Divert interview to text?
June 4, 2010 4:34 PM   Subscribe

I just got a request for an interview over the phone. Would it be rude to ask to do it textually?

I've never been in a position where somebody would want to interview me, so I'm really not sure of the etiquette here. Of course, I am humbled at flattered at the request, and I'd love to do it. But the interviewer wants to do it over the phone; I really do not. Is it rude to ask if we can do it over e-mail instead? Should I just get over myself and do it over the phone?

My concern isn't needing the preparatory time to formulate competent answers -- I'm not expecting to face "hard" questions, it's more of a "tell me about yourself and your motives" kind of thing -- it's being uncomfortable speaking to people I can't see. It's a pretty common neurosis, so I'm sure you can identify. I'd probably be more willing to fight through it if the request hadn't come from somewhere so influential; I'm as eager to give a good impression of myself as I am to give a good interview, and I'd find both a lot easier if I could just type it.

To be brief, the idea of doing an interview over the phone makes me pretty nervous, and I'm not at all confident I'll be able to carry myself as well as I'd like. Would it be rude to ask if we could conduct the interview differently?
posted by anonymous to Human Relations (23 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
I get interview requests form people form time to time and I'm sort of the opposite of you, I prefer the phone because I type for a job most of the day anyhow. My response is usally along the lines of

"Hey that's great I'm flattered. I really prefer the phone to email because I'm typing all day anyhow. My preferences are Phone, IM, email, pretty much in that order. I can be a little tough to get ahold of but here are some times that work for me [times] where I could give you 30-60 minutes of my time."

If you're requesting email you might want to say something about how you have small chunks of time available [or inconvenient times or whatever] and the phone doesn't really work for you and ask if there are alternatives...? Obviously this totally depends on whether this is a media interview or like a "you're my favorite X and I want to interview you for my paper/blog/research" type of thing. I've found that with media people, if I want to get the word out I usually have to meet them on their level [i.e. the phone, or Skype] but if it's anything else, I can sort of call the shots.

So, I don't think it's rude but it depends on what your position is relative to the person interviewing you.
posted by jessamyn at 4:40 PM on June 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


It's pretty standard to do initial interviews (for jobs anyway) over the phone and unless you literally can't function over telephone (severe hearing problems of some kind), it's going to seem pretty odd. Being able to speak at least adequately over the phone is also often a required skill (office environments where coworkers may need to call you to ask you about things, etc.)
posted by R343L at 4:41 PM on June 4, 2010


If this is a job interview: Not so much rude as against your own interests. People generally seek phone interviews when they want to get some sense of you as a person but don't have the time to arrange in person. I think it would be OK to see if you can set up a phone call with video, though.

If this is a news interview,my experience is that it depends on the medium. TV and radio reporters obviously prefer the ability to run at least an audio feed if they can get it. But I think they'll accept your preference for a text interview instead. A newspaper or journal reporter will be fine with email contact. Needless to say, proofread very, very carefully.
posted by bearwife at 4:43 PM on June 4, 2010


I think if you ask if you can do it over email, it will raise a red flag for your interviewer because there are very few jobs where you do not use the telephone - even if only to call in sick. With a phone interview, no doubt your interviewer is counting on verbal cues, how well you speak, uncomfortable pauses mid sentence, various issues that would not be clear during a textual meeting. You could also have unseen assistance during a text meeting - a friend could be sitting beside you coaching you on what to type, and that also would not give the interviewer an accurate view of who you are.

So, yes, you could ask, but it would be detrimental to your chances of getting the job.

Ways around this is to think of potential interview questions, and jot down points about this (a good plan anyway for face-to-face interviews) so that you're not left speechless.

Good luck.
posted by b33j at 4:43 PM on June 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Oh, is it a media interview? At first I thought you were talking about a job interview, and my answer was going to be, "you'll destroy any chances you have of getting this job if you ask for something so far outside the norm."

But if it's a journalist interviewing you? Seems like it would be ok. I see this in local alt-weekly newspaper blogs all the time when a band is coming to town and doesn't have time to do a phone interview from the road. So maybe just try saying that your schedule is somewhat busy and you could give more attention to their questions via email, and see if that flies.
posted by MsMolly at 4:48 PM on June 4, 2010


Is this a media interview? If so, I think it's perfectly valid to ask for a list of questions beforehand to prep yourself (while knowing that interviews are pretty organic and they're bound to ask you questions not on the sheet). Be prepared for the journalist to say forget it and move on to a spokesperson that's easier to work with...

But if this is for a job, refusing a phone interview would be a huge red flag.
posted by Cat Face at 4:52 PM on June 4, 2010


Some journalists are cool with email interviews, others are not. email interviews can get you 'canned' sounding answers, which can be OK for some things but not for others.

if it's with the media, explain the situation and ask. but if you have any interest in future radio or TV interviews, obviously, this would be a bad way to start!
posted by Maias at 5:11 PM on June 4, 2010


Yeah, unless it's a radio interview it would be perfect ok to state your preferences - email might be easier for the interviewer, too. Think through whether you want to rule out phone entirely, as that could be fine, too, depending on your needs and the strength of your text-preference.
posted by ldthomps at 5:14 PM on June 4, 2010


This came up a lot when I was working at my college newspaper. E-mail interviews were a last resort for us because, among other reasons: a) it's harder to get candid answers and b) asking follow-up questions based on your responses means drawn out back-and-forth emailing unlike the immediacy of a live interview.

If it was a situation where we could talk to a number of different people and some of them could do a live interview while some could only do e-mail, all else being equal, we'd go with the ones who could talk to us live and skip the ones who couldn't. But we certainly did e-mail a lot when the circumstances required it.

If you can, consider doing the phone interview. Assuming you are dealing with a skilled and experienced interviewer, I'm sure they'll do a better job drawing your story out of you in a live interview than they would sending you questions by email. Plus, in order to be able to do so his/her biggest priority at the beginning is going to be making you comfortable and at ease, which should take care of your main concern.
posted by ctab at 5:44 PM on June 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


I would request the e-mail interview, and if the request is denied, tape record the interview while you're talking on the phone and ask to see a final copy of the article before it is published.

My concern stems from a few interviews I did for newspapers in the past where I was misquoted, and my misquote caused me a lot of strife because it was on a controversial topic. Ever since then if the interview is anything aside from some sort of tribute to my work, I either want it recorded or on paper so that I can head off misquotes before they are printed.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 6:15 PM on June 4, 2010


If it's a media interview of any type, email is fine. I've done email for both blogs I've never heard of and newspapers you've read; even in really really mainstream journalism, it's normal these days.

It's such a routine thing you don't need to make a big deal of it; "My schedule is really packed the next few weeks, but if you can get me your questions by email I can get answers back to you in the next day or two. Thanks!"
posted by DarlingBri at 6:46 PM on June 4, 2010


Rudeness isn't the issue; you have no obligation to the interviewer. If you want things done in a certain way, you have a right to make that request. If the interviewer doesn't want to agree to your conditions, that's his/her right.
posted by Flunoid at 8:59 PM on June 4, 2010


You can ask to do the interview by email, suggest a video chat, politely decline to do the interview at all. You can also agree to a phone interview, with the caveat that speaking on the phone makes you nervous and you may need to take breaks or rephrase every now and then. Anyone who interviews people for a living will be accustomed to potential interviewees declining to comment, deferring until later, requesting particular interview conditions or simply being unavailable. They won't think you're being impolite, and you're not obligated to do an interview simply because you're flattered by the request. Personally I'm always surprised and rather grateful each time an interesting person agrees to give up part of their day to speak to me - especially if that person is a private citizen who has little to gain from being in the public eye.

That said, an email interview is not ideal. Of course a radio reporter will simply thank you and start looking for someone else to speak to. Even in print, journalists are often reluctant to use email. This is because most people don't write as they speak, so quotes received by email can look stilted when inserted into copy. The main exception to this would be brief 'statements', usually given by politicians or companies in times of crisis. (For example, "I categorically deny the allegations against me," John Smith said in a statement issued this morning.) Unless you're embroiled in controversy of some sort, you probably don't need to resort to this.

I would request the e-mail interview, and if the request is denied, tape record the interview while you're talking on the phone and ask to see a final copy of the article before it is published.

No reputable reporter will allow you to review a final draft of their article before publication. If journalists actually did this, their articles would never make it to press. What you can ask for is a transcript of the comments you've made, and the opportunity to correct them if you believe you've been misquoted. Additionally, if you're speaking about a particularly technical or complex subject, you can ask to check the reporter's paraphrasing of your arguments or explanations, to make sure they haven't misunderstood what you told them.

Also, depending on your jurisdiction, you may be legally required to ask the other party's permission before recording a private conversation. (If applicable, this of course applies to the journalist as well). A good reporter should be fine with this, but you still need to ask.

But honestly, if you say the potential interviewer just wants to hear your perspective, not ask you 'gotcha' questions, you probably have nothing to worry about. The people you see or hear interviewed on TV and radio are chosen partly for their ability to speak with relative confidence in those environments. The people that print reporters and producers from media interview to actually learn about whatever it is they're reporting on? They're much more diverse, and articulacy and confidence aren't nearly as important. If you have expertise or experience the reporter is interested in, they will do their best to put you at ease. You don't need to worry about "giving a good impression" - unless this is some kind of long-form feature specifically about you and your personal quirks, the reporter will have no reason to mention your demeanor in print.

Good luck, memail me if you have any further questions.
posted by embrangled at 11:59 PM on June 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


...producers from other media...
posted by embrangled at 12:02 AM on June 5, 2010


I agree with embrangled. The majority of Interviewees who insist on email interviews spout longwinded, tortuous sentences in writing that are nowhere near the spontaneous language people use in person. If you absolutely cannot phone, how about IM? The combination of writing + preparation time is deadly. If you do insist on it, be prepared for the article to ne a lot smaller because half your quotes will be unusable.

Also, if you do ask to see the article first, maje sure you state this prerequisite before you agree to the interview. That gives the journalist time to say "thanks but no thanks" and look for someone else to interview. There's no greater headache on both sides than having that conversation after an interview.

Other tips:
write down the three most important things you want the public to know in this onterview. During the interview, make sure to fit them in somewhere. At the end, say, "to reiterate, those are the things I feel are most important: 1, 2, 3." If you and s/he are reasonable, the journalist will accomodate this. And it will help you to know what your message is.
Also, make sure you know exactly what kind of article it is and when and in what setting it will be published. Don't be afraid to ask whatever you want to know before you do the interview.
posted by Omnomnom at 1:36 AM on June 5, 2010


Apologies for the typos, typing from phone.
posted by Omnomnom at 1:38 AM on June 5, 2010


I'm a journalist and interview people by phone all the time. Occasionally, someone will ask if we can do it by email instead, usually because like you they're not so comfortable speaking on the phone, or sometimes because they're short on time.

Most of the time it's ok, but it isn't ideal. The advantage of a phone conversation for the interviewer is that you can constantly reevaluate the questions you ask. Sometimes I might ask something, and my subject might mention something that I hadn't even thought about, or didn't expect would come up, so I'll change my next question and get them to go into more detail about that thing. Sometimes the subject won't fully understand my questions, or doesn't seem to understand what I'm getting at, so it's useful to be able to explain, or ask in a different way. It's all about taking cues from the person you're interviewing, following up on points of interest and sometimes leading the conversation where you want it to go. I find also that I get much more natural sounding quotes this way, when people don't have hours to decide how best to phrase things. You build up a rapport with your subject that you don't get via email. A phone conversation also gives me the chance to ask at the end of the interview if there's anything you want to add that I didn't cover, and give you a chance to explain things I didn't quite understand.

Bear in mind that it might be easier for you, too do do it on the phone. What if the interviewer sends you a list of questions and you have nothing to say on a couple of them? On the phone it's easier to direct the conversation to something you have more to say about, or explain why that question's not so relevant.

However, if you really really don't want to do it by phone, it is perfectly ok to say so. Explain that you're more comfortable doing it via email as you'd like the time to be able to give considered and detailed answers, and you want to give as much information as you can. Write as much as you can (within reason) in answer to each question. If I was confident that the person I'm interviewing will give really considered, comprehensive answers to my questions via email (rather than just one sentence for each, which I got once) I would be much happier to conduct the interview via email. It might be helpful to say that if they don't get all they need via email you're happy for them to call you to confirm things. It's helpful to be able to call and say 'Can you explain what you meant by X?' rather than having an endless back and forth email conversation.
posted by schmoo at 1:46 AM on June 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


Last post: If I understand this correctly, this will be a piece describing you and your motivations. Emailing puts the journalist at one level of remove. It's like...asking a friend to do the interview and then asking them what you said. For a portrait type piece, your tone of voice (enthusiastic? Cool? Concentrated?) and your personality (fast talker? Slow and considered?) are so important!
I WILL STOP POSTING NOW!
posted by Omnomnom at 1:55 AM on June 5, 2010


If this is for a job interview, asking for an email interview instead would automatically ding you from the job. A candidate who lacks the confidence to do a phone interview is not a viable candidate. Suggest you prepare for the interview and practice, practice, practice!
posted by zia at 4:49 AM on June 5, 2010


Don't worry about coming across as rude. When a journalist requests an interview, keep in mind that what they're doing is asking you to help them. They have a story that needs to be written and they need your help in doing that. So it's pretty much up to you to set the terms of the interview. If you're not comfortable doing it on the phone just tell them that you're only available to do it via email. If the interviewer isn't ok with that, well, that's his/her problem.
posted by fso at 6:36 AM on June 5, 2010


If its possible, why not ask to do the interview in person or over some sort of video chat? That would eliminate your nervousness in talking to people you cannot see but could still provide what the reporter needs.
posted by miscbuff at 6:46 AM on June 5, 2010


Radio and TV need sound, print doesn't necessarily. I often prefer interviewing people over email if I just need a single quote of reax or an expert explanation of something. I like having no question about who said what, and how, and when. Also, less typing = win.
Obviously, this doesn't work for confrontational interviews, or long rambling biographical explorations for a feature on the person.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:52 PM on June 6, 2010


I write an interview column and love conducting interviews in writing because the answers are usually much more thoughtful, and in this age of email it's easy enough to get back in touch and clarify any lingering questions. I don't think it's an odd request at all.
posted by beyond_pink at 1:06 PM on June 6, 2010


« Older Where should I live in Paris?   |   Work chair comfortable for hours & hours Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.