I'm also a PR professional. I work for a fashion brand, not with celebrities. Her PR is supposed to tell these reporters before hand what she will not talk about. I know reporters go rogue and ask certain things in a roundabout way that they are not supposed to but for the most part they stick to the talking points. It just seems like they are not doing their job - because this happens so often with her, where a reporter will ask her something she doesn't want to discuss.
Ah, greetings to a fellow hack! Thank you for the ask. (Apologies in advance for the lengthy response.)
Okay, letâs chat about the interview. And for the sake of full disclosure, I also worked as a journalist before crossing to the âdark side,â so I understand what itâs like walking into a room to interview a celebrity (yes, I did interview a few famous people). My experience and the way I dispense PR advice comes from seeing the situation from both sides of the coin.
First, I personally would never, as a PR professional, tell a reporter that an interview is only going to discuss XX and absolutely, positively nothing else. Sure, I may say the interview is about Viceroyâs House, but the exchange of pleasantries is also par for the course.
Now you may be thinking: there is a job to be done, Gillian is only interested in delivering messaging about Viceroyâs House and the reporter should respect that, right? But journalists also have a job to do too. They want more from a one-on-one interview than a few quotes they could just as easily pull from a press release. They want to create an ambiance, fill it with a bit of humanity and a personal touch. I thought the question about spending time in Belfast was totally appropriate. Was Gillian rude? No, of course not. And the journalist noted that.
The issue here, imo, is that there was too much effort to control the messaging and it 100% backfired - and that is why I deemed the article a COVERAGE FAIL. In demanding that not one sentence veer away from Viceroyâs House (and even the issue of Edwinaâs private life was shut down) the result was that the piece became about Gillian instead of about Viceroyâs House - which was exactly what Gillian and her reps were trying to avoid.
Now, some have argued that the reporter was unprepared or just being a jerk because Gillian wouldnât make small talk with her. Well, people are people and that subjectivity will often seep into entertainment reporting. The reporter felt shut out and she was clearly frustrated by that to a certain degree. And it didnât seem she was pushing questions about hot button topics or Gillianâs personal life; it seemed she just wanted Gillian to engage with her a bit and she was a bit put off that Gillian was sticking to Viceroyâs House and only Viceroyâs House. Was she biased and sitting in a basket of sour grapes? Probably.
And she could have delved deeper into the movie, but she also clearly felt resistance when she questioned Gillian about Edwinaâs personal lifeâŚwhich seemed to exacerbate her frustration. So the woman walked away inspired to write about Gillian being a somewhat difficult interview subject, rather than about the movieâŚwhich is unfortunate.
As for Gillian: sure, she may have been tired. She may have so many projects underway, she doesnât want messaging for one bleeding into the messaging for another. She may be sick of unethical reporters hijacking her quotes out of context for an interesting headline (âGillian Says No More X-Files!â âI Have Never Been a Relationship With David Duchovny, Says Gillian Andersonâ). I understand all that, believe me. I have been screaming into the void for like, 20 years about how hideously Gillian has been treated by some reporters (and how desperately she needs me. ;) )
At the end of the day, however, the goal was to deliver messaging about Viceroyâs House, right? Did it? Not so muchâŚ.certainly, not effectively. How could this goal have been better achieved? Here would be my recommendations:
- Refrain from giving the impression that the interview is being tightly controlled by PR. Reporters donât appreciate it, which is why theyâll call it out in articles like this. There neednât be a stern warning to stay on topic (just a general advisement) and a team of publicists milling around ready to pounce (just one rep politely taking notes and/or ready to intervene if necessary should suffice).
- Equip Gillian with the appropriate key messages that would politely and amicably steer the conversation back to Viceroyâs House should the conversation stray. (Q:âWill there be more X-Files, Gillian?â - A: âIâll be sure to let you know if there are! But letâs get back to Viceroyâs HouseâŚâ) That would ensure she was prepared for rogue questions, but also prevent her PR rep from being forced to step in.
- Pleasantries are part of the job. Have you ever seen a celebrity do Kimmel or Fallon and talk only about their promotional project and absolutely nothing else? Gillian may not be in the mood to chit chat and she neednât give anything personal away, but she needs to engage to a certain degree. SorryâŚPR can suck that way.
- Better equip Gillian with what she wants to say in the interview. Okay, so she only wants to talk about Viceroyâs House? Then load her up with anecdotes, facts, information about Gurinder, partition, the Mountbattens, whatever. She doesnât need to wait for the questions. Make her the fucking Chatty Cathy of Viceroyâs House and she will control the messaging. Then it doesnât matter that the journalist is woefully unprepared - he or she will not struggle with word count or throw Gillian under the bus for not delivering enough meat to chew on in the interview. And the person will be forced to, you know, actually write about the subject matter you want them to write about. There will always be reporters who havenât done their homework - you canât control that as a PR person. The PR responsibility is to ensure the coverage still appears in a favourable light for your client and the project they are promoting - regardless of inept or asshole journalists.
