Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PRMindshare] media training related blog

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Rafe
    Hi Duncan -- I have had the same experience. In terms of content, when we start a coaching session, far too many respond to questions they wish to avoid with
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Duncan --

      I have had the same experience. In terms of content, when we start a coaching session, far too many respond to questions they wish to avoid with "what's important here is...." Others initially spend too much time on their answers. And even their non-verbals show bad "training." One spokesperson began his first response to a question by gesturing in front of his face. He had been coached to keep his hands "in the picture."

      In addition to teaching bad concepts, some "media trainers" are providing bad coaching. The clients I am asked to retrain may have been told the techniques to use, but are unable to use them on camera. Some folks in this business these days don't seem to understand the huge difference between "teaching" and making sure people actually learn.

      Stephen
      STEPHEN RAFE
      www.rapportcommunications.net

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Duncan Matheson
      To: PRMindshare@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: prbytes@yahoogroups.com ; prquorum@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:06 AM
      Subject: [PRMindshare] media training related blog



      Maybe it's coincidence but it seems like more and more often I am getting participants in my media training workshops that have been subjected to poor media training, and I have to help them unlearn the crap they have picked up.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • kezia_jauron
      Interesting. I didn t watch the video but I get the gist from your blog. I think what s important here... can be done well, and needs to be done. There s a
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 27, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Interesting. I didn't watch the video but I get the gist from your blog.

        I think "what's important here..." can be done well, and needs to be done. There's a difference between failing to answer a fairly straightforward question (such as who funds your organization) and moving the dialogue forward productively.

        Let's be real, reporters/anchors are sometimes bad at their jobs, sometimes don't know much about the issue, and sometimes become fixated on a small detail that sends an interview in a weird direction in the span of five seconds.

        Most of my clients deal with a controversial subject - eating and using animals - and my clients have to go above and beyond in interviews because 99% of the time they are going to be interviewed by someone who eats and uses animals and feels personally challenged by the issue, not to mention 99% of the audience eats and uses animals. So I can't let four minutes of airtime on national TV be wasted on a tangent about B12 supplements - when "what's important here" is ten billion land animals being bred, confined, and killed for food in this country.




        --- In prbytes@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Rafe" <rapport1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Duncan --
        >
        > I have had the same experience. In terms of content, when we start a coaching session, far too many respond to questions they wish to avoid with "what's important here is...." Others initially spend too much time on their answers. And even their non-verbals show bad "training." One spokesperson began his first response to a question by gesturing in front of his face. He had been coached to keep his hands "in the picture."
        >
        > In addition to teaching bad concepts, some "media trainers" are providing bad coaching. The clients I am asked to retrain may have been told the techniques to use, but are unable to use them on camera. Some folks in this business these days don't seem to understand the huge difference between "teaching" and making sure people actually learn.
        >
        > Stephen
        > STEPHEN RAFE
        > www.rapportcommunications.net
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Duncan Matheson
        > To: PRMindshare@yahoogroups.com
        > Cc: prbytes@yahoogroups.com ; prquorum@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 9:06 AM
        > Subject: [PRMindshare] media training related blog
        >
        >
        >
        > Maybe it's coincidence but it seems like more and more often I am getting participants in my media training workshops that have been subjected to poor media training, and I have to help them unlearn the crap they have picked up.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Stephen Rafe
        Yes, it can be done, and done well. What s important here is that it s overdone and interviewers -- and even a good percentage the general public -- are
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 28, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, it can be done, and done well. What's important here <grin> is that it's overdone and interviewers -- and even a good percentage the general public -- are onto it. Many see it as a variation on "pleading the Fifth." Other ways exist to address unpleasant or undesired questions (or both) and good trainers / coaches help clients learn them and rehearse them.

          By the end of a session, well-coached spokespersons should be able to handle anything that any questioner asks them -- and more -- (regardless of the subject, source or situation). They should also learn to handle unprepared questioners without having to resort to "what's important here" responses which, incidentally, carry a vague but possible suggestion that the questioner doesn't know what's important.

          Stephen
          STEPHEN RAFE
          www.rapportcommunications.net


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: kezia_jauron
          To: prbytes@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:35 PM
          Subject: [prbytes] Re: [PRMindshare] media training related blog



          Interesting. I didn't watch the video but I get the gist from your blog.

          I think "what's important here..." can be done well, and needs to be done. There's a difference between failing to answer a fairly straightforward question (such as who funds your organization) and moving the dialogue forward productively.

          Let's be real, reporters/anchors are sometimes bad at their jobs, sometimes don't know much about the issue, and sometimes become fixated on a small detail that sends an interview in a weird direction in the span of five seconds.




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Duncan Matheson
          Good points. Regarding being prepared for questions you didn t see coming - Stephen you may be more versed on this, but I read about a technique a while back
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 28, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Good points. Regarding being prepared for questions you didn't see coming - Stephen you may be more versed on this, but I read about a technique a while back that caught my interest. Can't say I have ever done it let alone taught it, or perhaps I have done it without thinking, but it consists of preparing for any interview by thinking about your 3 or 4 key messages and consider them like buckets or categories, and whenever a question is asked, you choose the bucket with matches it the closest, then you go to that message. I don't know enough about this technique to speak intelligently, and I have serious reservations that it may be nothing more than another way to avoid answering questions, which, like the others, won't work. But to give it the benefit of the doubt, if it is a mental exercise aimed at finding a way to blend an honest answer with a solid and related key message, then that would be different.

            Duncan
            Duncan Matheson
            BissettMatheson Communications
            506-457-1627(O)
            506-447-2388(mobile)
            duncan@...
            Twitter: @DuncanFMatheson
            www.bissettmatheson.com


            On 2012-04-28, at 1:22 PM, Stephen Rafe wrote:

            > Yes, it can be done, and done well. What's important here <grin> is that it's overdone and interviewers -- and even a good percentage the general public -- are onto it. Many see it as a variation on "pleading the Fifth." Other ways exist to address unpleasant or undesired questions (or both) and good trainers / coaches help clients learn them and rehearse them.
            >
            > By the end of a session, well-coached spokespersons should be able to handle anything that any questioner asks them -- and more -- (regardless of the subject, source or situation). They should also learn to handle unprepared questioners without having to resort to "what's important here" responses which, incidentally, carry a vague but possible suggestion that the questioner doesn't know what's important.
            >
            > Stephen
            > STEPHEN RAFE
            > www.rapportcommunications.net
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: kezia_jauron
            > To: prbytes@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:35 PM
            > Subject: [prbytes] Re: [PRMindshare] media training related blog
            >
            > Interesting. I didn't watch the video but I get the gist from your blog.
            >
            > I think "what's important here..." can be done well, and needs to be done. There's a difference between failing to answer a fairly straightforward question (such as who funds your organization) and moving the dialogue forward productively.
            >
            > Let's be real, reporters/anchors are sometimes bad at their jobs, sometimes don't know much about the issue, and sometimes become fixated on a small detail that sends an interview in a weird direction in the span of five seconds.
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Rob Frankel
            Jumping in here to volunteer a profoundly basic but effective tactic that s become increasingly effective for myself and my clients: Challenge of basic
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 28, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Jumping in here to volunteer a profoundly basic but effective tactic
              that's become increasingly effective for myself and my clients:

              Challenge of basic premise.

              Over the last 40 years, there's been a strong trend in favor of
              over-simplification of issues, presumably to make topics more easily
              digestible, but also to gloss over finer points of contention. This
              has given rise to the exceedingly false notion that "there's only one
              reason for anything that happens," when in fact the opposite is true:
              no action happens exclusively for one sole reason. It's the
              confluence of events that aggregate into a broader reaction.

              So a very effective tactic is to remind media "there's more than one
              issue in play here" that they may be overlooking. You don't even
              have to take a position on those other issues; merely pointing them
              out gives pause for consideration.

              The extrapolated tactic from there is to challenge an underlying
              basic assumption of the issue as one of those "contributing factors."

              Challenging a basic assumption with rational, tangible examples is
              highly effective, especially when you're faced with "gotcha"
              journalists.


              --
              Rob Frankel

              Branding Expert http://www.RobFrankel.com
              Twitter: @brandingexpert
              AIM/Skype: ROBFRANKEL ICQ: 249862730
              1-888-ROBFRANKEL * 818-990-8623 * E-Fax 413-778-0909
              Yes, there's an RSS feed blog, if you can handle it:
              http://www.robfrankelblog.com
            • kezia_jauron
              I agree. And as for Stephen s point, I agree too, the phrase itself may be hackneyed so perhaps there are better ways of delivering the segueway - Yes,
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 29, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree. And as for Stephen's point, I agree too, the phrase itself may be hackneyed so perhaps there are better ways of delivering the segueway - "Yes, perhaps so, and also..." or "I don't quite see it that way, in my experience..."

                If it would be obvious that a question hasn't been answered, such as the above example of who funds your organization, my suggestion is to answer it in as few words as possible and then move on - "we're funded by private donors, and we serve the xyz community, who tells us all the time they want talking point a, b, and c."



                --- In prbytes@yahoogroups.com, Rob Frankel <rob@...> wrote:
                >
                > Jumping in here to volunteer a profoundly basic but effective tactic
                > that's become increasingly effective for myself and my clients:
                >
                > Challenge of basic premise.
                >
                > Over the last 40 years, there's been a strong trend in favor of
                > over-simplification of issues, presumably to make topics more easily
                > digestible, but also to gloss over finer points of contention. This
                > has given rise to the exceedingly false notion that "there's only one
                > reason for anything that happens," when in fact the opposite is true:
                > no action happens exclusively for one sole reason. It's the
                > confluence of events that aggregate into a broader reaction.
                >
                > So a very effective tactic is to remind media "there's more than one
                > issue in play here" that they may be overlooking. You don't even
                > have to take a position on those other issues; merely pointing them
                > out gives pause for consideration.
                >
                > The extrapolated tactic from there is to challenge an underlying
                > basic assumption of the issue as one of those "contributing factors."
                >
                > Challenging a basic assumption with rational, tangible examples is
                > highly effective, especially when you're faced with "gotcha"
                > journalists.
                >
                >
                > --
                > Rob Frankel
                >
                > Branding Expert http://www.RobFrankel.com
                > Twitter: @brandingexpert
                > AIM/Skype: ROBFRANKEL ICQ: 249862730
                > 1-888-ROBFRANKEL * 818-990-8623 * E-Fax 413-778-0909
                > Yes, there's an RSS feed blog, if you can handle it:
                > http://www.robfrankelblog.com
                >
              • Mark Gottlieb
                Does anyone have or know where I can get a print copy of a recent Business Publications Advertising Source they don t need any more for a nominal cost? I just
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 30, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Does anyone have or know where I can get a print copy of a recent Business Publications Advertising Source they don't need any more for a nominal cost? I just need it for a small project. I used to get it by the year and would get quarterly updates where I'd get rid of the prior ones.


                  Thanks,
                  mark Gottlieb





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.