Skip to main content

Obama's media strategy: Interviews Yes, Q&A's No

Bloomberg has a great story outlining Obama's media strategy in which they show that Obama has a clear preference towards controlled one-on-one interviews versus Q&A's at press conferences.

Statistics from the story that are interesting are:

  • Obama had held only 17 solo news conferences as of February, fewer at that point in his presidency than Bill Clinton(31), George H.W. Bush (56) or Ronald Reagan (21), though more than George W. Bush (11).
  • The data are even starker if you consider “impromptu” encounters with reporters. On that measure, Obama took questions 94 times, fewer than Bush Jr. (307), Clinton (493), Bush Sr. (263) or Reagan (120).
  • The one measure on which Obama leads his predecessors is in actual interviews. At the time of Kumar’s count, Obama had given 408. That’s about three times as many as George W. Bush (136) had given at a similar point in his presidency, and about two- and-a-half times as many as Reagan (164) or Clinton (166).

So what is Obama up to with this strategy? 

It's pretty simple really - it's one of caution and control. 

In one-on-one interviews you have plenty of prep time and you can (at least attempt) to create boundaries associated with the interview. In addition, one-on-one interviews are often seen by the reporter as a scoop. Hence, they are appreciative to get the time with the President and will ask their questions with that consideration in mind. Furthermore, in a one-on-one interview (which are almost never live) you can take a break and collect yourself if needed. 

In a press conference, especially the Q&A, or in impromptu interactions with the press, it's a free-for-all. You can get hit with just about anything and have little to no control over the questions. 


So what you basically get is that press conference Q&A's and impromptu engagement with the press are dangerous and interviews are much safer. 

Given this is a reality, does that make Obama's strategy correct?

I'd argue not in the least. The problem with always being presented to the public in a controlled environment or situation is that you can come off as staged and rehearsed, which ultimately degrades your ability to been seen as authentic. Hence why barbs like TOTUS (instead of President of the United States (POTUS), Totus stand for Teleprompter of the United States) have plagued Obama since he took office. 

Take the Bush clip above. Does Bush look like a putz? Sure. Yet, he also looks human, accessible, and genuine. It was very rare during Bush's presidency to see him in a formal one-on-one interview, he seemed always to be answering questions from reporters in 'on the fly' scenarios. 

Full disclosure, I think Bush was a horrible president (all the damage happening in the world today is primarily the result of his administration) and yet, at the time, I'd argue people felt 'warmer' towards Bush than they do towards Obama currently. 

Despite people having negative views of Bush they would have been far more negative if Bush had only made himself accessible via one-on-one interviews. Case in point is the huge gap in how people saw Bush versus Cheney. 

Dick Cheney was someone who used the Obama strategy and basically only gave one-on-one interviews. As a result, the public never really got to know 'the man' because they never saw him in an open exchange environment. To this day Cheney's brand is horrible with comparisons to Darth Vader still lingering (I think Jon Stewart of the Daily Show holds the distinction of branding Cheney as Vader years ago). 

Obama has courted the press extensively, but always in a controlled way and as such has failed to connect with Americans on a personal level. For someone who promised to provide unprecedented openness, he has failed to engage the media unless it has been on his terms. 

The public notices this and as a result have failed to really form a strong bond with Obama. His approval among the public has dropped steadily since he took office and I'd argue that has been in part because the only communication he ever has with the public are rehearsed statements prepared by his PR folks. 

Sometimes, you have to embrace the free-for-all and realize that while it has risks, it is also an incredibly important variable in creating a brand of authenticity and genuineness. 

And as I've said in the past, authenticity is the most valuable commodity when it comes to branding. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Morgan Freeman Botches Reddit IAmA - Black Eye on PR

For those not familiar with Reddit it's basically a forum where people post interesting things on a wide variety of subjects. Postings gain popularity when people 'up vote' them and become more visible in their particular subreddit (a subreddit is simply a subject category, like politics or videos). One of Reddit's most popular subreddits is the IAmA subreddit - which allows reddit users to ask questions of various people. Over three million people subscribe to IAmA, which is also widely used by celebrities. An IAmA can last a couple hours during which Redditors (the term Reddit users call themselves) can ask the person doing the IAmA questions. The term "IAmA" comes from the concept of "I Am A doctor, ask me anything", "I Am A movie star, ask me anything" - you get the drift. IAmA's are not just for celebrities, lots of common folks do them as well. Recently Morgan Freeman did an IAmA  and it turned into a PR mess. To make a lo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mainstream versus Alternate Media - Where is the news now-a-days?

It's well known that CNN has been suffering an exodus of viewers, losing over half their viewership over the past couple of years. Yet Fox News has not lost viewers, but has increased its viewership slightly. It's an odd phenomena given that Fox news is clearly biased in their coverage. Mind you, so is CNN according to many. But I'd suggest it comes down to something much more simple.  While Fox may be holding its ground, the rise of alternative media is taking off where CNN left off - a focus on hard news. For those of the under 40 crowd, that's what they are looking for, NEWS. The simplest way to highlight the difference between mainstream media and alternative media is to take a look at their homepages and the stories they highlight. It becomes very clear why people are turning away from CNN and turning to alternative media. Let's look at five media sites and their homepage (click on pictures to enlarge): CNN Feature stories: CNN heroes Top t...
Post a Comment
Read more

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...
3 comments
Read more