Email interviews: Love or hate?

I CAN'T be doing with email interviews - but still use them, sparingly. I recently carried out an interview in this way because my subject was in a foreign country and I didn't fancy the phone bill.

Sometimes an interviewee will request an interview by email, or if you are going to be speaking to them, they'll request sight of the questions in advance.

Treat such requests with suspicion - why on earth would someone want to do that? Put yourselves in their shoes - perhaps they are overly nervous and have never met a real life writer before. If that's the case I may email to ask some basic details and then pick up the phone to quiz them further.

Do all you can to put their mind at rest and assure them there is nothing to worry about. I'd politely decline the request to see the questions in advance, unless there were exceptional circumstances. By that I mean George Michael giving me a private audience. Move over Parky, your time is up.

I'd also do all I can to persuade them that talking over the phone would be better, and if it was a big-paying job, I'd be round their place sharpish.

My biggest problem with email interviews - even if the interviewee can favour them - is that all spontaneity is lost.

This turns the exercise into one akin to those cringingly bad exchanges we sometimes have the misfortune to witness on children's TV. A nugget about a scintillating tidbit of personal scandal is followed with a lame "and what's your favourite colour" while hoardes of viewers yell expletives at the screen. (Or perhaps that's just me.)

You can't see their reactions, you can't jump in with another follow up question and you won't have a clue what your subject makes of your interview when they become aware of the questions. Nor have you any guarantee that they are even going to answer. With email interviews, there's just too much hanging around.

It's also incredibly frustrating when a carefully thought-out question comes back with a simple "yes" or "no."

At the very least, ring up your subject and talk their answers through once you have them. But beware of course, this is what may happen if you do go and meet.

[Linda]

Comments

[Joanne Mallon]

Great post Linda. As an interviewee I tend to find that many journalists are a lot keener than you on email interviews. I don't mind - it often saves time. What I do mind is when great chunks of my emails turn up as part of the copy of the feature, uncredited. Maybe I should stick to 'Yes' or 'No' in future.

And even worse is when a journalist cuts out the interview altogether and simply asks to email over some quotes over to see if you agree with them (or not). Doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

[Liz]

So I'm curious...why the marmite jar??? Were you interviewing someone from Australia or New Zealand ???

As for email interviews, they are the only ones I have conducted so far...mainly because most of my interviewees live miles away from me...

[Louise Bolotin]

Marmite - people either love it or hate it. I hate Marmite but don't mind doing email interviews...

[Sally]

I think an important note about email interviews is that they're fast, efficient but should come with a massive health warning.

If the interview is conducted directly with the interviewee, it tends to lose spontaneity as people try to sound 'clever' or worry about being discreet.

If it's being conducted through a PR, chances are the PR will write the answers (the interviewee may quickly glance at them for approval) so it ends up sounding like marketing speak.

When I do need to use email interviews, I make sure to use VERY specific questions, requiring more than short answers - for example, i might say "what are the three main reasons for..." or "what two pieces of advice would you give..."

[Katie B]

It's true that a spontaneity is lost but I find email interviews a lifesaver as alot of my interviewees live abroad or are nervous about their English...

P.s. I LOVE marmite

[Linda]

Hi Katie - I hate it - and Twiglets!

[Gary Marshall]

They're brilliant if you're working across time zones, which I seem to be doing most of the time, or if what you're doing isn't particularly controversial. Although if it's going through a PR filter it's going to suck (and it won't make the final cut). And they can reassure interviewees who worry about being misquoted, because there's a paper (well, virtual paper) trail.

Joanne wrote:
> What I do mind is when great chunks of my emails turn up as part of the copy of the feature, uncredited.

That's terrible. Utterly unprofessional and downright rude to boot.

> And even worse is when a journalist cuts out the interview altogether and simply asks to email over some quotes over to see if you agree with them (or not). Doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

That doesn't just happen with email. I need to be vague here but I did a recent interview with someone who provided a very scary quote for a very scary newspaper piece, and he told me that he hadn't said what he was quoted as saying. Basically he was asked, "do you think X will turn out to be Y?" and his response was that no, it's very unlikely, although if it turns out that everything we know is wrong then it's possible. That appeared in print as "Expert says X is Y". Not a happy chap, and he can't prove he was utterly misquoted because it was a phoner.

Which in turn fuels interviewees' desire for email interviews...