How to record interviews that
engage and deliver

Episode 3: Recording Interviews - How to get the best results for your video

Doing an interview is hard, so how should we do it? In this episode of Cut Through, we unpack the art of interviews in video production. Learn how to make your subjects feel at ease, ask the right questions, and capture compelling stories.

https://youtu.be/rF0_5gdwDUU?si=qSeae3fHmqiA-4Or WATCH MORE EPISODES

"What's the best way to prepare for an interview? Should they be looking at the camera or away?"

There's so many variables in an interview for a video production. With lights, camera and location, the interview process can easily overwhelm both the interviewer and intervieweee.

But with proper preparation and knowing the best method to record the interview, you can get the best result to showcase in your video.

Interviews are at the heart of the training and education videos we make. Got people worth hearing from? Submit a brief and we'll help you get the best out of them on camera.

Full episode transcript

Welcome to Cut Through, the podcast that helps to make video content accessible to more creators.

We cut through the noise and a wide range of topics to help you break down those barriers and bring your ideas to life.

In this episode, we unpack the art of interviews and video production, learn how to make your subjects feel at ease, ask the right questions and capture compelling stories.

Let's get started.

Ooh, I'm going to get interviewed.

Yeah, well, about interviewing, and what makes interviewing pros and cons.

Are we talking about job interviewing?

Are we talking about TV interviewing?

Are we talking about any kind of interviewing?

No, mainly from a video production point of view, when you have a subject in mind, and where I go is like testimonials, maybe corporate stories, even corporate promos.

When you have someone who's delivering information to the camera, to a piece, deliver a message, whether it's promotional, whether it can be testimonial, whether it can be a pitch, whether it's just more documentary style, whether it's an interview to extract a story very indirectly.

What are the types of things that you do and think about to prep, not only yourself, but prep the subjects to ensure the best outcome, meaning what they deliver on camera is useful, it's relevant, and then it can be turned into a piece of video content.

Yeah, it's a pretty broad question.

It is, but I'll, well, it's a broad, I think it's a broad goal, but let's just dive in and see where it takes us.

So let's start at the beginning.

When you're preparing for an interview shoot, when you have a subject, what's the first thing you do?

How do you get ready to meet, I guess, a subject?

Go one step back.

Generally, before you even get to that point, you're gonna be starting with what your objective is.

So you'll know who you're gonna be meeting, who potentially the subject is that you're gonna be talking to.

And I use the word talking because I prefer to think of it as having to chat with somebody rather than trying to drill down.

So I'm always approaching it from that perspective first.

It's like, no, I'm gonna have a talk to somebody.

So then when I know who I'm gonna be talking to, generally, there's a little bit of understanding about who they are.

So there'll be some research.

It doesn't have to be intensive.

I'm not a 60 minutes journalist who's doing some expose, and I have to do some deep, deep research.

It's just get enough information to really know who they are, where they come from, what this, you know, particular skill sets are, or, you know, what their story is, just enough to be able to have enough information to be able to connect with them, genuinely connect with them, like really want to know who they are, learn about them as a person.

But warming up and getting to, before you even get to the day of, like when you're gonna put a camera out and film and talk to them, you generally are getting them comfortable with the notion.

And often, I'm not the person doing that.

That's often done through either the client intermediary, which would be, say, the person who's commissioning the work will talk and arrange it with those groups and say, hey, we're just gonna have a chat.

And it's kept very, very relaxed.

Because people can get very nervous about the idea.

Yeah, so you're suggesting pre-conversation before you have the formal conversation.

Sometimes it's necessary.

Sometimes you won't be afforded that opportunity.

So if you can't have a pre-conversation, it's good.

And generally, it's just getting them comfortable with the idea of what's gonna happen.

Making them realize it's about...

There's no right and wrong answers.

It's not going to be broadcast.

You're always going to be able to sort of have a chance to review.

You can say things again.

You don't have to worry.

It's very relaxed setting.

If that conversation takes place.

So, it's important to set expectations from the get-go.

One is to relieve nerves, maybe, and then the other is to make sure that they know what they're getting into, because no one wants to feel like they walked into a trap or they felt unprepared.

I don't feel like it's even...

I don't feel like it's...

I think it's less managing expectations and more managing anxiety.

Wilson, how do you...

If anxiety or setting or reducing anxiety potential, how do you do that?

The first thing is by letting them know that it's a discussion, it's a chat, where we're like two people talking.

So setting that up before you even arrive.

And then when...

I actually think a huge part of that management, that process is done on the day when you're there.

Because no matter who you are, no matter where you've been, putting a camera with lights and microphones around you is not natural, never will be, ever.

It's just not natural, you don't do it.

Where most people are a bit more comfortable, we've got webcams and microphones that we talk into every day on video calls these days.

But lights, microphones, cameras pointing at you while you're sitting in some setting, waiting for something to happen is just unnatural.

So generally when we're rocking up and we're filming with people, when we're setting all that up, a lot of time is just putting the subject in that environment and getting them really comfortable with it, because it will feel very, very weird once they're there.

And getting them more and more comfortable, and taking time and not rushing in, and just letting that situation sort of just move around and melt in, and then eventually it all fades away and they're less noticing it.

Yeah, it's interesting you said setting, because you're setting the tone, which is clear, and that seems, for you, for your personal technique, that seems to be one of the most important things.

But what about the physical setting itself?

You mentioned lights and I guess the potential of stage fright.

Do you notice any differences when it's, I guess, in a studio versus on Zoom or like this?

Generally, if you're going to be doing something in an on-location environment, you want to make sure that the person has space to feel secure.

But enough, you want to create a beautiful setting because you want to make it look beautiful.

But you also want to make sure that they've got privacy.

You know, they've got people walking around them.

If they've got people watching, that can be quite intimidating.

So creating a secure space where they can feel comfortable is important.

With video calls like this, when you interview people on video calls, it's a bit different.

I find it's harder to create that one-to-one connection with somebody on a video call, but they tend to feel more comfortable in their environment.

It's kind of interesting.

We're more and more comfortable with video calls because we know exactly where we are, so we're happy.

Yeah, well, it's interesting.

You talked about, I guess, stage fright or just weariness when a camera's in front of them.

I know I get the same way.

So how do you, for the risk of people, I guess, can clam up, so how do you build rapport with someone, especially if they're not used to be in front of the camera, or you suspect they might be someone that might, when the lights go on, their light goes out.

I sort of took you through just, I guess, in terms of how to prepare from the preparation of talking to the person.

So the pre-talk before shooting and then the actual on the day when you're there, creating that space and that environment that they feel secure.

But going back to the pre-talk is when you're doing that, that research and learning about the subject and understanding who they are.

And there could be deep research or it could be light research, but you didn't develop what I called the interview guide.

And the interview guide is pretty important because that will be how you're going to speak with the person from start to finish.

And generally, you'll have an objective, so you'll know that you'll want to find out about some particular topic and have their insights.

So that's what you're really aiming for.

But you can't really just go and knock down the door to get that.

Like, in my opinion, you can't.

I think you do need to really spend time to get to know the person and actually really get to know who they are, get to know about what they do, get to learn a bit about them, their environment, so forth.

And then you can sort of start to go to the places you want to.

So that interview guide, generally the first quarter of an interview guide is about building rapport with the subject for the interview and developing a connection and learning about them, giving them an opportunity to speak about themselves.

Like, most people ultimately don't like this environment.

It's so unnatural.

When given an opportunity, most people really do want to talk about themselves.

So essentially, warm-up techniques, essentially conversational type questions, putting people at ease by not...

So you don't get into the nuts and bolts of the objective of the communication piece until several minutes into it.

And that's, again, to establish, I guess, the trust and rapport and get them to speak freely and confidently and comfortably.

And that comes off, I guess, as better content in the end.

It does.

And I think it also helps them sort of get comfortable.

It gets a lot of the rustiness out as well.

So it gets them sort of speaking more fluidly, thinking more fluidly.

They start to not notice the lights and everything around them anymore.

They're developing eye contact.

It's also a good opportunity to go to talk to them through, you know, techniques like with responding, because that's important.

Like, that's taken a long time for me to develop that skill of learning.

How do you get people to give you good lead-ins to responses?

Because that's really important when you take an interview into posts.

So, sometimes training them to learn how to respond to the questions, like with, you know, frame the question into the answer, or as I like to say, lead-ins.

I was just going to ask you, what's a lead-in?

Yeah, a lead-in is framing the question into your response, so that when you answer the question, a person who doesn't know what the question is, will know what you're talking about.

So, example, what is your name?

And if you were to say, Mike, they'd be like, if somebody heard that without the question, they'd be like, what?

Well, it's interesting.

The reason I ask it, it sounds obvious, but you realize when you do talk with people, most people don't naturally talk back with reframing the question, because it's not natural, because you're with the person.

But in terms of video, it's essential, because again, it frames it in.

And it also, I guess, it allows you to not use the interviewer's voice in the video, because a lot of times you don't want to hear the interviewer.

You just want to hear the subject.

But the interviewer's questions are obviously essential.

And I think in that process as well, a lot of people...

I like to, even before the first question of an interview, a lot of people have different techniques for this.

I've got my own, which is mine, which I don't know where it came from, but it's my one.

A lot of people will ask things like, what did you have for breakfast?

And what that does is it makes a person present.

They have to think, and they become present.

So suddenly they're becoming more present, and it's kind of getting them to feel comfortable.

I always found it uncomfortable, so I thought, well, if you really want to make someone uncomfortable, let's ask them something else.

I always ask people, tell me a joke, and it's kind of interesting, because most people have to really think about a joke, but they can't do it, and some people can.

I think the ratio is about 1 in 10 people can do it.

Really?

So how does that, for those that can't come up with a joke, do they get now, do they feel all of a sudden that they're not performing well, or does it just break the ice?

No, it begins a conversation with them where I can actually reflect on how many people have trouble to tell a joke, and it's an interesting thing, because I have the same, I can't remember jokes as well, but I can always sometimes just remember one or joke somebody that might have told me one, like there was some really funny ones that I've heard recently, and some ones that I probably can't repeat as well.

That's probably why most people don't do it, because they go, I kind of know this joke, but I'll screw it up.

What I find doing that is, if you're able to tell a joke, awesome, you're in the one in 10 category that can do it.

Slightly big whoop, but awesome.

You've told a joke, it feels good to tell the joke, and I have a good laugh, we have a good laugh.

And that creates an ease.

And if you can't tell a joke, ooh, I failed at my first thing.

Actually, no, you didn't.

Actually, nine out of 10 people can't do that.

It's so strange.

Why is that the case?

So we're able to discuss and think about the topic.

And like, so it creates this interesting thing, and it seems to work.

And I often find myself with a joke, which is really bizarre, whereas I've been in some serious interviews with people.

Like, owners of big companies or CEOs, straight shooters.

And I'm like, should I actually ask that or not?

Yes, the answer is yes.

Well, I always ask myself the question whether I should, and invariably I do it.

And it always seems to, I don't know why, but it just breaks that first layer of discomfort for some reason.

You mentioned eye contact, and that brought up something in my mind that I was going to ask you about, when you see interview techniques, and I don't want to sound too like industry, but you can go down the barrel or you can have the side interview discussion.

Do you have a preference or is there different techniques or different reasons to use those different techniques other than the output?

But how does that impact your approach to the interview?

That's more of a treatment question.

Right, but does it impact how you do interviews if you know there's a certain type of treatment expected?

It can to a degree.

An off-camera interview, which is more like cameras here, and I'm looking more, I'm sort of sitting next to the camera, and they're looking at me.

That's easier because I have natural eyesight, and we have natural distance.

Through the camera interview uses mirror systems.

I think they call them interrotrons, is one of the technical terms for that.

So the interrotron, I am talking through a mirror, and if the mirror system is average or not that good, it's a bit artificial.

Doesn't that affect sometimes people's ability to deliver a message if they feel like they're talking to a lens versus talking to a person?

Absolutely.

It makes a huge difference.

But it's not lens so much, it's even through a video calls, or an interotron, or a off-camera interview.

What I find is, and I think this actually goes through a lot of things in life, including meetings, business meetings, or job interviews, body language is really important.

So my body language as an interviewer is so critical for the interviewee.

So having body language is everything.

Now, when you use an interotron or a video call, you lose body language, you lose all that.

You still have expressions and facial cues, but you lose a lot of body language.

So answer your question, it does have an effect.

Is online interviewing, is it because of those dynamics, the fact that you don't have the rapport is easy, you don't have the body language, you don't have the natural human air?

Does it make interviewing more difficult, or does it offset by the fact that people are in a comfortable setting?

Do you notice any difference in the quality of outputs based on interviewing because of the technology?

I think it doesn't affect the interviewing for me.

It just affects the quality of answers or the quality of responses that you get.

So, when you're trying to get a specific story or soundbite, how do you balance guiding the conversation, saying we want you to say this, without being overly scripted as we're working on some projects now that have us, where always the balance is highly curated or highly directed kind of output versus an organic or spontaneous or raw?

So, how do you balance guiding a conversation without being too prescriptive?

You want time to build a connection with the person.

You want time to get to know them.

You want to be genuinely curious, genuinely curious, that's the key.

Really, if I had to give you one key thing, it would be like...

I actually am genuinely curious to talk to most people.

I think most people have interesting stories.

Everybody's got an interesting story if you think about it.

And if you want to break it down, who a person is, what they do, there's so many interesting things.

If you're genuinely curious and you give yourself that time to really learn who they are, then I think wherever you go after that is fine.

And you can sort of build that in.

So I think Runway for me is about building that connection, really genuine connection with somebody.

Because what you want to do is you want to build, in your responses, you want...

And I thought about this a bit more recently is, is I'm ultimately not going to use everything in the interview.

But what I do want is sentiment.

I want to capture sentiments.

The sentiment is everything, a genuine sentiment, with some sort of factual information that corresponds to the narrative that we're looking to create or the story that we're trying to tell or the communication that we're trying to get across.

As long as the sentiment and that communication come through, then you've achieved your objective.

And to create sentiment, you need to develop connections.

You need to be curious.

You need to be able to develop that connection with somebody to really get to know who they are, to be interested in what they do.

Or that's the key.

Yeah, which is related is listening.

And I would imagine what if I asked your wife the same question, are you a great listener?

Yeah, you do have to be a good listener, because it can be...

The worst mistake you can make in doing an interview with somebody is rushing to get to the point.

You just can't do it.

You can, but it almost become a vox pop if you did that.

Like you're just kind of losing it.

And I think sometimes if you need to find a response to something, normally there's more than one way into that.

And sometimes it's going back and looking at it from a different angle, or pulling on a thread and expanding on it, or reframing some sort of contextual information back into it.

And maybe if you've done that research and you knew something, you can sort of ask a question and springboard off that.

It's a fluid conversation based on genuine curiosity with an objective in mind.

There you go.

That's what I think interviewing kind of is, really.

Sounds good.

Hey, on that note, so I'm going to paint a scenario for you.

You've done all that prep work.

You've gotten the rapport.

Camera's on.

It's rolling.

The questions are flying.

You're following the plan.

So what happens if the subject still is not giving you enough?

And what I mean by that is maybe short, closed answers, yes, no answers, or it sounds like they're memorizing a slide, and they're rehearsing, and they're just coming off as robotic.

How do you...

What do you do to try to, I guess, salvage or fix, or I guess reframe that approach?

And generally, when it has happened, I haven't been able to recover it.

I've had to just be...

I've just had to be really just kind and considerate and understanding that the person is who they are there, and it's okay for them to be like, do not have that.

Like, if they can't do it, that's fine.

It's not an issue.

And the last thing I want them to feel is that they haven't done a good job, and that's that.

It's as simple as that.

So I would follow through with the interview, and I would find different ways of maybe trying to help them open up and try and make them more comfortable.

But if it's a real train wreck, you're just backing off.

But more often than not, most people are pretty good.

Yeah, so the irony is what is the very topic here, is that the more prep, the more setting the tone, the setting, establishing rapport, honest conversation, whether it's a joke or not early, mitigates the risk of a bad performance.

So preparation is everything, isn't it?

It is everything.

And one thing that came up recently with some projects, because the interviewees were VIPs with limited time, I was asked to sort of compromise on the approach.

And I found that that was the worst thing I could possibly do and I pushed back on it.

And I don't normally push back with clients, but I said, no.

Yeah, you know, like, well, no, they, you don't have to ask these and these questions.

I'm like, the reason I asked those questions is not that I'm going to use those answers.

Those answers are not going to, more often than not, that first 25% will never see the light of day.

Never.

You'll never use it.

The purpose of it is not for, is not for usage.

It's about helping them to feel comfortable and it's helping them to feel comfortable with what they're doing, where they are, and to open up.

For someone, just tips, basically, what are the habits or mindsets you'd recommend for people that are trying to improve their interviewing techniques?

So, knowing how long you've got is important, because then you can figure out how many questions you can ask, or how many ways you can ask it.

Longer form interviews, like a lot of podcasters do, really long form interviews, again, it's going to be very different.

It's going to be a very different approach.

Again, it all comes down to curiosity.

And curiosity is the most important thing.

So, you're dealing with this narrative structure, like it goes like that, but you need to have all this curiosity as well.

Like, oh, you did this, you did that.

Like, more often than not, I actually spend quite a bit more time in that.

And as initial questions, learning about somebody, and they tell me things, and I'm like, oh, wow, really?

And then we end up having a chat.

But what about sidebars?

And as you can imagine, there's two, as I'm thinking more like a, I guess, a corporate guy, but sometimes when you go on the sidebars, you lose track of your agenda, and therefore you run the risk of not getting to the meaty questions.

You got an interview guide, you'll always come back to it.

So you just trust your instincts and read the room in terms of where this interview is going, whether you need more warm up time or whether you're ready to jump right into the meat of it.

Yep.

So listening, genuine curiosity, genuine curiosity.

Honestly, if there was one thing you have to have for an interview, you have to have genuine curiosity.

Without it, it kind of falls apart.

Genuine versus non-genuine curiosity.

Is it just, how do you ensure, even if you are genuinely curious, how do you ensure that your curiosity comes through that way for the interviewee to feel that and then therefore be able to respond more openly to you?

I think it's intent, and intent's everything.

I can rock up to an interview and not feel like doing it.

I can rock up and not be in the mood.

I can rock up and not be switched on.

As soon as I sit in that seat, and that person's opening up to me, I'm in a different zone.

I'm thinking, I'm listening, and they have taken time, and I'm learning about them.

That's kind of all you need to know.

Everything switches from there.

It's a different story.

Like, I'm actually now learning.

It's hard to explain, but as soon as that person's talking to me, you're in the zone, and you're genuinely curious means you really want to know who they are.

You want to really want to know what they do.

You really want to know about their life, and if they're sharing and you're asking, that will happen and that will come across.

Genuine interests and what they have to say will then extract the very information you're fishing for for your content.

Pretty much, yeah, it will happen.

But the genuine, I think, is about really about getting them to really open up.

And I think the analogy that I was probably explaining where you don't feel like it, I think in terms of sports, since you talked baseball before, it'd be almost like, you know, setting, you know, heading up to the pitchers, to the pitchers mound or the batter's plate.

You know, once you're on, once you're in that zone, you're there.

You're just, you're there.

Yeah, and there's one other thing, like a technique that I think is important that I learned recently, or not recently, but I always have to remind myself of is when a person is talking and responding, resist the temptation to jump in.

Let them speak.

And if you think they're finishing, let there be a little awkward pause for the finish.

It's kind of interesting, but allowing a person the time to really finish and say what they're saying, because you sometimes want to jump in.

But sometimes if somebody is responding, just pause, don't bud in, and give it a good two seconds before or after they've finished talking, making sure that you don't cut people off.

As I just did there.

There's a point right there.

If you gave me that little bit of rope, I probably would have kept rambling.

And then there's probably some gold in that ramble.

That is an interesting point though, is at what point, and I wasn't planning to ask this, but made me think of it, is I think there is an art in figuring out when, because I think some people will continue to talk kind of mindlessly when they're nervous, and they would respond to what you, even your own words, was awkward silence.

An interviewee that's not as comfortable in camera may see that as classic, well, because I know it's a classic police interrogation trick.

They always tell you, and they do it in the court of law when you're being witness, is they basically want empty space, because when it's quiet, people feel the need to fill it, and that's when they spill stings that they should be talking about, whether being interrogated by the police, or whether they're being cross-examined by a lawyer.

It's a technique, it's a known interrogation technique.

So being comfortable with silence.

But I guess where I was going with that, it was kind of a monologue, but as an interviewee, you may not be in that mindset, and just might be getting nervous thinking, well, I'm not doing well in this interview, so I'm just going to keep spewing stuff, maybe I'll hit something, and in fact, could they be spiraling?

You can tell when somebody is in that situation, and if they are, it's really simple.

It's just go back to the guide and get them back into, you know, help them find where they need to be.

And you can tell when a person's rambling.

And that's really, that's not a nice word, actually.

I wouldn't say rambling.

You can tell when a person's off track or lost or not sure what to say.

You can tell.

And sometimes it's not that obvious to start with, but you can, you'll eventually go, okay, I need to give them some help.

So, and then you step in.

So, but that's where if you got your listening ears, and if you're genuinely curious, you'll pick up all that.

That's probably why interviewing might be hard for some people, because it's not necessarily the...

Some of those, some of those qualities that you need for it, maybe, maybe not everybody has those qualities.

Personally, because I don't do it a lot, and I'm doing it now, but when I do do it, I noticed there's always a conflict in me saying, sticking to the script and listening at the same time, because sometimes you're listening, but you are listening, but you're also listening to make sure that the messages are coming through for the end product.

But then that sometimes, I think, competes with my ability to really listen and to know and to really give it that, like you say, give it the runway and give it the patience for the real answers to come through, because you're kind of, you got two, at least I do, I get two frames of mine, the old make sure you get the answers because we have to deliver those messages versus make sure you do it in a way that's very comforting.

But if you've warmed up the subjects, then that's easy to go there.

Like, within ten minutes they're an old hat.

They know, they're comfortable.

They're like, oh yeah, yeah, whatever.

Yo, your camera, that light.

They don't even notice it anymore.

They're just in that space straight away.

That's why the warm up is everything.

And knowing your interview guide, knowing what you need, having it fresh, but not always, not always like needing to talk to verbatim, is important.

Because at all costs, you need to be conversational the whole time.

Seriously, on that note, do you, is there anything else you want to add, or that you don't think we covered?

I'd love to be able to figure out a more formulaic approach to it, because it's in there.

But there's two kind of layers to it.

So I don't know if that's come across well or not, but I think there is, there's person preparation, and then there's kind of like outcome preparation.

Well, that's kind of what I meant with my little question back at you, me interviewing.

That's where I feel I get the most, I don't want to say anxious, but when I'm concerned about the quality of the interview, I feel like it's a dichotomy, and maybe it's more art than science, and maybe that's the struggle.

Well, I think that's visually came to my mind just there when I was talking about outcome preparation, which is obviously what your goal is, your brief, and then person preparation.

And if you were to think about it, it's not two parallel lines, it's two sort of converging lines, which will come to that moment where you sit down with them and talk to them.

But really what you're doing is you're bringing those two things together like that.

And then if you do that preparation, well, that's what you'll get.

You'll get a very seamless connection between your outcome and your person, which is why making the person comfortable, making them feel valued, making them feel important, making them feel like what they've got to say is important.

Then honoring the outcome, which is, I need this, these, and these things to do what I need to do in this brief, but I don't need to rush that.

I can spend time to let these two converging lines like that, they come together, and they sort of mix up.

And if you mix them, if you try to go too hard and ignore the person, you'll get a very different result, guaranteed.

The convergence of the lines, I found very interesting when you said that, because that's, you basically paraphrased my dilemma.

And it was that essentially, which is I know there's a commercial path, but I know you have to personalize it to get that commercial path.

And I felt it was parallel to your point.

If you get those parallel lines to converge, then that's a good interview.

Where I think they converge is after those first two to three questions.

That's the point where they begin to twine like rope, which is why all that preparation work, and everything that comes to that is right at that point where it all sorts to like two strands of rope twining together and braiding.

Yeah, it's funny.

My instinct would have said a little later, maybe four or five.

For really, really good responses?

Yeah.

But the point, that's where the point hits right there.

And the only other thing I would say is the lead-ins, just try and work in the lead-ins as much as possible.

Lead-ins are really important for post, for editors, for post producers.

Lead-ins make the world a difference.

If you can get them in, perfect.

Framing the questions into your answers is important.

And just, it's naturally people can't do it, but it's something that you can try and work in as much as possible.

Yeah, definitely for, like you said, for video production, when you have a short duration, long form like this, you're obviously hearing the interviewer most of the time.

So it's less of an issue.

But you're right, when you're just extracting the key sound bites, there's no context.

Then you're creating another challenge for the post-production team.

That's a wrap on this episode of Cut Through.

If you liked it, hit subscribe.

And if you've got thoughts or questions, we'd love to hear from you.

See you next time.