Articles published in December, 2009

  1. The News Truce

    Published on Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

    In Ypres, 1914 a Christmas Eve ceasefire became the stuff of yuletide legend.

    The truce began when German troops decorated their trenches, the soldiers placed candles on trees and sang Christmas carols. Not to be outdone British troops responded singing their own carols back in English. In no time the two sides were shouting greetings to each other, there were calls for visits across No Man’s Land where small gifts were exchanged. Whiskey, jam, cigars and chocolate was shared and the artillery in the region fell silent that night.

    This exceptional outbreak of peace reminds me of the news over the summertime here in New Zealand, it’s as if our world stops speaking for a month. Could this outbreak of ‘nothing happening’ be because all of us in the information exchange business have waved a white flag and sent the news on holiday?

    The news goes soft. Not a peep is heard from the courts or councils, the lobbyist and legislators languish. Business leaders too are mute, our captains of industry have headed off in the caravan and so have the agitators and activists. The Beehive itself is silent. Even the sports reporters have given up the ghost.

    The papers are scrawny and the news bulletins truncated. They will contain stories from the seaside, teens running amok, cute kiddies frolicking, kooky animal stories, a freak storm perhaps, sunscreen warnings, surf beach rescues and the road toll.

    The lifestyle pages will be chocka with recipes for leftovers, anniversaries of other things, musings on the future or the past from famousish New Zealanders and book reviews. The news in other words – will be nice.

    This is not a global news-truce, the Northern hemisphere draws a breath for Christmas but their news-machine barely misses a beat. It is us who have a full hiatus of real news and maybe that’s just the way we like it.

  2. Tiger Tiger burning bright…and crashing*

    Published on Friday, December 11th, 2009

    While the media still can’t get quite enough of the story, some quarters have gone quiet on Tiger Woods. 

    After his ho-hum apology, Tiger is giving the world the silent treatment in a strategy to deal with the ruckus over the snowballing allegations of multiple infidelities. Keeping Mum is not a bad idea, in truth, particularly while the appetite for scandal is still sky high, and anything he says will have news editor eager to keep him selling papers. 

    Bizarre indeed was the sight of the feckless cocktail waitress, one of his alleged partners in this concupiscence, publicly apologising to Tiger’s wife on global TV for her part in the dalliance.  Just what Mrs Woods wanted, I’m sure.

    But there is another quarter that appears to have quietly turned its back on the sport star – and these are his sponsors.

     According to a report in the LA Times data compiled by the Nielsen ratings company, no Woods ads have appeared on television since Nov. 29, two days after he crashed his Cadillac SUV outside his home in Florida.

    This has got to hurt. Forbes have his sponsorships worth $110 million.

    Across a range of big swinging brands like Nike, Gillette, PepsiCo Inc.’s, Gatorade and Tag Heur, the sponsors’ response plan appears to be to keep aspirational images of Tiger out of the public’s face until this blows over.  Given their substantial investments in this “property,” brand managers are holding their breath and hoping like mad that the worst is over for the golden boy of golf. Meanwhile golf viewers are switching off in droves – TV ratings for golf down 50% – affecting advertising revenues.

    Which reminds me, golf is what Tiger does exceptionally well.  Before he became the pin-up boy for multicultural morality and family values, perhaps we could all return to the real game, please?

    * apologies to poet William Blake

  3. Why the media won’t get this particular Tiger by his tail

    Published on Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

    It’s been interesting to watch the sports media trying to take the Tiger Woods story to new levels – despite his almost complete silence on the matter, until this morning, that is, when he offered further comment. Until now, in the absence of any new information, the story had become one about him not talking to the media. 

    In fact, coverage had descended to a debate amongst various journalists around how he and his camp are handling the matter and if this might be the right or wrong approach. 

    It is a bit like a kiwi rugby fan watching an All Black game and offering what usually sounds to me like very useful advice on their performance.  Why don’t the real coaches do the same thing if it is so obvious? 

    Of course the Tiger coverage and AB commentary are symptoms of only seeing the situation from one perspective – from the outside looking in. Very few people know the full story, but even more importantly, only those on the inside know what the overall strategy is.  So what’s really the end-goal here? 

    In the case of issues being played out in the media – the response, or lack thereof, may have very little to do with that strategy, or it could be a key plank in the strategy. Likely we will never know.  Most important are the people directly affected, and the task of the issues manager is ensuring their needs are met. 

    In managing any issue, the needs of all of the stakeholders and key audiences need to be considered. Sure, media are critical, but they may be one of many.  Similarly corporate reputation is important, but not at the expense of others. (In Tiger Woods’ case, I suspect his wife could be slightly more important. But then again, I don’t really know.)

    As PR professionals we might enjoy exercising our grey matter by sharing our views on how an issue is being handled, but we must accept that if we are not directly involved, what we say is pure conjecture.

     As 2009 winds down and the “year in review” stories begin to roll out, there is sure to be plenty of “informed” comment on how different organisations and individuals have fared.  However, we should keep in mind that much of this is an individual person’s view, and most likely one that is not fully informed.