Final answer:
The statement that audience analysis interviews must be conducted one-on-one and in person to be most accurate and valuable is false. While in-person interviews can be useful for capturing qualitative data, they are not always the most practical or truthful method. Technological advancements have introduced more effective means of conducting interviews that can offer flexibility and cost-effectiveness.
Step-by-step explanation:
To address the question of whether audience analysis interviews should be conducted one-on-one and in person to be most accurate and valuable, the statement can be seen as False. While face-to-face interviews can capture what people think and believe, they do not necessarily reveal how people behave in real life. Moreover, they can be time-consuming and expensive to conduct. Interviewing techniques have evolved with technology, and now interviews can be conducted by phone or through remote meetings, offering flexibility and greater reach. It should be noted, however, that for certain types of qualitative data where the non-verbal cues are vital, in-person interviews may be preferred. But it's not accurate to claim that this is the only way to conduct valuable audience analysis interviews.
While face-to-face interviews, such as exit polls and focus groups, used to be more prevalent, the rise of technology has allowed for other methods to become more common. In some circumstances, anonymity can lead to more honest responses, hence remote and anonymous methods can sometimes yield better data. Furthermore, in-person interviewing can lead to challenges in assessing truthfulness and might not be a good fit for every situation.
Finally, ethics in data collection are paramount, and it is crucial that data is never faked. Each method of interviewing has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of whether to conduct interviews one-on-one or in another format should be based on the specific goals and constraints of the research project.