Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Schoolgirl v Schoolboy Behaviour

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

When allegations of schoolgirl misbehavior surfaced earlier this year, the St Kilda football club successfully swept it under the carpet. And for good reason. The words “footballers” and “schoolgirl” in the same sentence spells PR disaster.

If we are to believe the club, then they did everything to put this saga to bed. Even the AFL stepped in to hold discussions with the young girl. But it’s now plainly obviously that whatever she wanted (money, fame, respect, an apology), she didn’t get hence her damaging actions this week.

It’s difficult to comment on a story where fact and fiction blur and she said this, he said that. For those involved, it’s personal and its ugly but not avoidable. And that’s the lesson for other sportspeople.

The best way to stay out of trouble is to not get into trouble in the first place. That means not getting involved with a teenager still at school and not posing for silly photos. Simple stuff really. From all reports Nick Riewoldt is a fantastic guy and so it’s difficult to see him caught up in this scandal but you have to ask the question, why?

Can you imagine someone like Roger Federer allowing himself to be photographed naked or in compromising position? Of course not. Some sportspeople are just to classy, even in private.

We can debate the mental health of the young girl. We can debate the privacy laws. But perhaps we should be focusing on the main issue here, the behavior of some individuals, especially footballers who continue to shoot themselves in the foot with downright stupid behavior.

The Michael Phelps photo scandal in 2009 taught sportspeople to watch their behavior in public, everyone has a mobile phone that can take photos.

Then came the Tiger Woods scandal which taught sportspeople to watch their behavior….. full stop.

Apparently some footballers didn’t get the memo.

How Online Newspapers Can Win

Monday, November 15th, 2010

The Australian featured an article today about the issue of paying for your print news online.

It’s a delicate discussion and one that I don’t have all the answers for. But I can at least provide some food for thought.

The big question newspapers want answered is: How do you get people to pay for something they already get for free?

The answer is, you can’t. That is unless you have exclusive content that none of your competitors have.

For years people watched TV for free and still do. But there was a day when the thought of paying for TV seemed ludicrous. Yet, cable television is now a global phenomena. Why? It has content no one else has and so people are happy to pay.

Can newspapers learn something from TV? Perhaps.

The question shouldn’t be “how do we get people to pay for our content?” Rather it should be “how do we make our content so exclusive that people have no choice but want to pay for it?”

Print is dying and re-emerging via apps on tablet computers. Therein lies a great opportunity to use amazing technology to enhance the readers experience.

Just like cable TV buys a hit show or sporting rights, online newspapers might think about buying great content. And content isn’t just words. It’s photos, video, games, social networking and other interactive entertainment.

I’m talking about unique B2B relationships that strengthen the appeal of an online newspaper. The kind of B2B relationships that give an online newspaper an advantage over news sites who only offer news.

Something to think about huh.

Celebrity Endorsement, Is It Worth It?

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010

Do Celebrity Endorsements Still Push Product? That question was asked and answered by Advertising Age.

Using a celebrity to sell your product is riskier than ever. However, as long as the potential reward outweighs the potential risk, brands (and consumers) will continue to buy into the world of celebrity endorsement.

And why not. A lot of brands look at celebrity endorsement as a win win situation. Three benefits of using a celebrity to spruik your product include:

  • You don’t always require the best or most creative advertising to stand out (Ricky Ponting and Swiss Vitamins)
  • It doesn’t always matter if the endorsement makes sense, it still gets publicity (Libby Trickett and KFC)
  • If the celebrity misbehaves, the brand gets a get out of jail free card without losing its credibility (Stephanie Rice and Jaguar)

Of course, there are pitfalls to the celebrity game. If your ambassador does misbehave, this can disrupt a 2-3 marketing plan. When the sponsorship takes a hit, so does all the marketing and media plans around that endorsement. A lot of hard work down the drain and you’re back to square one.

Further to that, celebrities really do resonate with consumers, so once you’ve gone down that road, its hard to shake the association. Yep, some people still associate VB Beer with David Boon for example.

So like any business decision, brands need to weigh up the reward verse risk. But right now, the reward still trumps the risk.

THICK SKINNED

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

It’s hard to ignore the slanging match going on between former Socceroo Robbie Slater and current Socceroo Harry Kewell.

Kewell has copped his fair share of media punishment over the years. And given the player’s frustration with Australia’s performance and his own subsequent non selection at the 2010 FIFA World Cup, I can understand him wanting to take on Slater.

But I would discourage athletes from going down the same path. Lashing out at journalists nearly always ends in tears. Here’s why:

1. Reacting (especially in public) only fuels the fire of a story you don’t want out there. Some fly away comments from Slater on PayTV are now backpage headlines because of Kewell’s response.

2. You’re only doing the journo a favour. Journalist’s love publicity because it raises their own profile and makes them more valuable within media circles.

3. Yes the media often get it wrong. But the public goes on the belief that where there is smoke, there is fire. Don’t let that smoke develop into fire (see point one).

4. Creating enemies in the media isn’t fun. They and the organisation they work for, will knock you at every opportunity. Who wants that?

Finally, if you fight a journalist on one front, where do you stop? Do you go on a personal vendetta against every journo that writes something bad about you? This is incredibly taxing and affects sporting performance.

It pays to have a thick skin, especially when it comes to the media.

Risky Business

Friday, March 5th, 2010

It’s hard to ignore the Brendan Fevola / Lara Bingle saga. It’s been dominating the headlines this week. And with little wonder. News editors go to bed at night dreaming for stories like this one.

Some people are curious about the timing of this story, given celebrity publicist Max Markson only signed Lara Bingle a week ago. It’s ridiculous to think Markson had anything to do with this story. But the whole thing does tick a few boxes from his perspective.

Firstly it gets Bingle in the news, increasing her public profile and reinforcing her celebrity status (not that she does anything, but it doesn’t matter in this day in age, plenty of people earn a buck from simply being famous). Markson knows out of sight = out of mind.

Secondly, the story rightly portrays Bingle as the victim. The victim card is incredible powerful with the Australian public. Most people don’t have a lot of empathy for Bingle. Rightly or wrongly she is regarded as a home wrecker and a spoilt princess. This story rightly allows her the victim card and that can go a long way to repairing her image.

Thirdly, it opens up a bidding war for Bingle to tell her story, cha ching.

These are all good results for Bingle’s manager. If earning a buck is a manager’s sole goal (which often it can be) then Markson is winning, winning ugly.

Chasing the quick buck is easy. However, turning a client’s brand around to attract quality sponsors is a totally different ball game. It will be interesting to see which game manager and client decide to play moving forward.

Crossroads

Monday, February 15th, 2010
“A lot of people think I’m cocky, and I think cocky can be cute. Being arrogant is totally different. I’ve learned that now. If cocky is when, before someone throws you a pitch, you think you’re gonna hit it, then yeah, I’m cocky. Arrogance is talking about it in the dugout all day.” – John Mayer

Mayer should heed his own advice. Because “talking about it in the dugout” is exactly what has caused the singer his latest media crisis; an explosive tell all interview courtesy of Playboy magazine. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/1011527/myer-apologises-breaks-down-on-stage
Mayer’s interview is filled with explosive quotes for the tabloids but the real question is why on earth was Mayer in talks with Playboy in the first place?
Everyone knows Mayer has a history of kiss and tell. Sitting down with Playboy magazine was always going to lead to trouble.
Ok I get it. Mayer has an album to promote. His record agency appoint a PR firm (external or internal) to put the bait out – John is available to talk about his new album, who’s interested? Playboy put their hand up. The rest is history.
When a PR company go all out in the pursuit of publicity they go for quantity not necessarily quality. You see, PR agencies are judged by how many times a logo appears or a word is mentioned. It’s hard to knock back media requests when publicity alone is the goal.
This can lead to some dangerous traps for celebrities. It gives certain media access to your client, media you otherwise would never consider.
It’s difficult to avoid such PR plans by sponsors, so you’ve got to rely on solid media training for your client.
If was preparing John Mayer for an interview with Playboy I would have said “Now John, the magazine is likely to bring up A, B, C. Ideally they want you to talk about X, Y, Z. What I want you to do is stick with 1, 2, 3. If you can’t do that, then I’ll kick your ass. Got it?”
You can’t always hide from sections of the media, one day you’ll come face to face so it’s best to be prepared.

“A lot of people think I’m cocky, and I think cocky can be cute. Being arrogant is totally different. I’ve learned that now. If cocky is when, before someone throws you a pitch, you think you’re gonna hit it, then yeah, I’m cocky. Arrogance is talking about it in the dugout all day.” – John Mayer

Mayer should heed his own advice. Because “talking about it in the dugout” is exactly what has caused the singer his latest media crisis; an explosive tell all interview courtesy of Playboy magazine.

Mayer’s interview is filled with explosive quotes for the tabloids but the real question is why on earth was Mayer in talks with Playboy in the first place?

Everyone knows Mayer has a history of kiss and tell. Sitting down with Playboy magazine was always going to lead to trouble.

Ok I get it. Mayer has an album to promote. His record agency appoint a PR firm (external or internal) to put the bait out – John is available to talk about his new album, who’s interested? Playboy put their hand up. The rest is history.

When a PR company go all out in the pursuit of publicity they go for quantity not necessarily quality. You see, PR agencies are judged by how many times a logo appears or a word is mentioned. It’s hard to knock back media requests when publicity alone is the goal.

As a manager, this can lead to some dangerous traps for your celebrity clients. It gives certain people or publications access to your client, media you would otherwise never consider.

It’s difficult to avoid these situations, so you’ve got to rely on solid media training for your client.

If was preparing John Mayer for an interview with Playboy I would have said “Now John, the magazine is likely to bring up A, B, C. I don’t want you talking about A, B, C. I want you to stick with X, Y, Z. If you can’t do that, then I’ll kick your ass. Got it?”

You can’t always hide from sections of the media, one day you’ll come face to face so it’s best to be prepared.

Wiki-fied

Thursday, February 4th, 2010
I’m surprised with this week’s attack on celebrity agent Max Markson over his attempt to edit a client’s profile on Wikipedia.
“I changed and deleted a lot of things that I didn’t like, being the good spin doctor and manager that I am,” Markson said.
The attacks have come from people who don’t have wiki profiles, who don’t understand what it’s like to have an online profile edited and maintained by strangers. Imagine that for a second. I’m betting these people would be on wiki editing their profiles quicker than you can type QWERTY.
It’s easy to criticise Markson, but I’m pretty sure you’d want him to do the same if he was your manager.
I’ve long monitored the wiki profiles of my clients. As a manager, I can’t always control what the newspapers or magazines say, but I can control wiki so of course I’m going to use that to my client’s advantage.
C’mon you do the same.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/the-internets-in-a-spin-over-naomi-robson/story-e6frewz0-1225826502872

I’m surprised with this week’s attack on celebrity agent Max Markson over his attempt to edit a client’s profile on Wikipedia.

“I changed and deleted a lot of things that I didn’t like, being the good spin doctor and manager that I am,” Markson said.

The attacks have come from people who don’t have wiki profiles, who don’t understand what it’s like to have an online profile edited and maintained by strangers. Imagine that for a second. I’m betting these people would be on wiki editing their profiles quicker than you can type QWERTY.

It’s easy to criticise Markson, but I’m pretty sure you’d want him to do the same if he was your manager.

I’ve long monitored the wiki profiles of my clients. As a manager, I can’t always control what the newspapers or magazines say, but I can control Wiki so of course I’m going to use that to my client’s advantage.

That aside, Markson is laughing right now. All this free PR for his clients online web-based program, The Naomi Show – LoveLife, before it launches. Brilliant.

Tiger Woods’ Big Lesson

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Does everyone have a right to their own privacy? Absolutely but the game changes when you’re in the spotlight.

I’m not going to excuse the behaviour of Tiger Woods. His transgressions are morally and ethically wrong. But is it really our business?

The public have this week reconfirmed their insatiable appetite for drama and scandal involving high profile people.

The wake up call for Tiger and every high profile athlete around the world is obvious. The lines between athlete and celebrity are blurred and have been for a while now. These days people are not only interested in how you perform your talent, but they are interested in how you live your life.

Sometimes this sucks, but its reality.

One prominent Australian who can probably relate to what Tiger Woods is going through is former NRL player and media personality Matthew Johns. Earlier this year, Johns was hammered in the Australian media for an incident that happened years ago. By the time the public put their swords away, the common feeling towards Johns was one of remorse. Looking back, the majority of people thought he was hard done by. Yes the same people who at the time poured petrol on the media’s fire.

The media know the public are gagging for these kind of scandals. So from now on, they’re not going to sit around and wait for someone to kiss and tell. They’re going to chase it. And chase it hard.

Athletes beware. Your private life is someone else’s gateway to a big pay day. Michael Phelps learnt that last year and now its Tiger’s turn.

Will Tiger Woods Lose Any Sponsors Over This Latest Incident?

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

There has been a lot of talk about whether Tiger Woods will lose any sponsors over his bizarre accident.

At the moment he won’t. And nor should he. Right now, these rumours about his personal life are just that, rumours only until proven otherwise.

In any case, its not always easy for a sponsor to walk away from a contract. They have to execute an escape clause which usually involves the athlete bringing the sponsor into disrepute.

So what are the common escape clauses in personal endorsements? Here are the major ones.

  • Being charged or convicted of a crime.
  • A positive test to drugs.
  • Breaking the laws of the sporting body (in this case the PGA).
  • Engaging in conduct that is obscene, indecent, immoral or unprofessional.
  • Doing anything that restricts the ability of the brand to promote the athlete or diminishes the commercial benefits provided to the sponsor.
  • Becoming of unsound mind therefore unable to fulfil sponsorship duties.
  • Not maintaining your elitist position in your sport eg. losing your PGA Tour card.

There are a myriad of others clauses but these are the most common in any contract.

If you know anything about legal contracts, the aim of the game is to make things so black and white in writing that there can be no dispute about a breach.

Tiger would have a strong case against any sponsor who wanted to pull the plug over this news story. There are simply too many grey areas for a sponsor to successfully argue a breach.

Retrospect

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

Australian cricketer Mitchell Johnson has revealed that personal dramas led to his Ashes meltdown.

At the time, I knew this was the case. Having worked with elite athletes I know that personal issues affect performance more than the public can ever imagine. Especially when those personal issues are played out in the media.

Some athletes can block it out. Some simply cannot. For Johnson, this was the first time his personal life was put in the spotlight. Not only that, he was in the middle of an Ashes Series in England where the tabloids a ruthless and the crowds spiteful. He was always going to struggle.

As a sports manager the best thing you can do for an athlete in this situation, is minimise the longevity of the issue in the media. You need to put the issue to rest and avoid anything that may prolong debate. And I don’t mean hiding under the covers. You need to give the media something to chew. It can be as simple as saying “this is the situation or facts” and “this is my position” and “this is how I’m going to handle it” and “I don’t have anything else to say until I take the next step.”

The media will respect this and treat the athlete a lot better than if they were to hide in the corner.

Minimising the longevity of the issue helps but it’s an external solution to what is an internal issue for the athlete. That’s where mentors come in.

Having one’s personal life thrown into the spotlight is nothing new. There are millions of people who have gone through the same experience. People who have survived and come out the other side. Your job as a manager is to find these people and ask one to speak with your athlete. A simple phonecall can make the world of difference.

When faced with a personal problem, people get so focussed on themselves that they feel like nobody can relate to them and what they are going through. Wrong. There are people out who have gone through the exact same thing and they are only too happy to offer their advice.

If you look at another cricketer Michael Clarke, he has Shane Warne as a mentor. Warne has dealt with fame for a long time and can duly offer sound advice to a younger Clarke in that area. A manager can only wear so many hats, sometimes a manager must seek mentors for an athlete. People that can better relate to what an athlete is going through.