Interviewing: Phone vs. Email

Lately I've been giving a lot of interviews for some magazine-type articles I've been working on. I give interviews both via email and over the phone. Both methods have their pros and cons.

Email interviewing: quick and easy, but not always painless.

The best thing about sending an email questionnaire is that it allows the interviewee to think about her answers, rather than having to think of a response off the top of her head in a phone interview. Some people can feel put on the spot when speaking in person, and might be more articulate in writing. In addition, you don't have to type hurriedly while listening to your interviewee talk--and then try to decipher your typing later. Some people swear by recording their interviewees, but I'm not sure how that works when you're using a cell phone.

There are a few problems with this method, however. Some people don't interview well in writing--they prefer to speak to someone in person. If the responses you get are a bit thin, you can't really draw the interviewee out during the interview--what you get is what you get. In addition, you can't adjust your questions as needed--so crucial questions might go unanswered.

Perhaps the worst problem with email interviewing, however, is that you have to trust the other person to get back to you with the responses within your period of time. The first time I did email interviews, this worked beautifully; all of my interviewees got back to me well within my due date. The second time, I had to interview five people--and every single one didn't send me responses. I wound up scrambling for sources at the last minute even though I had given myself plenty of time, and I had to do most of those last-minute interviews by phone anyway.

I've found that those who respond best to email interviews tend to have some incentive to be in your article: they want the publicity you can bring them. If you're interviewing ordinary people with no incentive to be in the article other than to see their name in print, they may forget or decide it's not worth the effort to respond.

Phone interviewing: the traditional method.

Phone interviews can go really well if you strike up chemistry with your interviewee; or it can be like pulling teeth to get your subject to talk. It's a lot like casual conversation in real life; some people you "click" with, and some you don't.

The best thing about phone interviews is that there's no waiting: you set a date and time with your interviewee, and you get it done. Unless, of course, the interviewee has to reschedule, or for some reason you can't reach him when you call at the appointed time and you have to play phone tag for a while. Sometimes these things happen no matter what method you use.

In an in-person interview, you can adjust your questions as you go, draw out less-talkative people, and generally work to get better responses if you're not getting what you need initially. The drawback is that the subject might not give the best answers possible off the top of his head, plus you'll have to listen and type at the same time unless you have some way of recording the interview.

Both methods have advantages and drawbacks. Perhaps the most effective method, however, is a blend between the two. Send your subject a list of your questions beforehand, so he can look them over and think about his answers. Then schedule a time to call and do a phone interview. This way, you can get the best from both methods.