Before Covid rewired how and where we work, if you were part of a remote media interview chances are it’d be by phone.

Someone would call. Someone would answer.

So, no bells and whistles. Just an old school, super simple, phone call.

Over the last few years, though, video calling - with its fancy moving pictures - has caught a wave that’s washed across nearly every device, home and office.

An interesting phenomenon in high-performance sport, though, is that phone interviews are still holding strong. When it comes to providing remote media access to elite athletes and coaches, traditional phone calls are the go-to method for many of the world’s leading sporting organisations.

From the privileged position of working with communications departments behind multiple Olympic and World champion teams, along with clubs from the AFL to the NFL, here’s an inside look at why.

 

The rise of the remote interview

It’s generally accepted that the ideal situation for media interviews is face-to-face and one-on-one. That situation ticks the box for all parties.

But remote interviews have skyrocketed in storytelling importance over the last few years.

We were all forced to get more comfortable with doing things remotely during the height of the pandemic, but now we’re also seeing media travel greatly reduced, along with ‘work from home’ and hybrid arrangements normalised for both media and communications staff. The new media landscape, with audiences segmented by far more than geographical boundaries, is another factor.

A result of those changes is that remote interviews are now critical for sporting organisations to provide the golden one-on-one access that introduces the characters of their teams and leagues.

Remote video interviews bring some obvious advantages over phone interviews, such as showing body language and giving the option to record video content.

But we’re starting to understand that video interviews have some obvious, and some less obvious, disadvantages, too. And they nearly all relate to the concept of ‘simplicity’.

 

Keeping it simple

A number of the world’s leading brands laid their foundations for success by simplifying something that mattered to a lot of us.

• Google helped us find things on the internet
• Amazon helped us buy books
• Spotify let us listen to our favourite music
• Netflix made it easier to watch movies

In an increasingly complex world, simplicity holds a lot of appeal.

For example, I have great affection for my not-so-new Bose Bluetooth speaker. It sounds terrific and it has just six big buttons. I can do everything I want by pushing four of them.

When it comes to remote interviews, phone calls deliver ‘simplicity’. And simplicity matters a lot in the complex landscape of high-performance sport.

 

Complexity, pressure and the media

In some parts of the world, no element of life is covered more by the media than elite sport. Naturally, that attention puts a lot of pressure on the athletes and coaches in the media spotlight.

That media pressure sits on top of the pressure sportspeople are already under to perform in their chosen field (with wins and losses what they’re ultimately judged on).

The combination of unpredictability and pressure in professional sport makes it a perfect production line for heroes and villains. That’s one of the reasons for the huge public and media interest in sport. It’s the ultimate reality TV show.

 

 

Throw in training and travel, along with studies if you’re a student-athlete, perhaps some time with family and friends, and hopefully some sleep, and you’ve now got a whole lot of time pressure, too.

Given all those factors, it’s understandable that athletes aren’t often sitting at a desk, looking the part, with their support lighting and microphone set, and with plenty of spare time on their hands for a feature video interview.

So, a picture begins to emerge as to why a ‘simple’ and fast option might appeal to sportspeople when it comes to sharing their thoughts with the media.

(And they’re not the only ones craving simplicity in interviews).

 

Big media pressure

The media can be under huge pressure, also. Especially in live radio.

For example, my big sister was a producer for a national morning radio show. Schedules were done down to the seconds. Multiple live interviews needed to happen every morning. Most only lasted a few minutes.

In that live situation, the radio station didn’t have a lot of spare capacity for fancy.

The critical thing for my sister, her radio announcers, and their listeners, was that guest after guest after guest went live to air, as planned, with the minimum amount of fuss.

For the radio station, in that time-pressured situation, phone interviews were simpler, faster, and more reliable.

 

Phone vs Video interview platforms

We’re starting to see why video interviews, despite the richness of their features, aren’t always the first choice for remote media interviews. But let’s go a bit deeper into the pros and cons of phone and video platforms when it comes to remote one-on-one media interviews.

 

 

As a communications professional, one of your key jobs is to bring people into conversation. By keeping things simple and quick you make saying ‘yes’ to interview requests easier for all involved. So, if minds and voices are all that’s needed, a phone interview is a great option.

 

 

If recorded video content is needed, then there’s your answer as to which platform you should use for your interview. If everyone has lots of time, video might win, too.

But if you don’t need video content, and you’ve assumed you’re helping everyone’s ability to communicate by scheduling a video interview, research from Yale and Stanford might encourage you to reconsider.

 

Video calls drain our batteries

It turns out we’ve almost certainly overestimated the closeness of video interviews to face-to-face communication. That’s understandable. We’re all relatively new to this video stuff.

But video interviews make us work harder to send and receive communication signals. Facial cues aren’t so obvious over video. Body language is hugely restricted. However pretty you are, seeing your own image constantly is tiring - and it’s certainly not natural. (Ever tried talking face-to-face with someone while holding a mirror so you can constantly see yourself?).

Stanford University is among those institutions working hard to understand why video interviews consume so much of our personal bandwidth.

 

“You’ve got to make sure that your head is framed within the center of the video. If you want to show someone that you are agreeing with them, you have to do an exaggerated nod or put your thumbs up,” says Professor Jeremy Bailenson, from Stanford’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab. “That adds cognitive load as you’re using mental calories in order to communicate.”

 

When you also factor in the personal appearance and technical set-up prep time needed for a remote video interview, you’ve got a lot of energy being consumed by things that aren’t the conversation. And when the words you’re speaking will be consumed by thousands - or in some cases millions - of interested parties, it’s quite important to be focused on what you’re saying.

 

Did you know?

• Your voice tone is less controllable than your face. (It’s not just Shakira’s hips that don’t lie).
• Research shows that voice tone is more spontaneous and less controllable than facial expressions.
• Voice cues provide more accurate information about our feelings and thoughts.
• We can perfectly pick up on sarcasm, sympathy, and other emotions just through voice.

 

In summary…

There will be plenty of instances where a video interview is 100% the right way to handle a media request. But people are much more likely to have a conversation if you make the process simple.

Busy and pressured athletes like simple.

Phone interviews are simple.

And more often than not, a simple phone call will help you make the news.