Zeno Group Blog

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.

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.

Every time he’s in front of a camera, I wince watching Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig. Selig has lead America’s pastime since 1992, but in those 16 years I doubt he’s ever spent time with a media trainer. If he has, MLB should request a refund.

Selig was at the forefront Monday night, left to explain the bizarre circumstances that lead to Game 5 of the World Series becoming the first Fall Classic contest ever suspended mid-game due to weather. As he sat on the dais and stumbled through baseball’s rule book, Selig’s confused look leant credence to the theory that baseball’s brass were just making up rules on the fly. New York Daily News columnist John Harper summed Selig up best noting: “Selig tried to sound authoritative…but he just never comes off looking as if he has all the bases covered in these situations.”

Following Selig’s press conference, ESPN analysts criticized the commish for sounding so morose when the league had no reason to apologize for Mother Nature’s wrath. Whether he’s addressing baseball’s steroids scandal or handing the keys of a new Chevy to the All-Star Game MVP, Selig’s lack of polish is striking. His contemporaries, Roger Goodell (NFL), David Stern (NBA) and Gary Bettman (NHL), are far more competent at delivering a message. (Bettman’s success as NHL commissioner is debatable, but at least he speaks with authority.) When the season ends and baseball players begin off-season workouts, Selig should make media training part of his winter regimen.

Never one to hold back his opinion, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has taken a bold step by exposing the identities and e-mail addresses of dozens of people who sent hate-filled e-mails to his blog.

Earlier this week, news broke of a YouTube video in which Dallas Mavericks forward Josh Howard, attending a charity flag football event in July, says: “The Star-Spangled Banner is going on. I don’t celebrate this [expletive]. I’m black.” 

Cuban has gained cult hero status because of his open relationship with the fans.  Have a comment for Mark?  Just visit Blog Maverick and let him know what you think; he’ll often respond.  Not surprisingly, Howard’s remarks struck a chord with many, and those individuals sent their thoughts to Cuban.  The sample of e-mails Cuban posted last night regarding the Howard situation range from pathetic to offensive to just plain sad.  For those who supplied names and e-mail addresses, Cuban did not conceal their identities.

I applaud Cuban for exposing those who wrote in regarding Howard.  Just as Josh Howard must stand up and face the consequences of his ill-advised remarks, Cuban is making sure the “fans” must do the same.

When news emerged of the LPGA Tour’s new policy requiring that all its members learn English within two years or face a ban from the tour, my first thought was “Oh, this will go over well.” The LPGA Tour may have had good intentions, but it’s hard to understand how anyone within the organization’s leadership thought this action would be well-received by the general public.

The concept was born out of the fact that many of the Tour’s rising stars are Korean, and Tour leadership thinks that the inability of many of those players to speak English hurts the marketability of the Tour in the U.S. While there is some validity to that point (the National Hockey League has faced a similar issue with European-born talent), there were much better ways to address the issue than instituting a “Learn English or Hit the Road!” ultimatum. For starters, the LPGA Tour could have taken a pro-active approach in teaching its foreign-born stars basic English skills, rather than placing the burden on the players.
Within two weeks, the policy was rescinded, although LPGA Tour commissioner Carolyn Bivens said that a revised plan is on the way. The LPGA Tour now must deal with a much more difficult marketing issue: how to overcome the PR nightmare created by the offensive policy.