by Rachel Smith
10 February 2016
I just had an expert snippily tell me ‘that’s not how I do things’ when, unable to lock her in for a phoner by my deadline, I asked if she might find it easier to answer a couple of questions via email instead. I felt like a little kid getting a slap on the wrist – but surely I can’t be the only one out there relying on the odd email interview? What do you guys think? P
Oh, the joy of sending questions, getting replies and not having to transcribe an hour-long interview! As a long-time hater of transcribing, I’m the first to think email interviews are a downright brilliant idea. With one caveat: you just don’t get the same colour and ‘gold’ quotes you would get via a phoner or a face-to-face interview, where you have to put your skills to the test to tease those things out of your subject. Plus, unless your subject is open to a back’n’forth dialogue, you can’t be spontaneous – or ask follow-up questions.
It also really depends on the position of the publication you’re writing for. Some editors are fine with it; others frown on journos who cut corners by doing email interviews. But, in our increasingly digital world, what if email is the only avenue by which you’ll get a quote from a very busy, UK-based Jamie Oliver or a VIP you could never pin down? Few editors would say no to that. (Heck, I’ve even tried to do interviews via Twitter.)
In terms of experts, I’ve come a lot of busy doctors and academics (I do a lot of health writing) who’d simply rather do a quick chat on the phone than sit down and craft their answers to your questions, especially if they’re not natural writers. That said, there are always those who, terrified of being misquoted, would prefer to do things via email so there’s a record of exactly what was said and can be cross-checked against what was printed. Email interviews – even to follow up and clarify – can also be really helpful if you’re dealing with technical terms (such as names of pharmaceutical medications) or complex information that you want / need a record of.
Sometimes, if you’re getting paid a pittance for a piece and doing an in-person interview or phoner plus transcribing just wouldn’t be worth it, an email interview that saves you a bit of time is probably justified. That said, while I am guilty of relying on the odd email interview when I can’t get anything else, I try to do phoners 90 percent of the time. I just think you pick up so much more information, get far better quotes and best of all, become a better interviewer over time yourself. Practice, after all, makes perfect.
List members, over to you – are you a fan of the email interview? Do you do them more these days? Or are you old school and think any journo who relies on getting quotes via email is a complete lazybum?
I usually give the interviewee the choice – phone or email. Some people prefer to speak, some prefer to write. This is for proper, paid articles – for my own blog I usually just ask a few very short quotes by email to save time.
I’m one of those who’d choose email 🙂 Whenever I’ve been interviewed (mainly for Rachel’s List stuff) I always ask if I can answer that way so I have time to consider my answers and write them down; I’m never happy when it’s a phoner (and I invariably email them back with extra info I forgot to say during the interview!)
It depends entirely on who you’re interviewing, for how long, the publication and the amount you’re being paid for the story, I reckon.
I recently had a big feature commission from a national publication that required at least 10 short interviews. I divvied it up where I could – I interviewed the experts, email interviewed the case studies. The story came up tops!
Sometimes, doing a Real Life story, either in the first person (as told to) OR heavily quoting them, I send initial interview questions to 1. familiarise them with the direction the interview will take, and 2. consider their responses in advance. Sometimes they will come back to me with wonderfully articulate email responses without me even asking for them! Then, when I interview, I use that time to clarify things in their written copy. It’s win-win because it means less transcribing.
Thanks for weighing in Kylie – I agree that case studies often give you great colour via email, especially where they are just telling you their story or an experience they’ve been through.
Depends on how much colour is required in a piece. I would never do a profile by email (and would prefer to interview in person compared to over the phone) but if you just need a comment or two to add an expert view to a piece that has its main focus elsewhere, most definitely.
More often than not I have the opposite problem: speaking to interviewees for 20-30 minutes only for quotes to appear in a fraction of the piece due to word limits—I feel like I’ve wasted their time and a quick email Q&A might have been a better use of it.
I have also done hybrid interviews for very busy people (usually for ghostwriting clients) where I send the questions via email prior and they answer them in a voice file whenever they have a moment and fling that back when convenient. They then review the copy to clarify if needed.
Great points Adeline – I often interview people for half an hour only to get 1-2 quotes I’m actually going to use. Only, I know I wouldn’t have gotten them with an email interview so it has to be a phoner… grrr.