it is in most communications — certainly in an interview more substantial than passing on a single quote.  One key message, for example a tag line like “Just do it” or “You’re in good hands,” can create an image, but is not satisfying if repeated again and again.  Even two key points lacks development and finality.  Three key points is the smallest — and therefore the ideal — number on which to build a story.

And listeners love stories.  Telling a good story is the essence of effective communications.

It’s worth noting that recent science backs up the value of having a limited number of key messages,  concluding that our short-term memory can only hold from three to five points or chunks of information at once.  You can read an expert paper about the matter here.

A Useful Pattern

There are many ways to determine key messages.  One of the simplest is to ask, What is the most important thing I want my audience to remember?  Then, What is the second most important thing; then, What is the third?  That probably won’t give you a story line, but it’s a good start for honing in on what needs to be top of mind when developing and telling the story.

A useful three-part pattern – and the one I generally start with – is based on the classic “problem – solution” story line.  Essentially, the speaker gives the listener context in the form of a problem (or, if less negative, a situation), then proposes a reasonable solution to the problem (or way of dealing with the situation).  The third key message either adds additional detail about the solution or differentiates the solution from others or adds a motivational “call to action,” or some combination of all these.  As you can see, this is an accommodating pattern, notable because it requires thinking about narrative flow.

A number of high-tech companies I’ve worked with use this pattern naturally, given that they are in the business of solving problems for their customers.  So the first key message in a company’s new product press release (i.e., their story) will be about the customers’ problem, the second key message will outline their solution to the problem and the third key message will differentiate their solution from others in the market.   Works nicely.

As I say, this is not the only pattern for three key messages, but it is a good one.

Filed under For PR Pro's, For Spokespersons Tagged with , ,

Story Telling, Not Question Answering – The Essence of Media Training

June 22, 2012 Leave a comment

When clients ask about the essence of good media interview style, I generally give them some version of the title of this post. Getting into a “story telling” frame of mind – and then, of course, doing a good job telling the story – is not easy. It’s hard for two basic reasons. First, we all have a standard default approach to the Q & A framework of interviews and other verbal exchanges. When we are asked a question, we answer it. And wait for the next question. With that approach, we are always limited by the topic and direction of the questions.

The second reason story telling can be difficult is that many people haven’t figured out what story they want to tell – or how to tell it. The most critical prerequisite for media training is having a good story and putting it into a simple framework that corresponds to the needs of a reporter and the ultimate audience, the reader or viewer. Public relations professionals call the process “messaging,” and a media training session will always include a segment reviewing or developing several key messages which represent the essence of the story to be told. (I’ll have more to say about key messages in future posts.)

Media training cannot transform everyone into a natural story teller, but it can show anyone a technical (and therefore learnable and doable) process for transitioning to pre-determined key messages. Done comfortably and consistently, this is story telling. By applying technique, we enable the story represented by the messages to be told.

So, putting this all together, my shorthand advice for those doing interviews is, “Bridge, flag, tell a good story.” If you’ve had media training, you should know what all that means.

Filed under For Spokespersons