If you were ask athletic officials at Syracuse or Penn State a couple of months ago whether they would need to have a comprehensive crisis communications plan in effect, the answer would likely be what we hear from a number of other rival schools.
 
  "No, it isn't going to happen to us and we have an in-house staff."

   The two unfortunate incidents at both major schools highlights the need to be prepared for a media frenzy that often times occurs in the 24-hour news cycle, fueled by blogs and accented by the internet.

   When we conduct communications/social media training sessions around the country, we always offer to include a concise plan in the event of a crisis. Some of the schools wisely include that in the program; others say it won't happen to them.

   To use a golf metaphor, it's always good to have that extra club in your bag. Developing a well thought out, easy to understand plan for dealing with the media is a necessary element in any professional or college program's must do list.

   As seen in both the Syracuse and PSU cases, common mistakes in dealing with issues arise quickly and deteriorate rapidly:

  --Failure to have one spokesman for the program. Too many different people offering often conflicting opinions and theories.
  --Addressing rumors and innuendo, giving more credence to  unsubstantiated
charges.
 --Making generalized statements at the beginning that often come back to haunt an individual, team or program.
 --Offering the dreaded "no comment" to requests from both social, new and traditional media, giving the appearance there is more there than exists and providing a window for reporters to dig deeper.
  --Misunderstanding the audience, failing to reach past the media toward fans, supporters, alumni and sponsors.

   There is more to preparedness than learning how to "tweet" or adapting PR firm "buzzwords" and "catch phrases" out of a manual. Active engagement and getting your staff, coaches and student-athletes prepared ahead of time in the event of an issue is what smart programs do.

  Conduct these sessions during times when coaches and staffs aren't the busiest. Don't make it optional; mandate they take one hour out of their schedules to attend. A game plan, phone call to a recruit or time in the weight room can take a back seat for 60 minutes.

   Just ask the Orangemen or Nittany Lions if they wish they had prepared better.
www.speakingspecialists.com

There has been an increasing trend toward athletes, mostly professional and mostly NFLers, who have gotten into trouble with their postings on Twitter.

 Let us say up front that Twitter is more a fascination with celebrities and the media that it is with the general public. It is also our clear belief that Facebook, with more than 10 times the members, is the bigger preference (and potential source for problems) among athletes on the college level with whom we conduct speaker training. Media members, particularly print, have gone to Twitter as a source to try to salvage reader interests; celebrities do it because their PR reps tell them to and they have an amazing amount of free time on their hands. Local TV anchors drone on about posts from followers to try to show they are contemporary and want to generate ratings. Syndicated Hollywood programs go on about famous people posts as if they were communiques from the White House.

 Frankly, we don't care what Ashton Kutcher's views on domestic oil drilling are or whether Shaquille O'Neal likes jelly or syrup on his pancakes.

 Of a more serious issue is the right of athletes to post controversial comments and belief in the short window Twitter allows. The NFL players who have posted views on everything from Bin Laden's death to the status of talks in the ongoing labor dispute have claimed they have the right under the First Amendment to post anything they want and shouldn't be criticized for it. They also all tend to post some ridiculous comments -- the media sweeps in and reports on them -- and then they usually backtrack in a subsequent tweet to tone down their original posts or use the dreaded "I was just kidding."

  We always teach in our sessions that posting on social media should be viewed the same way as talking to a reporter. Your audience isn't just your fans -- Twitter preaches you can bypass the reporter and reach out directly to your base -- it is the media and your boss. Some athletes who take the Twitter route do so because they are just plain "chicken." They post things in private they wouldn't have the guts to say to a real reporter. Then they hide in the cloak of the First Amendment as a shield from criticism. There is no issue that free speech allows you to make a complete idiot of yourself at any time or any place.

 But the plain facts are these: if you post something controversial you aren't just representing yourself you are representing your franchise.Being an athlete doesn't exclude you from this fact. If a player say from the Jacksonville Jaguars posts some knuckle head comment, the public will view it coming not just from that athlete but from the organization. We try to hammer this home in our professional and collegiate sports sessions -- mostly after inhouse people have told them the same thing and we re-enforce this critical message.

   If an employee at IBM or Wendy's posts something stupid on their account, they face reprimands, discipline or even dismissal. That is the way it is in today's corporate culture. So it should be for athletes at a a university or pro team.

   We aren't saying athletes shouldn't have beliefs; quite the contrary. Athletes should have a conscience, a soul and an opinion. But they should have to temper their public postings the way the rest of America does; if they feel so strongly on a subject they are willing to risk the scorn of the public and equally as important the wrath of management, fine. Just understand that Twitter, Facebook or the other emerging social media sites aren't private. Our advice is also think before you post, email or text. Remember once you hit send it's out in cyberspace forever.

 The continuing labor problems of the National Football League won't stop the draft this week and most likely won't affect the start of the regular season, assuming cooler heads and mediators prevail.

  Draftees and free agents will still be physically ready for the grind of a 16-game (and in the future a likely 18-game) season. What they will miss is the necessary training for the rigors of dealing with the media on a daily basis.

   We have conducted social media and communications training for the NFL for the past 15 years, including sessions for head  and assistant coaches. Unless the lockout ends before the start of training camp, these and other preparatory sessions NFL clubs offer (violence prevention, gambling issues, etc) may become casualties for this upcoming campaign.

  Incoming players, even from some of the top programs, often think that four years of dealing with reporters makes them ready to deal what they are going to face in the NFL. When we return to clubs each year, many of them come up to us and say how much new they learned and how it brushed away their initial skepticism: dealing with the NFL media is a different universe than in college. You will see how many of even the elite need additional help after the endless rounds of NFL draft coverage that begin on Thursday. It is often a smorgasbord of cliches and uncomfortable repartee.

   On the college level, football players are often screened from the really tough questions. They also have limited availability and should a coach, media relations director or individual not want to talk on a certain day, that's fine. They don't have to.

   Quite a different story in the pros. The scramble for quotes and sound bites starts from the moment they are drafted, right through mini-camps and pre-season practices and of course during the regular season. Blew a tackle, lined up in the wrong coverage, fumbled a kick off? There is no hiding or electing not to talk.

   Throw in the increased scrutiny from social media and new media sites such as Facebook and the hundreds of bloggers out there and new NFL hopefuls find themselves in a fishbowl existence way beyond any college experience.

   Communications' training is a vital link to the adjustment into the pros; you just can't throw a 10-minute power point session together or ask a beat reporter to come in and talk to them. That's like inviting the wolf into the hen house. Unfortunately, unless something is settled soon, many of the newer players won't have that education in their arsenal.

   Bengals' coach Marvin Lewis told us before our training session with the Cincinnati Bengals last summer that communications' skills in the days of 21st century media is essential is all parts of NFL life. That is why he mandated his entire team go through a program during the pre-season just as they did would conditioning or tackling drills.  It is a message that is important not only for other NFL and professional franchises but college programs alike. You wouldn't bring in someone without a medical degree to talk to them about proper physical training nor would you bring in a first-year law student to warn them about the complexities of the legal system. The same is true for dealing with today's new and social media.

  Let's hope the contest moves out of the courtroom into the bargaining table and a settlement is reached soon!

Twenty years ago it would have seem laughable. Ten years ago extremely unlikely. Five years ago, an outside chance. But there it was in the aftermath of the NFC championship game in the chilly Soldier Field locker room -- reporters asking questions to a player about Twitter posts.

  Quarterback Jay Cutler's exit -- some say surprising, others say justified -- from the 21-14 loss to the Green Bay Packers was due to a knee injury. But when he was seen walking on the sidelines in the second half of the game, it was just too much for some former and current NFL players to take. Some went on twitter to question Cutler's toughness; one (a part-time ESPN analyst) ripped Cutler for not hobbling out to finish the game. Of course, fans went to Facebook and Twitter to voice their displeasure -- that is their right and has become a rite of passage in a world of social media -- but the players' posts were a bit surprising.

  More surprising was the fact that reporters who had read the posts asked for reaction -- from Cutler, Coach Lovie Smith and other players.

  First and most obvious was what did these reporters expect in the way of answers. From Cutler's no comment (we teach not ever to say that, a more appropriate response was to ignore it and talk about the game) to others ripping those who made the posts, all the responses were predictable. The roles were reversed. It was the players and coaches who were concerned with the who, what, where, why and how of the game than someone's rantings. Besides, how could they have seen the posts or even trust they were real. The Bears handled it like professionals, the reporters handled it badly simply by making such a big deal.

  Frankly a minuscule percentage of players ripping Cutler isn't a groundswell; but if it's on social media it must be big news, theorized some reporters. It was questionable journalism but hardly ground breaking.

  A generation ago it was talk radio. Callers into these shows would say outlandish things and reporters would ask for players and coaches' reactions. It was then, as it is now with social media, manufactured, pre-packaged fodder for stories. Some of the callers to talk radio when I was a host were legit and intelligent. The large majority were not. The fact that mainstream reporters would ask for reactions of those they cover to these rantings was surprising.

  Just as it is now with the 2011 version -- tweets. They should be taken with a grain of salt and nothing more; when they become the basis of reporters' questions as will be the case with growing intensity -- athletes and coaches should remember to handle it the way the Bears did. Concentrate on what you know; avoid responding to what you don't know or consider frivolous and stick to your answer.

 The annual college football coaching carousel is under way. The Speaking Specialists will be presenting a social and new media program for college coaches at the American Football Conference Association next week and among the topics that will certainly arise is the increasing role of bloggers, commentators and websites into the coaching selection process.

  The growth of the media over the last 11 years since we first presented a program for the AFCA has seen more "reporters" and "commentators" take an active role in expressing their views on college sports at the sacrifice of actually reporting what is going on.

  In the past, the media was generally content to gather and sort out facts regarding the hirings and firings of college football coaches, leaving the speculation to a select group of columnists and "expert" commentators.

  But the line between actual reporting and offering opinions has been harder to distinguish. This gray area has been particularly noticeable on the national level where outlets such as ESPN have tremendous reach and often-times influence on decisions that are made in college athletic departments.

   Recently former NFL player and current ESPN analyst Mark May took time out from a discussion of the Michigan coaching situation to look directly into the camera and suggest -- a more accurate description would be order -- Pitt Athletic Director Steve Pederson to hire recently fired Wolverine Coach Rich Rodriguez. "Listen and listen good," May said, looking directly into the camera. "You botched up the firing of Dave Wannstedt,...Listen to what I am telling you. Rich Rodriguez is available. If you want to right the ship, you pick up the phone,call his wife, Rita, you bring Rich in, you give him an interview, and you hire him within the next 24 hours."

  Lou Holtz, sitting next to May, was even surprised -- and that takes alot to get the former coach surprised. He questioned whether May was serving as agent and consultant to athletic directors.

   May has every right to express an opinion, particularly as an alum. What he doesn't have the right to do is use his ESPN pulpit to lobby on someone's behalf to be hired. That is the kind of stuff that belongs in a personal phone call, text message or email to the Pitt athletic department. It is doubtful Pederson would make a move based solely on May's comments but it will likely generate more chatter because of the power of ESPN.

   Viewers and readers are having a more difficult time distinguishing the authenticity of comments in a world of blogs, posts, tweets and text messages. Someone catching only a portion of May's outburst might think it was going to happen or it was the position of other Pitt alumni, ESPN or other former players.

   Stick to analyzing the games or moves after they are made. That is what journalism is about.  Leave the lobbying to someone else, at least publicly.

Hardly a week goes by where there isn't a story about a professional or college athlete who has posted some controversial personal item on their Facebook or Twitter page. Or in the case of Brett Favre, a text or answering machine message.

  The natural reaction from the public is "What were they thinking?" by ripping a coach, manager or teammate.

  Based on our training sessions conducted all over the country, there is an overwhelming belief on the part of most athletes that their posts are private and confined to a select group of friends. One of the most challenging aspects of our communications training is to convince athletes that what they post goes considerably beyond their circle of 'friends" or "followers" and most often will wind up in the mainstream media.

  We conducted a pair of seminars for Major League Baseball in September, instructing representatives from all 30 teams about the impact of social media--most importantly, how its reach has penetrated newspaper, radio and television coverage of their sports. Many of the executives who came up to us after the session said they received a real eye-opening education about the impact of sites like Facebook and Twitter and to laud our presentation's ability to show how really public these sites have become.

  Facebook remains the overwhelming choice of most athletes with whom we work; Twitter remains a fascination for many media members who have tried to reach out to customers who are fleeing newspapers daily. Many former colleagues we worked with when we were in the media tell us they have Facebook accounts and regularly log in to see if there is any information they can get on athletes to use in their reports.

  Favre's case crystalized what should be a template warning plate for all athletes. Nothing is private anymore. With sites such as Deadspin and Bad Jocks patrolling the web to get salacious pictures, messages or comments, they have to understand they live a fishbowl existence.

  Our recommendation to MLB execs and the scores of other college athletes with whom we work: never post or text anything you wouldn't mind seeing on the front page of a newspaper or leading the 11pm Sportscenter.

 Texas, five other Big XII schools will join  Pac-10. DeWayne Wade set to sign with Chicago Bulls.  Lebron James to stay with Cavs. Missouri set to accept invitiation to join the Big Ten. Breaking sports stories, reported by breathless sportscasters on major news outlets in the past month.

  The only trouble with thiese exclusives is they were all wrong, dead wrong.

  The expected seismic conference shakeup that was to be the demise of the Big XII never happened. Just a minor quake that saw a trio of schools pick up and leave for greener pastures. The NBA free agent circus led to many red faces and unexplained backtracking by everyone from ESPN on down thr line.

  These examples in the past month on a national scale mirror what is happening in local markets as well. In an era of blogs, internet posts, chat rooms, Facebook and Twitter revelations, journalism as taken a left turn off the path of accountability into making rumors into facts.

   Reporters who make these incorrect pronouncements keep posting, announcing and blogging. No corrections, no apologies. Better to be first with something than last and accurate.

   We used to have a saying when I hosted a sports radio talk show on WGN that those who call in to the radio station with these tips were on the fringe. It was good for some laughs, even some debate, but we didn't offer much credibility to weak sources. That was before all sports radio and way before the Internet.

  Now, anyone with an opinion whether it is based on reliable sources or not can be an expert. That would be okay if the mainstream media -- outlets like ESPN, Fox, major daily newspapers and websites like SI.Com and Fanhouse weren't picking up this junk and commenting on it. Suddenly it gains credibility and the average fan doesn't know -- and some say doesn't care -- where it came from.

  Our media training of NFL, MLB and particularly college football and basketball programs has shown a frustration on the part of the administrators, coaches and players who are on the other end of the microphone and notepad. They ask what difference does it make what I say if the new media is going to report what they want anyway.

   We offer these suggestions:

--Don't react to every rumor. Offering a strict denial or even worse a "no comment" makes it appear as if you believe the comment and feel the need to deny it.

--If you have something to say, say it your own way. Resist the temptation to criticize false reports and mistakes by the media. Your fans and sponsors don't want to see you get into a spat with reporters. Stay with your message without addressing false rumors and reports.

--Understand the new media. Instead of lumping all reporters into one big tent, look into the credibility of the reporter or blogger; some have great credentials and want to get it correct all the time. They can be very useful to you and your program.

--Conduct communications training. Use a professional from outside of your school or organization. Your staff and athletes will pay more attention to experts from outside of your sphere of influence who re-enforce your own recommendations and instructions on dealing with new media.

--Remember your audience. Even when reporters or bloggers make mistakes and try to justify their stories, your audience isn't the reporter. It is the public. Develop stories and responses that speak directly to your fan base rather than one reporter who may or may not have the correct information.

Amidst all of the talk about potential seismic changes on college sports' landscapes, a key factor is being ignored.

 It is true another major reshuffling of major college conference membership is financially-driven and will impact athletic department budgets and TV contracts. But for the two main sports -- football and men's basketball -- it will mean little to nothing to the student-athletes themselves.

  Our 15-years plus of teaching communications and leadership skills to these players has told us they want to win national national, rather than league, championships. That is not to say winning a conference championship isn't a nice byproduct of a season; but ask them whether they would rather win a bowl game or a couple of NCAA tournament games and their answers are usually uniform: get and win in the post-season. Many we bring up in mock interviews as part of our pre-season sessions don't know and don't care about the details of a schedule. Their focus is on the next game and reaching and ultimate goal at the END of the season.

  Should -- it is probably more accurate to say when -- the next conference realignment takes place this year, some players will notice their travel itineraries changed with different airports, hotels, stadiums and arenas to deal with each year. But whether they play at Pitt instead of Purdue or Florida State instead of Florida is of little consequence. A win is a win and a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal of a higher national ranking, a higher seed or a better bowl game.

  Rivalries just don't mean as much to today's athlete as they did a generation ago. While fans want to see a Missouri-Kansas, Michigan-Michigan State or Auburn-Alabama game each year, to many football and basketball players it is of importance, not necessarily imperative. 

  The periodic reshuffling of conference memberships has changed scheduling anyway; Oklahoma-Nebraska used to be every year, now they are in different divisions. The Big Ten round-robin means not every team players each other twice in basketball;expanding to 12 or 16 teams will make two meetings a year between rivals a rarity. When we covered college sports in the old days, Marquette-Notre Dame was a big deal for players and fans alike. Today, it is generally just another game after Marquette-West Virginia and before Marquette-South Florida.

  Now this isn 't to say altering conference membership won't have an impact on Olympic sports. OUr vast experience in training athletes has shown winning a league title means much more to a volleyball, soccer or softball player than it does to their basketball/football brethren. The Olympic sport athletes aren't in the same televised fishbowl existence and they tend to be throwbacks to that golden era when winning a conference championship and displaying the league trophy actually meant something.

  The league alterations are tailored toward money, specifically television revenues and in particular post-season conference games. There will be considerable media hype about the expansion and contraction (and possible elimination) of conferences in the next several months.

The coverage of the 2010 NFL draft is finally (gasp!) over after a marathon barrage of promotions and hype. What is scary is on ESPN's Monday headline chart one of the items read,"It's time to start talking 2011 draft."

 What?

  There is ample evidence and data to support the NFL's premiere status among sports on television and the internet. The target audience for ESPN, the NFL network and others is ideal -- men 25-54. It is hard to argue with the dollars and cents value perceived by advertising salesmen pushing for more and more coverage each year of the event which used to be held in relative anonymity on a weekend afternoon.

 But the excesses in coverage have caused a trickle down effect we find when we train many of these college athletes who are about to enter the pros.

  The breathless coverage of so-called "experts" who know everything from a prospect's time in the 40-yard dash to the amount of calories they consume for breakfast in mid-December has put many of these athletes in a fishbowl existence that would make aquariums jealous. The degree in which these "experts" say a hangnail may move them down from the 186th to 199th spot in the draft has caused both college players and coaches alike to worry about every move they make both on and off the field.

  That isn't a totally bad thing; we teach that actions on and off the field can be -- and often are -- monitored by old and new media alike to say nothing of people with picture phones and Facebook pages.

   Where in the past this type of celebrity fascination was limited to a handful of top prospects each year slated to go in the upper echelons of the NFL draft, the obsession by the media toward any player with even a remote chance of being selected has carried over to hundreds of players. The trouble is many of these players who,even if they are selected, aren't likely to stick with a club and make it in the pros.

   Yet, the players hear the stories, read the internet hype and start to believe that if a well coiffed analyst or any of his clones even mention them on the air, they think they are headed for stardom. Depending upon the makeup of the athletes with whom we train, they become guarded, introspective and in some cases "stand-offish." The trend is obvious.

  It is even more laughable when talking heads give grades to respective teams on their seven selections as if they have a crystal ball as to how they will fare in the NFL. How often are these "experts" held accountable when a team they give a A-minus to has a bunch of busts who never contribute several years down the road? Or when they say a team had a "steal" in the latter part of the sixth round on a player from some small school in the south who doesn't survive two rounds of mini camp. Well, that's life in 21st century media.

  The first NFL draft I covered 30 years ago as a sportswriter in Chicago occurred over a span of a couple of hours at a downtown hotel. About a dozen reporters were there, we covered the story, got our quotes and went on to something else. Not much hype, not much hyperbole (the Bears did draft future Hall-of-Famer Dan Hampton, but the story barely nudged the Cubs & Sox off the evening sportscast or front pages that day).

  Little attention was given to how much a 10th rounder (they had more rounds back then) could bench press or how a fourth round dropped seven spots because their scores on the Wonderlich IQ test.

  Makes you long for the simpler days.
  

  
 

 People who have been watching the latest soap opera involving Tiger Woods are coming to the conclusion -- justified perhaps -- that high profile public figures who agree to some type of speaker or media training sound robotic, stiff and insincere.

  They see politicians from South Carolina or Nevada read well-rehearsed statements and figure they were programmed without any feeling of remorse or sincerity.

  As media trainers for the past 24 years, we aren't johnny-come-latelies to the profession like many who have either lost their jobs in the traditional media or want to go out on their own--they set up a website and hope that clients come calling. We have seen the best -- and worst -- of our profession handle clients in everything from damage control to how to learn to "tweet." Unfortunately there are an increasing number of people calling themselves "experts" in training based on the fact they were either a former multi-award winning TV producer or former media liasion who think they know how to prepare people for 21st century media. They have little or no background in actual reporting, haven't seen the inside of a locker room and cannot relate to athletes in their late teens or 20s.

  For many, just the words "media training" symbolize spin or insincerity. They see Tiger Woods make a statement -- then answer questions with pre-packaged answers -- and believe any type of training is not worth the investment of time or money.

  Situations like a Woods, Mark McGwire or John Daly should be considered the exceptions rather than the rule. Pre-packaged sound bites, socko salesmanship that sounds more like selling a laundry detergent than true feelings is the corporate PR approach and just doesn't work any more.  Nor does condensing your real thoughts into a 140-character "tweet" to an inflated list of followers.

   We recently conducted sessions at the Final Four in Indianapolis in cooperation with a long-time client, the National Association of Basketball Coaches. Our message in working with both up-and-coming young coaches and veterans alike in the art of the interview was to be the best of yourself; develop answers that you want not just the reporter to know but fans, fellow coaches and employers to understand and appreciate.

  Two pieces of advice:  If you have a tough issue or crisis, get in front of it, explain what you can and then move on to how you are correcting it. Think optimistically; rather than dwell on a 6-21 season, explain how that is a learning process for your young team for the following season.

  In a world of the Internet, You Tube and picture phones, communications training is a must for all colleges, universities and professional teams. Not the kind given to Woods