The post-match interview

For me, one of the intriguing aspects of television coverage of football is the post-match interview. Obligatory, to ensure exposure of sponsor identities, they give us an opportunity to witness the art, or not, of pitching under pressure particularly by the losing managers.

They have at least three tough audiences. First, there is the owner, as often as not obscenely wealthy and wildly capricious, who must be persuaded to keep on employing them. Sven, seemingly despite Man City’s good performance, did not come across in a manner that reflects the self-image of a former Prime Minister of Thailand!

Secondly, the players who, I assume, watch highlights like the rest of us. The way the manager defends even the most indefensible, must be a critical first step towards rebuilding confidence. Blaming the ref for everything is the unsurprising solution.

Finally the supporters, “keep forking out for the high price tickets, we will be worth it next time”.

It may be pitchcoach bias on my part, but it seems to me the top eight or so Premiership managers, win or lose, give stronger, more charismatic interviews than the rest. Does this, in part at any rate explain their success?

The “three tenors” were Ferguson, Wenger and the “special one”, Mourinho. With Jose’s departure, it seemed at first that the self-styled “ordinary one”, Grant, would be blown away in the interview stakes. He has found his own quietly impressive voice. Let’s see who performs best in Moscow, winner or loser.

1 Reply

Pit(ch)fall 4. Too many words, too few pictures.

We all know the old adage ” a picture is worth a thousand words” and yet when it comes to preparing presentations it’s too often a case of words, words, words with the occasional visual as an afterthought. They can either take the form of endless points crowded on one chart or an endless number of uninspiring charts with a few ‘bullet’ points.

Both approaches can be pretty soulless. They are sometimes the result of laziness where a narrative document has been condensed into powerpoint format. Or, they act as a security blanket for the nervous or unprepared presenter. Some may read the charts word for word, (with the audience almost certainly reading ahead). Others, even tougher to follow, go off chart to be ‘interesting’ and lose the audience altogether.

A handful of imaginative visuals, with a few words, can turn dullsville into communication.

Two arresting front covers this week sparked off this observation. The Spectator has a cartoon-style illustration of Boris Johnson careering along on his bike, with passenger David Cameron hanging on for dear life. The words, scarcely needed, “full speed ahead to number 10”. But who will get there first?

The other is a classic Private Eye. A picture of Cherie Blair, flanked by Richard and Judy, all three with the trademark Cherie grin and the speech bubble “I stabbed Gordon in the book”. Brilliant.

Pit(ch)fall 3. Casting based on input not impact.

Most pitches call for a response to a brief in the form of a written proposal, followed by a presententation to the key decision takers. Typically, the proposal is developed by the appropriate experts and specialists working night and day to deliver a great result.

So far so good. The common error, however, when it comes to deciding who will present in the final shoot out, is to assume these same people should, and/or deserve to present . Not so.

What matters is not the input of these people but what the audience ‘takes out’, what is their emotional response, on the day, to the presenters as individuals and as a team. The casting decision must be lead by understanding of the audience dynamics and the need to be ruthless in casting the team that will perform best on the day.

Some ‘rules’. Don’t outnumber the client by more than one; your leader must be seen to lead; the team should be a balance of interesting, contrasting individuals rather than a collection of experts. You are seeking the reaction that ‘ we would enjoy, and be stimulated, working with these people and they clearly get on with each other’.

The London 2012 Bid team cast for impact when they included thirty youngsters in place of VIPs; ex-prison officer Ray Lewis is interesting casting by Boris that suggests he will not be afraid to surround himself with personalities. Could Obama, if he wins, select Clinton as running mate? That would be interesting casting.

1 Reply

Getting positive about defeat.

The London pitch is resolved. Boris won and Ken lost, the situation that anyone who pitches will find themselves in more often than not. After all, if any company won , consistently over time, the majority of competitive pitches they would become a virtual monopoly.

So, how should we make the best out of losing?

Immediately, in the aftermath, sulk, cry, moan ‘not fair ref’, drink, rationalise ‘ they were not our kind of people’, whatever, then get over it ,fast. Next get positive.

Review as a team, not a ‘mea culpa’ what we did wrong session but one of positive learning, what we will do better next time. Get better insight to the decision takers, manage time more effectively, answer the brief, review casting and chemistry, improve the theatre and so on. Every pitch is unique so you can always learn.

Then follow up with the rejecting client. Usually they cannot give you useful criticism, partly because they don’t want to offend , partly because they don’t want to say that your faces didn’t fit. Your real purpose should be one of making certain that you are the first company called on for the next oppportunity . Sometimes this can be sooner than expected if the winner screws up!

Ken, I feel is giving an object lesson in turning defeat to advantage . Handling interviews with grace, a good loser, he is aready paving the way to his next career, wooing us as readers of the book and as viewers of his inevitable television apperarances.

Years ago, Iain Johnstone, writer, broadcaster, filmmaker, was being attacked in a radio interview over his latest film, subject of bad reviews. Rather than get defensive, Iain gave a classic reponse on the lines of ” in Chinese the word for crisis and opportunity are one and the same”

Pit(ch)fall 2. Putting substance over style.

Most pitches are, by definition, competitive and most will call for a response to a brief. To compete we must, and do, rise to the challenge set focussing our efforts on developing substantial proposals- strategic, technical, creative- that we believe will be better than those of our competitors.

They may be ‘better’ but judging on ‘technical’ merit will be almost impossible unless you come up with an unbelievably better or cheaper solution. Given that your competition will have been chosen because they have similiar track records this is pretty unlikely. In practice, the people on the receiving end will attempt to evaluate on rational grounds but will usually end up with two or three candidates where their judgment, however later justified, is based on style.

Despite knowing this, and we do, learning from our first nervous interview, we still spend disproportionate amount of the available time, effort and resource, on the substance of our pitch, often at the expense of style. Typically grinding out a, hopefully improved, solution right up to the last minute, before thinking about what really matters, how the pitch will resonate. how it will be received.

The solution to this pit(ch)fall is simple. Recognise it.

Recent and current examples include Paris, whose 2012 bid was substantially the best but ‘le style’ , arrogant and lacking empathy, lost it for them. Gordon Brown, undeniably a man of substance but weakened by his style. Ken and Boris, both with individual flair but one the fresher and hungrier. and boiling up in USA, Obama the one with style but losing it and Clinton, the one with substance, but finishing with style.