Zeno Group Blog

Since his arrival in Chicago three years ago, WLS-TV (ABC) anchor/reporter Ravi Baichwal has become one of the rising stars of Chicago’s broadcast news scene. During the week, Baichwal reports for the city’s top-rated news team and on weekends he co-anchors the 5 and 10 p.m. broadcasts. In 2008 he won the Emmy award for best anchor in the Chicago/Midwest region.

Last year I met Baichwal when WLS covered the arrival of Porter Airlines first flight from Toronto to Chicago Midway. Having previously worked in Toronto for Canada’s top national news outlet, CTV, Baichwal was perfectly suited to cover the new connection between the two Great Lakes cities. Ravi was kind enough to share some thoughts on the relationship between broadcast journalists and public relations practitioners in this edition of “Five Questions.”

Q: What goes into the daily decision making process at WLS in choosing which stories the team will cover?
A: The key questions we ask of ourselves focus on what’s of greatest importance to the most people. That’s why weather and crime are often in the lineup. Our job is to tell the stories of interesting people doing interesting things in the world we all share. Where we can find those stories, and where the impact or implications from those narratives hit home with wide swaths of people, that’s where we tend to direct resources. And we try to focus on events that are somehow out of the ordinary – where the video is exceptionally good, and the story in the visual medium is easy to tell. That’s why television news is especially suited to emotional, people-based stories rather than process stories. Our medium just conveys the message in the pictures that much more effectively than anything else.

Q: When PR people have a segment idea, what’s the best way to pitch that story to your news team?
A: Find individual reporters and build a relationship with them. Do this by offering stories that are arresting visually. Any pitch from a PR agency is going to engender suspicion in a newsroom. It has to; that’s just in the nature of our journalistic duty to be skeptical. That said, knowing that the PR person you are dealing with is an honest broker who understands how a TV story gets put together helps. We want to know that you know what deadlines are, how important it is to offer local experts and b-roll opportunities, and that if we can’t do it, you don’t take rejection personally.

Q:What separates “good pitches” from “bad pitches?” What types of things are you looking for in a pitch that will make it a story you’d cover?
A: A good pitch has to have good video that is at the core of the story’s appeal to broad spectrum of people. It is amazing how many interview “opportunities” I am offered for satellite interviews with people pitching products that I just don’t care about. The principal in the story has to be in Chicago otherwise I can tell you it is highly unlikely the story will be covered.

Q: When you’re on location shooting a segment, how can PR people best assist you and your team?
A: If you are working with a big company on a breaking story, making spokespeople available is number one. Having background statistics that are relevant and help us develop context is good, too. This is especially helpful on big public policy stories involving such subjects as health care and community development.

Q: What’s your most memorable story or experience as a broadcaster?
A: There are so many. The time when my son was born and I was anchoring Canada’s number one national broadcast for the first time and I went on air with no sleep for nearly 48 hours comes to mind. That was a special broadcast for a lot of reasons. Our lead story that night was word that a cult in Quebec had succeeded in cloning a human being. The story was subsequently debunked, but I am sure my son will get a laugh out of it in the years to come!

Answer: This television news anchor appeared on a popular game show to win money for charity and in the process damaged the credibility of his network. Question: Who is Wolf Blitzer?

OK, “damaged the credibility of his network” might be an overstatement, but surely CNN executives were wincing last Thursday as they watched one their most visible personalities completely fall apart during an episode of Celebrity Jeopardy! Blitzer didn’t just finish a distant third to Tonight Show sidekick Andy Richter and actress Dana Delany, he stumbled home with a deficit of $-4,600 after Double Jeopardy. Not surprisingly, the blogosphere had a field day with the poor showing by the host of The Situation Room.

When the three contestants were first introduced, I’m sure I wasn’t alone in thinking Blitzer would cruise past the Desperate Housewife and Conan’s cohort. And while he struggled through the opening round, I was willing to chalk it up to a man who was simply slow with the buzzer. But when Wolf started to chime in late in the game, confusing fettuccine with mostaccioli and making an absolute mess of the “E Times 3” category, it was clear that this test of random knowledge was not for him.

So was the Blitzer blowout a black eye for CNN? It certainly doesn’t help. While there are no shortage of TV news personalities who are hired to be a pretty face that reads a teleprompter, Blitzer comes across as an intelligent man with thoughtful insights. That intelligence betrayed him during a 30-minute game show appearance. For a few weeks, many CNN viewers will see Blitzer and be unable to shake the comical image below. As time goes on, the incident will fade into a mere mention on his Wikipedia bio. But don’t expect CNN to encourage Anderson Cooper or Larry King to join Alex Trebek on the Celebrity Jeopardy! set anytime soon.

Social media policies quickly reveal which organizations “get it” and which don’t with respect to new media. A policy that’s being unveiled today by the Southeastern Conference in advance of the 2009 college football season shows that the SEC belongs in the category of “lost and confused.”

Earlier this year the SEC informed their member schools that “ticketed fans can’t ‘produce or disseminate (or aid in producing or disseminating) any material or information about the Event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the Event.” The policy received such negative backlash that a revised version is coming out today, but the underlying message will likely remain the same: the SEC doesn’t want fans’ tweets, status updates, Flickr pictures and other social media accounts of their games landing on the Web.

The first story I read about the policy was from St. Petersburg Times staff writer Michal Kruse, who said “Many are saying this makes the bosses of the SEC look like fuddy-duddy technophobes — that they don’t ‘get’ new media. They get it. The language of the conference’s policy suggests they know all too well the high-stakes fight that’s just beginning.”

Kruse argues that the broad policy is designed not so much to ban the present-day social media tools- the tweets and Facebook photos that could come from gameday at an SEC venue, but to prepare for the future. When technology arrives that makes it possible to broadcast live streaming video from your cell phone, a policy prohibiting that will already be in place. I understand that line of thinking; CBS has a multi-billion dollar TV contract in place that they want protected (and obviously the SEC wants to protect that source of revenue). Future technology could become an alternative to watching games on the network.

But in the meantime, the policy comes off as pretty short-sighted, not to mention practically impossible to enforce in real time. As Mashable’s Adam Ostorow points out, how often do you see a Facebook update that someone is watching or attending a sporting event and feel inclined to turn on the TV? In my opinion, social media builds fan affinity in a way that ultimately helps the brand.

Ask any college football fan the best way to enjoy gameday and almost all of them will answer one of two ways: being at the stadium, or watching the game on TV, be that at someone’s home or at a sports bar. An old school minority still enjoys games on the radio, but no one is going to use a student or even a journalist tweeting from the stands or press box as their primary source if they have access to a TV or tickets to the game. The thought that this communications diminishes the value of CBS’ current contract with the SEC is folly. Social media brings fans closer to the games they love, and ultimately the television rights holder reaps the benefit.

Octagon Vice President David Schwab serves as managing director for First Call, the company’s celebrity acquisition and activation division. In doing so, he connects celebrities with companies and non-profit associations. David has been with Octagon since 1999, when he started with the company as director of communications. Recently I posed five questions to David about trends in the celebrity spokesperson industry.

Q: Can you give us an overview of the role Octagon plays in pairing celebrities and athletes with companies?
A: We created Octagon First Call because we felt the model/relationship between brand, marketing agency and celebrity was broken. Obviously each have different objectives in putting a deal together but a program really works if they have the same final goal. Thus, we consult with brands and marketing agencies to help determine if a celebrity could help amplify their program via advertising, PR, social media, hospitality and more. Finding the celebrity is the easy part, the challenge is creating a program that works for the particular celebrity chosen. There’s no cookie cutter approach as each celebrity has their own strengths, assets and weaknesses, too.

Q: What are some of the common traits you see in the most effective celebrity endorsers and spokespeople?
A: A person and program that is relatable to the target audience, is genuinely believable and one that can be used across multiple marketing channels, including traditional media relations, online video, and the celebrity’s own assets, such as their personal website.

Q: In the past decade, reality shows and niche cable networks (HGTV, Food Network) have created a new wave of celebrities and expert spokespeople. How has the emergence of this group impacted the industry?
A: It has helped the industry because brands have more to choose from. The increased supply of talent has given brands additional leverage in the marketplace. Also, they are able to pick people that are truly relevant and experts to their brand. Years ago, brands would use football players to promote the grilling season. Now one can choose a chef. While it seems obvious, these chefs did not have big followings/fans before the advent of the Food Network.

Q: How can clients who don’t have the budget for a “marquee name” maximize their investment in a spokesperson?
A: Marquee names do not dictate success. The program and leveraging the celebrity dictate success (along with the fee you are able to negotiate). Social media (for the most part) is free, take advantage of that. Also, if your tactics include online video, find a celebrity that is talented/funny so that people want to see the video. Remember, there is no such thing as viral video. There is only video that is successful so it becomes viral. Also, as we mentioned above, find celebrities that come to the table with more than just their name/likeness. Find people that have strong followings on Twitter or have upcoming projects where your brand can be organically associated with.

Q: What do you see as some of the important industry trends to watch over the next few years?
A: Without question, the internet and mobile devices is and will change the future of these deals. No longer can a brand truly control territory and term and it will be interesting to see how these “legal words” are changed in the coming years. And I would expect to see more brand integration into celebrities’ TV shows, movies, books, web presence and other assets.

In addition to the First Call blog, you can follow David on Twitter: @david_schwab.

When it comes to sports media, four letters dominate the conversation: ESPN. Over the past 30 years, ESPN has grown from a scoffed at start-up cable network to one of the most influential brands in sports and media. As a senior director with ESPN Communications, Bill Hofheimer helps oversee media relations efforts for the “worldwide leader in sports.” Among the ESPN properties Hofheimer handles is ESPN’s coverage of Monday Night Football. Recently I posed five questions to Bill about the work of ESPN’s communications squad.

Q: What are the goals of the ESPN media relations department?
A: ESPN’s mission is to serve sports fans, so at the end of the day it all comes down to that ultimate purpose. In our department specifically, we view ourselves as the company storytellers. Much of our day-to-day efforts are focused on securing placements that drive viewership and awareness of ESPN content and products. That includes the networks and everything from radio and dot com to broadband, ESPN The Magazine, etc. From a broader perspective, our department goal is to be an advocate for the company and to help tell the positive stories we have as an organization, both internally and externally.

Q: What types of stories does your team try to pro-actively secure? Is it difficult to break through the cycle of coverage that simply reports ESPN Nielsen ratings and schedules of upcoming programming?
A: We proactively pitch a lot of stories that offer behind the scenes access to bring this perspective to sports fans. What’s it like in a production truck at a Monday Night Football game, in the pit at a NASCAR race or in the half-pipe at the X Games? Who are all the people — not just the on-camera personalities — working on the telecasts and what do their jobs entail? We work closely with our production staff in offering these kinds of opportunities to media and I think our efforts are appreciated because not all networks seem as open as ESPN. Fortunately, there is a lot of interest in ESPN because the company is involved in a variety of businesses and always trying new things.

Q: As a network, ESPN has always been very brand conscious. What role does the media relations team play in promoting the overall ESPN brand?
A: Fans have a very personal relationship with ESPN and that is not taken for granted. We understand how situations can play out in the media and in the public eye. If a program or initiative seems to go against the brand image, our department is quick to raise the flag. We try to bring this critical eye to everything we do. Another important function is to clarify misconceptions about ESPN. So much is written about ESPN by both traditional and non-traditional media. When a writer or a fan doesn’t have all the facts, or even “gets it wrong,” we want to make sure the information is corrected. We try to be very proactive in this regard and it all goes back to protecting the ESPN brand.

Q: Sports bloggers often like to have some fun at ESPN’s expense. What is your department’s policy towards bloggers? Are you actively engaging with any of them or do you take a grin and bear it approach to many of them?
A: We work very openly with bloggers. You have to have this approach. They are becoming increasingly influential. There are a handful we work with on a regular basis and I think we have established very good relationships with them. We encourage them to contact our office if they have questions and we hear from them often. They reach out to us when they are writing something about ESPN and give us an opportunity to respond. They have access to materials we make available to traditional media. We also arrange interviews for them and invite them to events. You understand that there is going to be some level of humor and snark in what bloggers write, and not everything will be positive, but the fact that we have dialogue with them shows their willingness to be fair and to present ESPN’s side of an issue. That’s great.

Q: Now in its 30th year, ESPN has evolved from a single cable network into a global media presence. Where do you see ESPN heading over the next decade?
A: I have been here myself for less than four years and I am amazed at how much ESPN has grown during this time. It’s an exciting place to work. In the next decade, digital media will be a major area of focus. ESPN360.com, ESPN’s broadband network, delivers more than 3,000 live events per year and that number is sure to grow in the years ahead, as will the amount of ESPN content you will be able to get on mobile devices and ESPN.com. With 15 original versions of SportsCenter produced around the world in nine different languages, ESPN also understands the global popularity of sports. International growth will be another key area with various ESPN networks and the company’s interest in such sports as cricket, rugby and soccer/football.

If you follow golf, you were probably surprised to see PGA Tour pros competing this week at the Quail Hollow Championship in Charlotte. Quail Hollow? That sounds like the name of a golf course, not a car manufacturer or sizable financial institution. How could an event be going on with out a title sponsor? Well, the event does have a sponsor, but the sponsor has chosen to remain nameless rather than deal with negative publicity over unnecessary spending. The situation cries out for some well-crafted messages on the benefits of sponsorship. So where are the PR practitioners to lead the way?

As the Charlotte Business Journal points out, the event’s title sponsor, Wachovia Bank, and its parent company, Wells Fargo, decided that despite spending $7 million annually to sponsor Charlotte’s PGA event, the company was better off lurking in the shadows, opposed to facing backlash from angry Americans who view corporate spending at golf tournaments as another example of financial mismanagement. This attitude stems from a February tournament in California when title sponsor Northern Trust took a bashing in the press after details of their client entertainment practices emerged.

But rather than taking the easy way out, why isn’t the Wachovia/Wells Fargo team standing behind its sponsorship with some messages on why the deal is good for business? As the saying goes, you have to spend money to make money; isn’t that what’s happening here? Shouldn’t the bank’s communications team be bombarding us with stats on how $7 million spent at a golf tournament leads to X amount in returns? Shouldn’t we be introduced to key clients and accounts that were attracted to Wachovia thanks in part to some well-executed schmoozing at Quail Hollow? While it’s a noble move for the company to donate tickets and advertising time to charities, why are the efforts to lure customers being abandoned?

One wonders if the lack of messaging stems from a lack of evidence to support the messages. CNBC’s Darren Rovell theorizes that no one is speaking up on the value of sports sponsorships because the ROI might not exist. If that’s the case, then it’s time for the organizers and promoters of these events to get their messages ready because they’ll need plenty of help luring future sponsors.

Last month I had an opportunity to serve as a panelist at the Publicity Club of Chicago’s monthly luncheon where the topic was “Updating Your Social Media Toolkit.” Beyond using social media to build programs for clients, I raised the point that social media has created new ways for public relations practitioners to interact with journalists. The rising popularity of Twitter has made it a preferred tool of many journalists to the point where we now have comprehensive directories of journalists on Twitter.

The first rule of pitching a reporter is to gather information on the journalist before you send out your pitch. While reading their stories will always be the best way to do this, Twitter gives you a snapshot into a reporter’s interests, since you can follow the people they’re following. Sounds a bit creepy, but it could offer some valuable insights. And rather than fighting through the clutter of e-mail, many journalists are using Twitter as a streamlined way to communicate with sources. As this medium evolves, the relationship between PR pros and journalists many evolve with as well.

For all the millions of dollars he’s earned as a baseball player, Alex Rodriguez is wisely spending some of that money on sound crisis counseling. Just 48 hours after he became the latest name linked to performance enhancing drugs, Rodriguez, undoubtedly acting on the advice of p.r. practitioners, confessed to ESPN’s Peter Gammons.

During baseball’s steroids era, we’ve seen the accused take a variety of stances. There was Mark McGwire’s infamous non-admission admission of guilt in front of Congress in 2005, when the tainted superstar hid behind the phrase “I’m not here to talk about the past,” leaving everyone to assume the worst. McGwire hasn’t been seen or heard from much since, and his candidacy for baseball’s Hall of Fame has received barely a whisper of support.

Then there’s the defiant denial in the face of mounting evidence, most notoriously carried out by Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Here are two men who would have you believe the dog ate their homework, and the more vehemently they deny the compelling case against them, the more disgusted fans become with them. These men now face conviction not only in the court of public opinion, but possibly in the court of law.

What Rodriguez and his handlers have learned is that for those who admit guilt there are opportunities for forgiveness. A year ago, Rodriguez’s Yankee teammate Andy Pettitte was implicated in the use of human growth hormone. While Clemens was busy dishing out implausible denials, Pettitte apologized and has been widely re-accepted by fans.

Forgiveness will not come immediately for Rodriguez, and the steroid issue will always come up in any conversation about his career accomplishments. But with plenty of years ahead he’ll have ample opportunities to reshape his image. Following the counsel to admit guilt was a smart first step in that direction.

The National Hockey League rarely gains mainstream attention. Unfortunately for the league, the phrase “sloppy seconds” has propelled the sport into the spotlight this week. But the crass comments of one NHL villain have lead to conflicting views on free speech and bad publicity.

To recap, noted hockey bad boy Sean Avery was in Calgary Tuesday, where his Dallas Stars were facing the Flames. Avery’s ex-girlfriend, actress Elisha Cuthbert (you may remember her hooking up with Luke Wilson after Mitch-a-palooza in “Old School”), is currently dating Flames defenseman Dion Phaneuf. After confirming that TV cameras were present at the morning practice, Avery delivered some premeditated remarks in which he referred to Cuthbert and another ex-girlfriend, model Rachel Hunter, as “sloppy seconds.” Obviously this was a calculated move on Avery’s part to stir the pot before the game, and not entirely shocking coming from a player who is always begging for attention.

The NHL wasted no time in suspending Avery indefinitely, ruling him out of that night’s game with Calgary. Avery will face a disciplinary hearing Thursday morning. The incident has sparked debate on whether or not the league was justified in suspending a player over a crass comment. Did he exhibit a complete lack of class? No doubt. But is classlessness really a suspendable offense?

Some have argued that the NHL should be grateful for the publicity. I don’t agree with that stance, but I also don’t agree that a suspension was warranted. The league should have left the matter in the hands of Avery’s employer. Given that Dallas Stars’ owner Tom Hicks said “We hold our team to a higher standard and will continue to do so,” Avery would have received an appropriate hand-slapping from the team without league intervention. Now that the NHL is handing out punishments based on who’s crass and who’s class, they’ve set a murky standard that will be debated anytime a player’s comments border on the objectionable.

If you saw Sunday night’s “60 Minutes” interview with President-elect Barack Obama, or his appearance on Monday Night Football the night prior to the election, you know that there’s one sports issue that elicits a strong opinion from Obama – the subject of a national college football playoff. Any chance of that happening during his first term was eliminated this week as ESPN gobbled up the television rights to four Bowl Championship Series games to the tune of $500 million over four years beginning in January 2011. As long as the BCS remains the postseason format of choice, the playoff system that Obama and so many others seek will remain elusive.

There’s a hypocrisy at play involving college football and those who cover the sport. Turn on ESPN in November and December, and you’ll hear endless debate over the BCS, the convoluted formula that determines which two schools will play for the national championship. Inevitably the discussion will turn to the preferred alternative to the BCS, a playoff system. How can an ESPN analyst suggest that college football implement a playoff system when the half billion dollars the network is paying in rights fees is the driving force to maintain the status quo?

Many years ago I came to the realization that nearly every decision related to sports is based on money, so I’m not foolish enough to think that college football will suddenly create a playoff system just because that’s what the fans (or the President) want. The alliance of schools that comprise the BCS will continue to sell whatever package brings in the most money from networks. When you see how ESPN creates an enormous block of programming around the current bowl structure, it’s hard to see them paying more for an eight-team, seven-game playoff. What’s good for ESPN is good for the schools they’re paying. 

So dream on, President-elect Obama. Solving America’s financial crisis is more do-able than bringing a playoff to major college football.