BLOG.SPEAKINGSPECIALISTS.COM

Schools need to be pro active in preparing for a crisis

2011-11-30T15:42:15Z

   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

Twitter not for every athlete

2011-05-17T13:19:00Z

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.

NFL lockout hurts rookies who need social media training

2011-04-26T14:20:00Z

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!

Social media posts affect reporters questions in NFC

2011-01-25T14:15:00Z

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.

TV overstepping boundaries in college athletics

2011-01-05T21:07:00Z

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.

Dealing with social media problems iin the wake of Brett Favre

2010-10-18T13:19:00Z

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.

How does bad journalism affect athletic programs

2010-07-07T15:20:00Z

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.

How will college conference shakeups affect student-athletes

2010-05-18T14:37:00Z

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.

NFL draft hype for 2011 has begun

2010-04-26T12:45:00Z

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.

Bad name for speaker training

2010-04-06T16:00:00Z

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

Tiger Woods deals with the media--finally

2010-02-19T16:48:00Z

If there is one thing the media likes to talk about, it is the media.

It is with that in mind that one of the key elements of the instant analysis of Tiger Wood's much hyped apology news conference Friday morning that was overlooked was his attack on the media.

Woods' well-crafted statement did all the right things about his personal mea culpa; his focus on his foundation and how his relationship with his wife is private and should remain so. But the guess is -- based on our working with athletes and teams for 20 years in this area -- that he insisted to those who prepped him that he wanted to aggressively attack what he perceived as media inaccuracies throughout this melodrama.

We have always cautioned against going after the media. The reason is two fold: one, they always get the last word and two, more often than not that becomes the focus of an interview or statement. Lumping tabloids and the paparazzi into the mainstream media may sound good at first. It plays well with focus groups and a skeptical public who may love tabloid TV but dislikes their methods.

But, it is also fodder for reporters to go back on the attack on a superstar who has never sought or enjoyed a close relationship with the media. Woods always has thought he didn't need the media -- his spectacular achievements on the golf course coupled with millions of dollars of endorsements made him immune from press criticism. But it was those favorable articles about Woods early in his career that helped translate him from a great golfer who wins big on the tour to a cultural icon who reaped significantly more financial rewards through his commercials and endorsements.

Attacking the media, refusing to allow them to ask even screened or pre-written questions will not endear him to the reporters he will eventually have to face once he returns to the PGA tour. Kobe Bryant, always a source we use in our sessions as a good example of dealing with the media, was able to tap into that reservoir during his problems several years ago. Today it is generally forgotten by reporters. It is that source of good will Woods could have begun to cultivate beginning with Friday's news conference.

Just Kidding. Be Careful what you text, say

2010-01-06T19:21:00Z

Hawaii Coach Greg McMackin, Gilbert Arenas, and even President Obama have learned it the hard way.

Saying "just kidding" isn't going to cut it with the media and the public.

In the world of texting, emailing, picture phones etc we teach to our professional and college athlete clients you are always on the record. Especially when you think you are speaking in jest.

President Obama last fall was being prepped for a cable interview when he was asked about Kanye West's comments that Beyonce should have won a music award. Unaware that the tape was rolling and his microphone was "hot", he said West was a "jackass." He later tried to backtrack, saying he thought it was off the record and was kidding.

At a WAC media event, McMackin saw there were no cameras around and made a joke about Notre Dame football players. Trouble was, print reporters had their mini audio tape recorders and caught the comments, eventually landing them on the internet. The coach attempted to backpedal, saying he, too, was only "kidding." The comments live in You Tube infamy after his 30 day suspension by the school.

Arenas' gun troubles this past week and suspension announced Wednesday have been compounded by his complaint to reporters he was just "kidding" about previous statements he made about that and gambling. His defense has fallen on deaf ears.

Athletes, coaches and administrators leave themselves vulnerable when they fail to understand their audience and make some comments they perceive as sarcastic, humorous or satirical. While the people who actually hear AND see the remarks being made, they often lose that shield when they are printed in blogs, stories or text messages.

Our advice as a company which works extensively with corporate and athletic organizations is a simple one: if you don't want to see it on the Internet, in a newspaper or magazine; hear it on the radio or TV, DON'T SAY IT...or e-mail it, or text it. It's an expensive gamble that has the odds staked squarely against you.

Change voting for Cy Young Award

2009-11-20T14:26:00Z

As a former member of the Baseball Writers of America and a former voter for the Cy Young Award, I used to resist the efforts by members of the electronic media to have the opportunity to vote for post-season awards and the Hall of Fame.

I had joined with my counterparts, many of whom were considerably older and more seasoned than myself, in the theory that print reporters had more expertise, covered more games and had more knowledge of the game and were therefore better suited to vote.

But having been out of the business for more than a decade and having trained hundreds of baseball players through our communications program with The Speaking Specialists, I think it is time for a change.

The days when print reporters ruled the press box are over. First, there is the economic issue. Newspapers are struggling to stay alive in the battle against the internet and the recession. Secondly, many of the veterans who had seen baseball for decades are retiring and being replaced by younger reporters who often have to cover multiple beats for leaner newspapers. Finally, the credentials of other reports including radio, television, internet and new media sites have caught up with many of their print brethren.

Much of this came to light in an extremely close balloting for National League Cy Young this year. I have no quarrel with the outcome, other than two voters leaving Chris Carpenter off their ballot completely. Their rationales sounded okay but one can only wonder if personal agendas affected their thinking.

It is time for Major League Baseball to rethink the voting procedures by having a panel of play-by-play broadcasters, websites and legitimate bloggers be added to the mix. I still believe the print reporters who cover the teams on a regular basis should be in the majority as far as the voting is concerned -- they see more of the games than most other reporters. But so do those who are in the broadcast booth and cover the teams individually for MLB.com. My only worry about those folks is that people who are hired by the teams may have more of an agenda to vote for their own players than print reporters. That should be solved by making the voting private; we aren't asked to publish our votes for president, Congress or city council; why should they have to for post-season awards. Anonymity would go a long way to prevent home team bias.

We will be conducting sessions at the Winter Meetings in Indianapolis next month for front office staffs and scores of reporters will be there from new and old media alike. May be it is time for a change in the way post-season award voting is done from now on.

Don't give too much attention to the blogosphere

2009-07-16T13:35:00Z

As former talk show hosts, we used to have an inside word for many of the callers who would wait for long stretches of time to get on the air and offer their rants on a particular sport or athlete.

The lunatic fringe.

We knew studies showed that of every 100 listeners to a sports radio show, only 1 percent actually bothered to call into that show.

Today we have the blogosphere where anyone with an internet connection can go beyond the call into the local radio station and become a self-proclaimed expert on anything from college to professional sports. That would be innocent enough if it wasn't for the mainstream media elevating these bloggers into the stratosphere.

   Witness ESPN's newest creation, Sports Nation anchored by Colin Cowherd in the middle of the afternoon. It would seem to be something you would have seen as a skit from Saturday NIght Live or the Onion if it wasn't on the self-proclaimed world-wide leader in sports. The show, responding to a trend across cable TV, is symbolic of the trend of giving bloggers, twitters, emailers and anyone with an internet connection not only a forum but legitimacy. ESPN even uses a service that ranks what stories are dominating the blogosphere, a silly notion that equates somebody living in his basement(ala the Raul Ibanez rant) the same weight as a more respected site like The Huffington Post or even ESPN.com. Rating the buzz from the blogosphere and saying it is a vital stat is like lumping in the New York Times, Washington Post with the National Enquirer and Star and saying they represent all newspapers.

   It is true newspapers are going away gradually, a sad fact for the state of journalism in the USA. But like the callers into our talk shows, Paul from Pittsburgh, Carlo from Columbus and Larry from Long Beach, bloggers are given a lofty status of accuracy, respectability and accuracy for just voicing an opinion, passing on a rumor or injecting their own fantasies into a subject.

   Interactivity is a great thing, particularly in the world of sports. But when journalistic integrity is watered down to the point where legitimate reporters, editors and on-air personalities take the words from the blogosphere and treat it like 24 karat gold, it is time to take a step back and re-evaluate. What does it matter what are the top 10 stories each day from all blogs; what kind of sources do they use? Are they based on fact or fiction? Are facts just hurdles getting in the way of a good rant or chat?

As ESPN and other outlets drift toward paying homage to these rants, the resulting affect is that coaches, administrators and athletes think the blogosphere is the new mainstream media. We teach in our sessions for pros and colleges to be careful about what you say to any interviewer but to be particularly cautious of dealing with those with little or no journalistic background. It is often a tough lesson.

   Like the Simpsons' episode where Sideshow Bob goes on a big screen TV to say he wants to eliminate all televisions in Springfield, we are aware that by blogging on the subject we are using the very tool we are holding under a microscope. If the media really wants to go the easy route and use blogs, tweets etc for the basis of their stories and shows, at least go back to Journalism 101. Check out the credentials, legitimacy and factual content before passing it off as a legitimate source.

Sports blogs and the new media merge with traditional media

2009-06-17T15:16:00Z

You probably have not heard of Jerod Morris. But you probably have heard of Raul Ibanez. You may not recognize a site called Midwest Sports Fans . But you do recognize the Philadelphia Inquirer.

This latest episode of how the new media and old media are coming together offers a critical lesson we teach in our internet/communications sessions to professional athletes, like the NFL teams with whom we worked this summer, and college athletes with whom we will begin our annual tour of in a couple of weeks.

Quick background: Morris wrote on his blog recently that Ibanez, who is having an all-star season with the Philadelphia Phillies after a relatively low profile with other teams, has to be considered as a possible user of steroids. Ibanez strongly reacted to the blog, challenging the writer to prove his suspicions and generally ripping most bloggers in the process.   Ibanez told the Inquirer, "I'll put that up against the jobs of anyone who writes this stuff. Make them accountable.   There should be more credibility than some ... blogger typing in his mother's basement."

   Ten years ago this wouldn't have happened; some one writing in a blog probably would have been laughed off by a player, but in today's media world things have changed dramatically. It wasn't as much as Morris' blog has widespread coverage; rather it was the fact the Inquirer felt compelled to address the issue and Ibanez' subsequent comments. John Gonzalez, Inquirer sports columnist, went on ESPN to explain in today's media landscape writers and editors have to respond to such issues regardless of where they may start. A similar situation exists on talk radio; a caller with little journalistic credibility can trigger a day's gabfest by simply offering an opinion or claiming he or she overheard some rumor about a player or school. An editor driving to work hears this exchange, tells his beat reporter to find out about it, and suddenly it enters the bloodstream of mainstream media.

   Ibanez reaction was both justified and over the top; justified if a newspaper reporter asks him about his views; over the top if he was just mad at bloggers who hint he may not be clean.

   Our sessions emphasize to athletes and coaches alike that the real audience isn't the reporter or blogger who writes the story and asks the question; it is the vast audience who reads the stories or listens or watches the broadcast reports. It is a tough lesson to learn, especially when you feel unfairly victimized by innuendo or rumor.

The other solution would be to have the mainstream media "consider the source" and not take these blogs and talk shows so seriously. But in age of dwindling circulation, shrinking ad revenues and in some cases, bankruptcy, the so-called "old media" must consider the internet postings competition. When more and more people or getting their information -- accurate or not -- from blogs and posts than the papers that arrive at their doorsteps -- it is an inevitable fact of 21st century journalism that the lines between what's real and what isn't are slowly fading away.

   It is thus up to the athletes and coaches to be taught how best to handle these situations and understand the ever-changing landscape of sports media.

Lebron James gets roasted after Cavs collapse

2009-06-02T17:00:00Z

Predicatably pundits have begun their roasting of NBA MVP LBJ (c'mon, there are too many acronyms in sports, let's keep calling him LeBron James) after this past weekend's inevitable loss to the Orlando Magic for the right to get to the league finals.

James walked off the court, shaking his head but not his hand towards the victorious Magic, prompting criticism he should have showed more sportsmanship after his team's upset series loss to Orlando.

What was worse for James than the failed handshake was his decision to blow off the post-game interview session, allowing the media to pile on the usual voluble James for his disappearing act after the playoffs.

While we don't condone the lack of sportsmanship; hey, this isn't hockey and the teams don't line up to congratulate each other after the series ends. But James should have known better than to allow the media and the blogosphere an opportunity to rip him for 48 hours before he agreed to speak to reporters.

In our training sessions for both the NBA, colleges and Olympians, we emphasize the need to get your side of things out in public even when things didn't go your way. It's easy to talk to reporters when you win -- a more serious challenge is when you lose. Had James spent even a couple of minutes in the post-game interview room -- even if he didn't take any questions and just made a statement -- he would have fed the media beast and prevented the video loop of him walking off the court in disgust. We often show a tape of one of our former clients, Mitch Williams, sitting down and answering every question after he surrendered the World Series winning home run to Joe Carter back in the 90s. As tough as it was for Williams, he got great press for not ducking out or hiding in the training room after what was a much more difficult situation than James faced in Orlando.

Obviously PR and media staffs urge coaches and athletes to follow the path to the interview room; we re-enforce this as former reporters by reminding them that most media just want to get their sound bites and quotes and file their stories. The vast majority of reporters don't have agendas and are just looking to complete their tasks. By not providing the media with any counter to what they saw, the negative reports began immediately and are likely to continue for weeks.

James had been a solid role model for our trainings on college campuses for how to handle tough questions; now he slides over to the side of what not to do when you lose.

Twitter coaches; Who are we Kidding?

2009-05-13T13:14:00Z

Trivia question: What do Urban Meyer, Lane Kiffin, Ron Zook and Pete Carroll all have in common? The list of possible answers is endless but for now let's admit they are use Twitter.

The latest internet fad, fueled mostly by media types and those PR branding types who see a chance to make a quick buck, is being felt in the coaching profession. Breathless reports of their brethren saying they will "tweet", some even saying they are going to do it during a game. Can you imagine the alumni barking after a losing contest when they complain the coach was more concerned about 140 character tweets than the 80 characters he was responsible for on his sideline.

Let's call this what it really is: a handful of coaches using another mechanism to help recruit kids, not a love of banality. A couple of years ago it was text messaging. The NCAA stepped in and stopped that nonsense; one can hope it's only a matter of time before it comes in and regulates or even prohibits this tomfoolery.

And really, do Twitter backers who clog the internet with claims it is the most revolutionary thing since the wheel really believe the coaches are the ones actually doing the messaging; is LSU's Les Miles really concentrating on his next "tweet" at halftime instead of devising a game plan to beat Alabama? Is Duke's David Cutcliffe focused in on telling folks what he plans to eat for breakfast and not trying to figure out how to win in Blacksburg, Va.? Chances are some football ops guy, an intern or SID is doing the work; how much journalism background do you need to write "UCF Spring game at 2 p.m. I've got my SWAG on. I got a lot of JUICE and you know my Chili's Hot. Hot!!! " We're not making this up; it's what Central Florida assistant football coach Geoff Collins wrote recently according to the Daily Iowan in Iowa City.

Of a more serious concern are the possibilities of abuse and damage to a program: it is so easy to pretend to be a head coach or star player on Twitter; false comments made wind up on bulletin boards and chat rooms before they can be taken down. Negative recruiting tweets sent to high school prospects by unscrupulous assistant coaches; fans making up comments under the guise of an athletic director, coach or player. Or in the case of a Big Ten coach who made some alleged negative comments in a "tweet" about a beat sportswriter that had to be taken down after negative feedback.

Want to start a rumor? no problem on Twitter. Make up something? There's no fact checking or accountability mechanism in place. Columns and even many top bloggers fact check and face peer scrutiny.Even on talk radio, callers are screened by producers.

With all coaches have to worry about, do they really want to have to worry about putting this mechanism in the hands of their student-athletes. In our communications training, we deal heavily with the issues raced by social websites, principally Facebook, instructing them their posts and pictures not only represent themselves but are an open window for potential job employers and potential recruits. Facebook and similar sites do allow for some positive interaction among college students and a growing number of adults (and companies) to talk about their thoughts, plans and prospects without being limited to 140 characters or banal chatter. We teach the audience goes way beyond the "friends" on your facebook page or in Twitter-talk the number of "followers". These messages can potentially be read by anyone with an internet connection. We tell them not to be taken in by claims of privacy and safeguards in a world of hackers and geeks who easily find their way into any site.

Tweeter is fine for Ashton Kutcher (1 million followers? big deal!) , Shaq (will anyone really care what he eats for breakfast after a month of postings) Larry King (I am interviewing Dr. Phil and Jesse Ventura exclusively and I luv it!) and reporters looking for something new to write about (one White House cable correspondent tweeted about what he had for breakfast and snacks covering the President. Woodward and Bernstein this ain't. The Pulitzer Committee will pass on this blurb).

Once this fad has passed one can hope the next new media idea will require more thought, accountability and eloquence to reach out to fans, recruits, alumns and each other. FYI, the above paragraph wouldn't have made it on Twitter: it's more than 140 characters.

Prep star Jeremy Tyler Beware: there is more to learn before turning pro

2009-04-29T15:17:00Z

With all of the -- excuse the pun -- hoopla surrounding the NBA playoffs comes word that one of the nation's top high school basketball players is leaving school to play in Europe.

What makes the story of Jeremy Tyler of San Diego unique is that he is leaving school as a JUNIOR, bypassing his senior year of high school, to turn pro and make himself ready for the 2011 NBA draft. Current NBA rules prohibit players under the age of 19 from being draft -- meaning Tyler would have to wait a couple of years before being eligible. He had verbally committed to Louisville but now will test the European waters before coming back home.

   We work with USA Basketball in Colorado Springs as part of their program that has the top junior players in high school on both the men and women's side compete, learn and grow as part of a camp coached by some of the top coaches in the country. We have provided speaker and media training for these 17-year olds for more than a decade, including players like Dwayne Wade and Dwight Howard. We can attest that while these players have the requisite skills to compete on a professional level, the vast majority are not ready for the scrutiny of the media and public that comes with playing at an advanced level.

   Of particular concern is the so-called "new media" in which we teach caution in dealing with social websites such as Facebook, You Tube, bloggers and talk shows. While many of the stars of the future can nail a free throw with a screaming sellout crowd in their face, they often wilt with a small microphone in their sights. Ironically, a growing number of these high schoolers have said they didn't need communications training -- they get what they need from watching ESPN or reading the internet. It is a misjudgment of huge proportions.

   You wouldn't want to guard Kobe Bryant or Paul Pierce without expert coaching and training; the same situation exists for dealing with the media. Most players like Tyler haven't had to deal with large groups of reporters in high school; even some of the upperclassmen with whom we work at the more than 100 colleges and universities each year buckle under the pressure in our mock interviews and staged post-game news conferences. Someone who has only completed his junior year of high school faces a more difficult task.

   The NBA rule was designed to prevent players from jumping from high school directly into the pros; while some like former prep/shoe guru Sonny Vaccaro argue with some merit that is denying them an opportunity to earn a living; the extra off-the-court experience and training they receive in high school and in college will pay large dividends and often times lengthen a professional career.

Are we going too far in monitoring sports social websites

2009-04-23T15:18:00Z

The No. 1 concern about coaches and staff with whom we work on the professional and college level has been the increased vulnerability programs have when it comes to athletes' postings on social websites, predominantly the popular Facebook.

Some programs have even gone as far as banning their athletes from having Facebook accounts or in some rare cases have opted to have an outside party monitor all postings made by individuals. The constitutional issues aside; what kind of message does this send to team unity, leadership and support if such drastic measures are required? (Not to brush aside that document ratified in 1789, but at last check that mention of free speech hasn't been airbrushed out of the bill of rights).

Athletes on both the pro and college level use facebook as a communication tool. There certainly have been abuses. One of the major league baseball teams with whom we work reported to us one of their star players made critical comments about the organization on their facebook account, figuring no one would see it but his "friends." But one of the biggest misperceptions is that these social websites are private; they are not. A key element of our program has been to teach athletes they are always on the record and never to post anything on these sites (or text message or email) that they wouldn't mind seeing in someone's blog, website, broadcast or front page.

But to ban athletes from using the sites is an over reaction and an invitation to further problems. Many of the hundreds of athletes we train have admitted they get around such restrictions by using another name on their account; some others ignore it totally. The peer pressure to be on these sites continues to grow.

A better avenue is education; teaching athletes of the ramifications of such sites while reminding them of the key messages we outline in our trainings provides a better climate of trust and honesty. We remind them these sites are often viewed by potential sponsors, employers, supporters, fans and yes, the media and can adversely affect the reputation of themselves, their teammates and their program.

Avoid the temptation of fancy (and very expensive) claims by firms who say they will watch the web for you: monitoring of the sites by an assistant coach, SID or staffer makes sense and provides a better atmosphere in the coach-athlete relationship.

Kenny Perry still wins at Masters

2009-04-13T13:40:00Z

The final scorecard will show that Kenny Perry lost in a playoff at this year's Masters Tournament in Augusta. But he was a winner in the press tent.

Now that isn't going to ease the pain of failinig to win the coveted Green Jacket but it does set a standard for dealing with the media and public after a tough loss.

  We had the privilege of working with Perry at his home golf course in southern Kentucky a while back and he displayed the kind of laid back, folksy charm he has consistently showed on the PGA tour. During some tough practice Q&A, Perry was not ruffled; he simply answered questions the same way he would if someone was asking him advice on what iron to pick on the fairway.

   Perry answered every question -- and then some -- after the playoff in the Masters. Many of the questions were virtually the same ones -- what was he thinking after a bad shot in the playoff, what happened over the final holes on Sunday etc. Yet he answered each question as if it was being asked for the first time, remembering one of the key elements we had in our training that the audience is not the reporter -- it is the public.

   Many times we work with professional and college athletes to teach them how important it is to answer queries after a tough loss or when you had a difficult time on the field or court. The media -- and more importantly the public -- often judges you on how well you do in communicating when times are tough rather than after a big win or a championship.

   Perry is a veteran and he showed it after the Masters. The result was universal praise on the internet, TV and in newspapers for the class he showed both on the course and in the press tent.

   It was a lesson in which all athletes can learn from.

   Nice goin, Kenny!