I try to encourage execs to have fun with interviews. Demian, I’m totally with you on the notion that interviews are much more interesting when the interviewee isn’t reciting the same bullshit they just recited to the last guy. But — and here’s where you can break out the soggy old cabbage — I think it’s also up to the journalist to ask unique questions and to press the interview subject when they’re being fed a canned response. It just really doesn’t happen very often. If you push and push for a “proper answer” you’ll probably get it. Or it’ll be blatantly obvious to your readers in the transcript (or video or whatever) that they’re not getting the whole answer.

One problem with sticking to a message in this industry — and probably most entertainment industries — is that it works. If I tell you my game is going to be “the new shit” or that it’ll “redefine” something or other, there’s a good chance you’ll print it. If I DON’T tell you the exact thing I want you to say, you definitely won’t say it. So if you’re writing a 1000-word story and I can get in a dozen quotes, it doesn’t make sense for me to give you any info other than what I want you to print. And considering that a lot, but certainly not all, games writers approach interviews — with this blind excitement and reverence for the game creators — it’s just not very common that a question will come up for which a message hasn’t been crafted. That’s a bit sad.

In following your example of a Stephen King novel turned movie, each public would consider a different source as “the” source. “The producer said its a suspense thriller,” says a movie buff. “But I heard that Christian Bale said it was the best horror flick he’s been in yet,” replies a Mechanist fan. Debate ensues, even though both people are right, because their messages were gathered from separate–but equally important–sources. The problem? There should only be one source, dispersed to all specialists in each target public. What happens when the movie company’s million dollar campaign to be realized as “Hollywood’s Horror Company” is now associated with suspense?

Yet, you raise a great issue with media relations. How can I keep a message consistent without being repetitive? There is a difference between consistency and repetitiveness, afterall. I believe this to be the part of PR that requires much talent. The goal here is to have an overarching campaign of messages, with varying, intended outcomes. For example, in the movie analogy, let’s say the core messages include: horror movie, first of a series, better-than-the-book, starring Christian Bale. If each target public were to receive messages, they would each focus on a different aspect of the core message, while masking other parts. Now each message-carrier can reveal something new at each event.

The strategy is similar to Apple’s and Nintendo’s business practices; they never release a product with all its functionality so that consumers are forced to upgrade at a later date. Case-in-point for Apple would be requiring an upgrade for the iPhone so that it can COPY & PASTE (something relatively simple, but a quick $10 from each owner). Nintendo seems fairly obvious; how many times have you rebought a DS (DS, DS Lite, DSi), Gameboy (GB, GB Pocket, GB Pocket Color, GB Advance, GB Advance SP, GB Advance Micro…), or Mario 64 (N64, DS, Wii Virtual Console)? The object here isn’t to be misleading to your public. It follows a principle of brand loyalty and our desire for something new, even if it is just repackaged with a little extra shine. By withholding just a little bit, and slowly revealing/adding to the original, we can keep the public grasping for more, without ever straying from our core messages.

Here are a few examples of how this can be achieved in the movie analogy.

Producer: “In following the genius of Stephen King, our movie tries to capture the unique narrative eye of the book. Fans of the book, however, will see something new at every turn. We here at [COMPANY] are making Horror for Hollywood.”
OUTCOME–> Release of information, plug of the company’s tagline campaign, drawing in fans of the book with a promise of loyalty and something new.

Christian Bale: “I was very pleased to jump on board with [COMPANY], now notorious for making horror films. I was such a fan of Stephen King’s book that I immediately signed on. I anticipate a long relationship with this series.”
OUTCOME–> Another plug of the company’s tagline, celebrity endorsement targeted at movie-goers, bait for the media (hint at sequel).

Stephen King: “I’m glad to pick this series up as a movie. When Christian Bale came in, I knew [COMPANY] had a vision of what my book should be on the big screen. In a day when horror films only involve sawing parts off of bodies, I’m glad to see that at least one producer is making real horror in Hollywood.”
OUTCOME–> Yet another plug of the company tagline, celebrity endorsement targeted at book fans, controversy (obvious “fighting words” against popular horror rival, Saw.

I enjoyed reading your side of the issue, Tom. What you’re saying really does make sense, and I totally understand why it is important to stay on message. You certainly brought up a number of factors that I haven’t really considered.

But, like Demian said, the message is often pretty dry and boring. It’s also usually something that has been beaten into the ground.

While it’s PR’s job to deliever the message, it’s the journalists’ job to try and get something interesting out of that message. Too often, it’s more difficult than it probably should be.

I understand the s-storm that can come from saying the wrong thing during an interview, but for the most part, there really isn’t such a thing as bad press. Yes, that’s not entirely true, but I believe that most of the time it is.

The problem is that everything ends up sounding the same. Game information gets doled out in tiny portions, games get three-or-more previews, a developer gives the same interview to ten different outlets… there’s simply not enough interesting stuff about most games to justify this sort of coverage.

In the end, we all are trying for the same thing: to hold the interest of readers/viewers. You want them to be interested in your product, and we want them to be interested in reading our coverage about your product.

Again, I enjoyed reading your thoughts. And thanks for listening to the Mobcast, too!