Posts Tagged ‘sports’
Back in April, Jimmy Fallon had an amusing segment on The Tonight Show that showed just how quickly fans could turn on a brand—and how quickly they could be won back. When I watched the segment again this week, I realized that it had parallels to our online interactions.
The segment starred Robinson Cano, a baseball star who had played with the New York Yankees for nine seasons until signing a $240 million contract with the Seattle Mariners late last year.
To diehard Yankees fans, Cano is a traitor who abandoned his team in order to chase a giant paycheck. So when he came back to New York as a Mariner to play against his former team, the locals weren’t exactly happy to see him.
Fallon’s team set up a life-size cardboard box featuring Cano’s image and encouraged Yankees fans to boo him—but the fans didn’t expect the real-life Cano to pop out of the box. Trust me: this is hilarious.
Why did that happen? Why did so many fans boo Cano until he popped out of that box, at which point they wanted to shake his hand and hug him? And more to the point: Doesn’t the same thing happen on social media all the time?
I’ve often found that when people use harsh language to criticize something I’ve written, their tone softens when I engage with them. It’s easy to boo a cardboard box (to post a rant onto my Twitter feed or the comments section of my blog), but it’s harder to boo an actual person (me, when I offer a polite response to their criticism).
There are certainly times when this doesn’t work and a response will simply inflame your critics. But in The Media Training Bible, I mentioned a survey that contained some rather surprising results:
“According to a 2011 Harris Interactive study, unhappy customers quickly forgave companies that responded to them. Thirty-three percent of customers who left a negative review on a shopping website ended up posting a positive review after receiving a response, while another 34 percent deleted the original review.”
If you rarely interact with your critics, try it. You don’t have to engage people who are vulgar, who have engaged in name calling, or are clearly online trolls—but if the person seems reasonable enough, you might be happily surprised by your ability to turn them around as quickly as Robinson Cano did his naysayers.
Tags: blogging, Jimmy Fallon, New York Yankees, Robinson Cano, social media, sports, The Tonight Show
Posted in Social Media | 8 Comments »
Scroll down for two updates, including a rather jaw-dropping video.
Donald Sterling, the disgraced owner of the L.A. Clippers who was caught making racist remarks on audiotape last month, attempted to apologize during an interview with Anderson Cooper that will air on CNN tonight (excerpts have already been released).
Someone should tell Sterling that apologies are supposed to make things better, not worse.
Sterling, you might remember, instructed his girlfriend not to bring black people to his basketball games. “It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people,” the 80-year-old told his 31-year-old girlfriend. “Do you have to?”
I wouldn’t have advised Mr. Sterling to proceed with the interview in the first place. If he insisted, I would have made clear that he had only one main message: “I said some horrible things, I have some outdated beliefs, and I hurt a lot of people. I am deeply sorry to everyone who I hurt. I will spend every one of my remaining days on this earth trying to be a better man and do some good.”
Well, that would have been the sensible approach. Instead, Mr. Sterling dug an even deeper hole for himself, offering the worst high-profile public apology since Paula Deen. Here are a few things he did wrong:
1. He Played The Victim
Mr. Sterling blamed his ex-girlfriend for “baiting” him into making his comments: “I don’t know why the girl had me say those things.” Sorry to break it to you, Mr. Sterling, but she didn’t. She may have been laying a trap for you—but you voluntarily jumped into it and created a mess of your own making. If you don’t think racist thoughts, no trap can make you suddenly spout them.
2. He Offered a Conditional Apology
When asked whether he had apologized to Magic Johnson (Sterling had instructed his girlfriend not to bring him to basketball games), Sterling said, “If I said anything wrong, I’m sorry.” If? There’s no redemption without confession. He’s clueless.
3. He Attacked Magic Johnson…Again!
Out of everything in the interview excerpts, Sterling’s comments about a target of his original invective—Magic Johnson—was absolutely jaw-dropping: “Has he done everything he could to help minorities? I don’t think so…I just don’t think he is a good example for the children of Los Angeles.” What Mr. Sterling thinks he can gain by attacking a widely respected African American man is baffling. With those comments, Sterling reinforced his image as an out-of-touch man clinging to long-buried ideas.
4. He’s Aiming For The Wrong Audience
Sterling is right that the team owners will ultimately cast the vote that decides his fate: “The people who are going to decide my fate, I think, are not the media, not the player’s union, but the NBA [owners].” But he seems not to understand that their votes will be swayed, in large measure, by public and player sentiment. It’s probably too late to sway them anyway—but slighting critical stakeholders will only add 500 pounds to his already Herculean lift.
A JAW-DROPPING UPDATE: May 12, 2014, 8:42 p.m.
It turns out that CNN didn’t include the most jaw-dropping moment of the interview in the advance excerpts. Speaking about why he believed Magic Johnson isn’t a role model for kids, Donald Sterling said: “That he would go do what he did and get AIDS, I mean, come on.” (Remember: that was in 1991.)
Sterling’s dismissive sneering toward Magic Johnson didn’t end there. He blasted Johnson by saying, “He acts so holy. I mean, he made love to every girl in every city in America, and he has AIDS.” He culminated that rant by accusing Johnson of not doing enough to help the black community: “He doesn’t do anything.”
Sterling then said something incredibly inflammatory, claiming that Jews lend money to other Jews to develop businesses but that African Americans d0n’t do the same. “Jews, when they get successful, they will help their people. And some of the African Americans, maybe I’ll get in trouble again, they don’t want to help anybody.” (That was something he said voluntarily in an interview apologizing for racism!) To top things off, Sterling accused Anderson Cooper of being a bigger racist than he is.
In writing this blog for four years, I’ve never seen someone blow an apology this badly.
In being a professional media trainer for more than a decade, I’ve never seen someone blow an apology this badly.
There’s no amount of hyperbole that could overstate how awful this was. If Mr. Sterling thought this interview was going to rehabilitate him, he’s delusional.
UPDATE: May 12, 2014, 9:16 p.m.
I have a feeling that media trainers and crisis communications professionals will be dissecting this interview for years. But one other critical takeaway can be drawn now.
Sterling’s goal for this interview should have been to apologize sincerely and unreservedly to everyone he hurt. That’s it. There can be no forgiveness before contrition.
Instead, Sterling’s lack of discipline allowed personal animus to rule the day. Magic Johnson was tangential to this story. Yes, Donald Sterling said on tape that he didn’t want Magic Johnson coming to his games —but all Sterling had to do now was say, “That was a dumb thing to say, and I’m sorry.”
Sometimes people scoff at the idea of PR pros or attorneys sitting in with clients during these types of interviews. Sterling didn’t have one. Their value likely seems a lot clearer now.
What did you think of this interview? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Tags: crisis communications, Donald Sterling, LA Clippers, Magic Johnson, sports
Posted in Crisis Communications | 6 Comments »
Adam Silver, who became NBA commissioner just three months ago, was handed a major controversy when L.A. Clippers team owner Donald Sterling was caught on tape late last week making racist comments.
(You can catch up on the story here.)
When the tapes became public on Saturday, many people were quick to react. Players demanded Sterling’s exit from the league, fans expressed outrage, and sponsors canceled their contracts with the Clippers.
All eyes turned to the NBA commissioner, wondering how he would handle the situation. The commissioner pledged to take action swiftly—and he did. He worked quickly to authenticate the tapes and gain the support of other league owners.
And this afternoon, he banned Mr. Sterling from the NBA for life.
That may have seemed like an obvious decision to make, but it was more complicated than it appeared. For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban seemed to oppose a lifetime ban due to the “slippery slope” such a precedent would set. Other critics also wondered if the comments—which were made in private to a romantic partner—should have led to his removal as a team owner.
I understand those concerns, but I’ve been thoroughly impressed with the NBA’s handling of this incident. The League’s crisis management worked, and the NBA did almost everything right in terms of communicating with the press. The press conference itself was also handled well: A press handler, presumably an NBA staffer, selected the questioners and counted down when they would take only two more questions. Press conferences rarely run as smoothly.
I was particularly impressed by Silver’s reaction when a reporter asked him if he felt any special pain since he, like Sterling, is Jewish. I made a decision as a human being, Silver said, refusing to wallow in his personal feelings and make this incident about him.
Silver was handed a high-profile test that would determine whether or not he would establish himself as a leader. He passed with flying colors.
What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Tags: Adam Silver, crisis communications, Donald Sterling, LA Clippers, NBA, sports
Posted in Crisis Communications | 1 Comment »
Don’t bring black people to my basketball games.
That’s the message 80-year-old Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling allegedly delivered to his 20-something girlfriend on a tape that was leaked on the gossip website TMZ yesterday. Among other statements, the man on the tape, purportedly Sterling, says:
It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?”
“You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games.”
“Don’t put [NBA legend Magic Johnson] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don’t bring him to my games.”
I use the term “allegedly” because the tape hasn’t been formally authenticated as of this writing. But Sterling’s weak response, released to TMZ by the Clippers organization, suggests he’s guilty as charged:
“We have heard the tape on TMZ Sports. We do not know if it is legitimate or if it has been altered.”
The statement goes on … “We do know that the woman on the tape — who we believe released it to TMZ Sports — is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Sterling family, alleging that she embezzled more than $1.8 million, who told Mr. Sterling that she would ‘get even.’”
And the statement goes on, “Mr. Sterling is emphatic that what is reflected on that recording is not consistent with, nor does it reflect his views, beliefs or feelings. It is the antithesis of who he is, what he believes and how he has lived his life.”
And there’s this: “He feels terrible that such sentiments are being attributed to him and apologizes to anyone who might have been hurt by them.”
That’s not even close to a denial.
If he hadn’t uttered racist sentiments, it would have been easy to state that the tape was illegitimate. The only way the legitimacy of the tape could even be called into question is if it was possible that Sterling had uttered such statements. Sterling’s non-denial reminds me of Anthony Weiner’s ridiculous non-denial, in which he said he couldn’t say “with certitude” that a lewd tweet was of him in his underwear.
The organization’s attempt to question the motives of the leaker is even more pathetic given that it wasn’t accompanied by a strong denial. This is a mushy statement, bordering on a smear, that is unlikely to give an iota of comfort to even Sterling’s most ardent supporters.
In our media training courses, executives often ask how they can avoid being the victims of furtively taped conversations. My answer? You can’t. Your job is to avoid saying incendiary things that can be used against you, even in conversations you regard as private. In this case, Sterling may have been set up by his much younger girlfriend—but Sterling is solely to blame for the consequences, as no one forced him to share such racist views.
That leads to the cost of this mistake. Many people in the NBA are already calling for Sterling to lose his team. Given the NBA’s constitution, that may not be easy (a long suspension that essentially removes day-to-day control from Sterling may be more likely). But there are many other ways for Sterling to pay for this mistake—through fan boycotts, players who refuse to play for the Clippers, and diminished brand equity and reputation.
Assuming this tape will be authenticated, Sterling will have turned himself into a pariah who will go down in the annals of sports history alongside other infamous bigots including Marge Schott, Jimmy The Greek, and Al Campanis.
What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Tags: crisis communications, Donald Sterling, LA Clippers, sports
Posted in Crisis Communications | Please Comment »
Australian rugby player Andrew Fifita recently made a comment that cost him a four-year, $3.5 million contract ($3.2 million U.S.).
The 24-year-old announced that he would be changing teams, from the Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks to the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs. But before he even put on his new uniform, he expressed disloyalty to his new team. Here’s the story via news.com.au:
“On Friday he let slip in an interview that he wished he’d chosen rugby union [a different league] instead. Then yesterday, the Dogs effectively said fine, forget the whole deal.
Oh, the Bulldogs cited a bunch of legalese. But reading between the lines, they appeared to be saying “You’ve got no loyalty? Then we don’t want you.”
What caught my eye were comments made by his teammate, Paul Gallen, who offered this solution:
“I think he’s really going to have to be micromanaged, I really think they have to get him some kind of media training or something.”
The columnist agreed:
“Gallen is right. If Fifita doesn’t have any natural humility, he desperately needs a slick professional to drum it into him.”
Both Gallen and the unnamed columnist have a distorted view of media training.
A media trainer’s job is not to “drum” humility into someone. Good practitioners are not slick professionals who attempt to create personality traits where they do not exist (we can help people emphasize traits they do possess). Doing so would be doomed to failure, as the public can usually tell when someone is faking it.
We can only be successful when working with somewhat self-aware people who have a desire to change. If Fifita is not naturally humble, I would never try an approach intended to make him fake humility.
What would I do? I’d focus on helping him reduce the likelihood of a future “seven-second stray.” I would try to accomplish that by invoking his competitive spirit and analogizing his public comments to rugby. Every time he prevents himself from making a potentially controversial comment, he should award himself a point. Every time he makes one, he should view it as voluntarily allowing the other team to score.
That’s it. No drumming false humility into him. But by getting him to be as competitive with the use of his words as he is during play, it might serve the same purpose—he’d learn to bite his tongue more often, which might result in him genuinely appearing more humble. And it wouldn’t take a “slick” professional to help him do it.
That’s my take. What’s yours? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Tags: Andrew Fifita, media training analysis, media training disasters, sports
Posted in Media Training Disasters | Please Comment »
Many sports coaches hate it when their players “talk smack” about a team they’re about to play.
Those incendiary comments often serve as motivation for their opponents, who relish the chance to defeat the team that insulted them. Some opposing coaches even post the quote in the locker room to help rally their players.
So it caught my eye yesterday when one of my tweeps, @adam_myrick, tweeted this out:
The Associated Press story he links to is about Ohio State wide receiver Evan Spencer, who got into trouble with his coach this week for trash talking his opponents. As the AP reports:
“Coach Urban Meyer said Tuesday that Spencer wouldn’t speak with the media for ‘a long, long time’ after saying a day earlier that Ohio State would ‘wipe the field’ with Alabama and whoever is No. 2 in the Bowl Championship Series rankings.
‘I guess I’m a little biased, but I think we’d, uh, we’d wipe the field with both of them,’ Spencer said, chuckling.”
To the AP’s credit, they reported the full context of Spencer’s comments:
“It was a statement that Spencer…concluded with a laugh. It was clear he was half-joking. But sarcasm, humor and nuance seldom can be sensed between the lines of cold, hard print or on a monitor or screen.”
Many news organizations wouldn’t have done Spencer the favor of writing that he had been half-joking. They would have just included his comments verbatim without mentioning the humorous context in which he made them.
And that’s the problem with humor. Without the context, comments intended as humorous, silly, or ironic can be portrayed literally—and often are.
You might wonder whether you can afford to make more humorous comments during a live radio or television interview, since the audience will see your full exchange and be able to discern your meaning in its proper context. That’s safer, yes, but it’s still not entirely safe. That’s because your comments may later be transcribed by the wires, blogs, and newspapers—and the “proper” context may not be reflected in their stories about your interview.
With all of that, you may reasonably conclude that I’m advising you never to be humorous during a media interview. But that’s not quite it. It’s not that you can’t be humorous at all, but rather that your humor must reflect your actual, literal meaning.
If your humor, when transcribed, says exactly what you mean and can’t be interpreted in a harmful manner, you’re probably on safe ground.
Tags: Evan Spencer, humor, media training tips, sports, Urban Meyer
Posted in Media Training Tips | Please Comment »
Imagine a professional sports team called the “Newark Negroes.” If the year was 1913, that name might make historical sense. But if they were still playing in 2013? It’s actually unfathomable—it couldn’t happen, and it wouldn’t be tolerated by American society.
And yet, each week, fans gather at FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland to cheer on their hometown Washington Redskins—a name that many consider just as offensive.
If you’re not familiar with the historical baggage carried by the term “Redskins,” here’s how Josh Katzenstein of The Detroit News summarized it:
“In 1755, when the United States was just 13 colonies, Spencer Phips, lieutenant governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, called for British settlers to kill Native Americans who resisted.
Instead of bringing the bodies of the Penobscot Indian Nation — who lived in what is now Maine — as proof of the slaying, settlers could return instead with scalps of the men, women and children they attacked, and those “red skins” earned them as much as 50 pounds.”
A poll of Washington, D.C.-area residents conducted by The Washington Post in July (margin of error 4.5 percent) found that only 28 percent of respondents thought the team should change its name. But interestingly, 56 percent of people acknowledged that the term was offensive to Native Americans, and 88 percent of people said a name change would have no impact—or a positive impact—on their support for the team.
That suggests that most people know it’s an offensive name but are reluctant to change it due to their own, positive associations with the team. I can understand that. I grew up in Maryland and rooted for my hometown ‘Skins for many years. Changing the name would feel, in part, like it would partially erase my fond memories of Sundays in the stands at the old RFK Stadium.
Nonetheless, it’s still the right thing to do.
This issue is quickly becoming a big crisis for the team. Earlier this month, Sports Illustrated columnist Peter King said:
“I’ve decided to stop using the Washington team nickname. It’s a name you won’t see me use anymore. The simple reason is that for the last two or three years, I’ve been uneasy when I sat down to write about the team and had to use the nickname…Some people, and some Native American organizations…think the nickname is a slur…I can do my job without using it, and I will.”
Mr. King isn’t alone. According to the BBC, at least five news organizations refuse to use the word “Redskins” in their reporting: The Washington City Paper, the Kansas City Star, Slate, New Republic, and Mother Jones. And certain reporters at USA Today, the Philadelphia Daily News, Buffalo News, and The Washington Post also refuse to use it.
For his part, Redskins Washington NFL franchise owner Daniel Snyder says he will never change the team’s name. Never.
In fairness to Snyder, changing the team’s name could cost the team many millions of dollars. The “Redskins” brand name took decades to build, and changing it could compromise some of its brand equity. But the question is at what point that business loss becomes the less expensive of the two options. If reporters increasingly refuse to use the team’s name, the name “Redskins” would surely lose some of its brand equity anyway. And if the name becomes more stigmatized, you might find fewer fans buying Redskins memorabilia for themselves and their kids.
There’s a good precedent here, and it also comes from Washington, D.C. sports. In 1995, the owner of the Washington Bullets basketball team, Abe Pollin, decided to change the team’s violent-sounding name—a name change he thought appropriate since Washington, D.C. had such a high crime rate.
Pollin ran a contest and allowed fans to decide the new name; fans renamed the team the “Washington Wizards.” If public sentiment continues moving swiftly against Dan Snyder’s Redskins, he might consider using a similarly fan-based approach to rename his team.
Please leave any additional thoughts in the comments section below.
Photo Credit: Keith Allison, Wikimedia Commons
Tags: Daniel Snyder, nfl, Public Relations, race, sports, Washington Redskins
Posted in Crisis Communications | 6 Comments »
New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick is no stranger to challenging media situations.
In recent years, he’s had to address his team’s notorious participation in the 2007 “Spygate” scandal, welcome the potentially distracting Tim Tebow to his roster, and, most recently, deal with player Aaron Hernandez, who was charged with first-degree murder earlier this summer.
Belichick’s “be boring” approach is evident in his press conference about the Aaron Hernandez murder charges. (Questions begin at the 7:15 mark.)
Since you’re probably not a football coach, here’s a question of greater relevance for you: Should you ever “be boring” on purpose? Is “nice and dull” a winning media relations strategy?
If you’ve read The Media Training Bible, you know that I generally propose being an engaging media spokesperson who delivers sound bites reporters love and the public remembers. Doing so not only helps to build your brand, but keeps you high on a reporter’s list of sources to call; if you can deliver a great interview, reporters know they’ll get what they need from you and keep calling.
But as Belichick’s press conference points out, there are times you want your presence in a story to be minimized. (Here are four ways to minimize or kill a news story.)
For the purposes of this article, I’m referring to message discipline and “being boring” as two different things. (After all, you can still deliver a memorable media sound bite while being on message.)
Below are three examples of when “being boring” might work.
1. You agree to an interview about a topic you’d prefer not receive a lot of attention.
If you deliver a great media sound bite, that very well may become the headline—which would only serve to magnify the story and make it more memorable. Using purposefully uninteresting language would serve up little to make the story bigger.
2. You’re a politician who is a part of a negative story along with three other politicians of equal rank.
You know that the other three politicians are also speaking to the reporter. If you’re purposefully boring, odds are the reporter will give more ink to one of your other three political peers, one of whom will presumably say something more interesting. The same principle applies if you’re talking about business competitors or a controversy involving three other not-for-profit groups.
3. You work in an unpopular industry.
Some of our clients work in controversial industries. They prefer to do their work under the radar—not because they’re engaged in a nefarious effort, but because the media and/or the public too often misunderstand or mischaracterize the nature of their work. Still, there are times they must speak on the record, and being boring is a great way to help keep the story less dramatic.
In closing, though, I’d advise most clients in most situations not to engage in the “be boring” strategy. For most of us, our goal is to build our brands and reinforce our reputations. And developing positive long-term relationships with reporters and delivering media-friendly responses is usually the best way to accomplish that.
A grateful hat tip to @PatrickCoffee of PRNewser.
Can you think of other situations when the “be boring” strategy might be helpful? Have you ever used it? Please leave your thoughts and experiences in the comments section below.
Tags: advanced media training technique, Bill Belichick, New England Patriots, sports
Posted in Media Training Tips | Please Comment »