Analysis Media Matters: How the AFC Deals with the - er, nice people in the media

[arrowman]

This is a common point of discussion, so I thought it might be worthy of a thread. I'll begin - long post alert

1. I don't believe the AFC (or any club) should be expected to respond to every story / rumour in the media. It's not a good use of time and energy, it can just give oxygen to stories and engage the club in an ongoing public debate where it's not needed.

The media's gonna do what the media does. We don't have to get sucked in to playing their game.

2. At the same time, when the story is complete BS, the club should issue an immediate and unequivocal denial. But ONLY when it's complete BS. If there's any sliver of truth behind it, or it's speculation about something that may well happen but is under consideration behind the scenes and in confidence, it's probably best to stay out of it. Because even the most carefully worded statement can be (wilfully) misinterpreted) and/or give more weight to a story with a "CLUB DENIES" headline.

3. Either way, any such communication has to be clear and consistent, across all the people. There's no room for inconsistent messages / wording.

4. Supporters are not entitled to have the club come out and respond to every rumour/story, and it's not "secretive / non-transparent / keeping supporters in the dark" if the club chooses to not do that.

5. There is room (need?) for clubs - not just the AFC - to take a harder line with total BS stories. Media nuffies need to be held to account. But that doesn't extend to lawsuits, as some have suggested. That's a waste of time and resources, a distraction, and stands very little chance of success.

Examples from recent times:

1. Eddie Betts rumours - club gets a pass. State the facts, do not get engaged in a public discussion about a player's future. It is disrespectful to the player, apart from anything else.

2. Tom Morris BS about player survey - Pass. Came out straight away and called it out.

3. Richard Douglas "retirement" - Fail. We didn't offer him a new contract, that's perfectly reasonable and not at all a bad news story for the club (arguably it's the opposite). There was no need for it.

4. The camp - Well, fail, duh. There was a lot of BS in the media, and it would have been a difficult one to handle, apart from anything else you don't want to get involved in selective denials because then the media just picks up on the bits you haven't denied and goes "well what about...". Difficult, but the club managed it very badly.

So overall, while I agree that the club has been poor at media management over the past few years (at least), I don't think it's as bad as some would say, and I don't think the Betts / survey issues are examples of the club getting it wrong - quite the opposite.

Finally - where we do get it wrong, who is responsible? I guess most people would point the finger at Shutts, and fair enough, I guess, however:

1. Is it Shutts' fault that he has been, perhaps, put into a position where he's actually not fully capable? I don't know, but is he actually a quality / qualified media / PR person (when it comes to things like messaging), or is he just a communicating / draft media released kind of guy who has wrongly been put solely in charge of all media / PR / messaging matters? It's like, I don't know, putting a decent bookkeeper in charge of your financial management and then blaming the bookkeeper when that fails. Because either you don't understand the difference between a bookkeeper and a financial manager, or you're too cheap to pay up for an actual financial manager.

2. And I think this is important: Even a good media / PR / messaging person will struggle if the management don't listen / don't want to listen / won't be told. I've known very good media/PR people who are driven to distraction when their internal clients (Board, CEO etc) just don't listen / respect the expertise and just carry on regardless.

Discuss

 

[Slippery Pete]

The club has had genuine off-field issues since the GF, so even with the best media strategy you are going to encounter potholes. There are times when no matter how good your strategy is, if you are fronting a s**t organization it’s going to show.

However...

Their media strategy has been horrifically bad. It is quite a feat to be as widely hated as they are. At some point they changed direction and froze out the footy media (don’t buy the garbage that they give “more interviews than any other club.” Eddie & Tex doing breakfast spots doesn’t count, the Crouch brothers having a giggle with Rowe and Bickley doesn’t count).

This doesn’t mean you pander to every dickhead with a deadline. If fact that would be a mistake. But you DO have to build relationships with key footy media identities. That forms a huge part of your PR. You need positive stories written about the club from time to time. It also builds credit and trust. If you operate in a bubble, the media will take pleasure nailing you any time you slip up.

The camp stuff festered from Round 1 or 2 until mid-2018. The club gambled on winning enough games so that it would be forgotten and swept under the carpet. It was a terrible, poorly judged gamble that cost the club a lot of credibility in the football world. Up to a week before the Burton/Pyke media conference the chairman was even extolling the virtues of the camp! And they wonder why people don’t trust a word they say?

Then they hold a mysterious “not about the camp” media conference...

That whole thing was a case study in media mismanagement: how NOT to handle a PR disaster.

The media are like sharks. If they smell blood in the water they will circle. And then there’s no way out.

And then you end up like this.

 

[Slippery Pete]

The club’s representatives also seem to have no concept whatsoever of how they are viewed from the outside. They have absolutely no concept that it’s embarrassing wearing the colours after s**t like this happens, that other supporters take the piss out of the club for not being a real football club, that the executive is unelected and appears totally unaccountable, insular, smug and arrogant, that they appear to just take 50,000 crowds for granted, that supporters don’t give a rats tossbag about the Adelaide Bite.

When accusations are made about the club on behalf of members, they sit there and say “those things aren’t true” but it never occurs to them that that isn’t the point - the point is, true or not, they are perceptions that have become widely held under their management.

The fact those perceptions exist is, in itself, a failing of the club and its PR.

 

[Redline]

Communication around AFL Player movements have annoyed me but that is competiton wide.

With both the Dangerfield and McGovern deals we were assured no one was going anywhere yet the club admit later they knew both wanted out and were discussing the trades during the season. We are going through the same thing with Betts at the moment.

The above is a reflection of the player as much as the club but unfortunately the club is generally the one that has to deal with the fallout, not the player.

I don't have the answer but there has to be a better way than blatantly lying to the supporters.

 

[arrowman]

At some point they changed direction and froze out the footy media (don’t buy the garbage that they give “more interviews than any other club.” Eddie & Tex doing breakfast spots doesn’t count, the Crouch brothers having a giggle with Rowe and Bickley doesn’t count).

This doesn’t mean you pander to every dickhead with a deadline. If fact that would be a mistake. But you DO have to build relationships with key footy media identities. That forms a huge part of your PR. You need positive stories written about the club from time to time. It also builds credit and trust. If you operate in a bubble, the media will take pleasure nailing you any time you slip up.

Good post, and this bit in particular. There's a difference between not pandering, and freezing them out. The relationships thing is key, as you say.

 

[marvin]

Nice post, arrowman.

I agree completely with points 1-4. Point 3 is interesting as we have nearly perfected the art of turning a late withdrawal into a 6 week injury. "We'll see on Tuesday once the swelling's gone down and we've got the scans back" is a perfectly reasonable response.

Point 5 is interesting, and I think has been the root of some of the club's issues. There are people in the crock-of-media who have set themselves up with an intense anti-Adelaide agenda, an have poured forth complete rot, in some cases for years. Trying to cultivate an effective working relationship with them is likely to be fruitless. It seems like the club has swung too far the other way, and assumed that more members of the fourth estate are equally adversarial.

The Douglas farewell video showed a few of the issues you raise in stark light. Firstly, the attempt to shoehorn a non-retirement into a "wasn't it sweet when Andy got emotional, lets do that again" was an uncomfortable fit. Secondly, the awkwardness when Pyke tried to thank Dougie for being a two time best club man until Dougie corrected him looked somewhere between a lack of awareness and a lack of preparation by the coach.

 

[ChilliP]

2. At the same time, when the story is complete BS, the club should issue an immediate and unequivocal denial. But ONLY when it's complete BS.

This would just result in everyone presuming a rumour is true when the club is silent "because if it was false they would say something".

 

[jo172]

Only a very small element, but I think when the Club took the (correct) approach to finally cut out Rucci, they began taking their (rightful) heavy handed attitude with him, to great swathes of the media as a whole. Essentially biting the hand that feeds.

You don't have to like them, you don't have to respect them, but in order to succeed you're going to have to find a way to work with them.

 

[GreyCrow]

Media Matters also relates to their own provided content. To presume otherwise is wrong

For mine they dont utilise their own platform enough or they use it haphazardly. Point in case, when the AFC win they are all over Twitter and I assume other platforms

But lose and its Legacy vids for 2 days. Be consistent. Sure losing hurts but dont withdraw. Some games the coaches press conference took hours to post, win and its up within the hour.

They can also use their platforms to deny or confirm. It takes a moment to post ''Eddie Betts has a contract for 2020 and the AFC wish to clarify this and refute the rumour from (insert media numpty) ''

It takes 2 minutes to type up and send to social media guy to post. Its simple, direct and highlights the person spreading the story. If the person gets named enough times people will stop believing them

 

[MRB37]

Media Matters also relates to their own provided content. To presume otherwise is wrong

For mine they dont utilise their own platform enough or they use it haphazardly. Point in case, when the AFC win they are all over Twitter and I assume other platforms

But lose and its Legacy vids for 2 days. Be consistent. Sure losing hurts but dont withdraw. Some games the coaches press conference took hours to post, win and its up within the hour.

They can also use their platforms to deny or confirm. It takes a moment to post ''Eddie Betts has a contract for 2020 and the AFC wish to clarify this and refute the rumour from (insert media numpty) ''

It takes 2 minutes to type up and send to social media guy to post. Its simple, direct and highlights the person spreading the story. If the person gets named enough times people will stop believing them

When the CEO does this it's probably easy to understand why it happens from the media department.

 

[Sanders]

This stuff is Shutts domain, to develop strategies, manage implementation etc.

It’s not going well

 

[BringbackWebb]

I would not like to be trying to provide the media interface for the Adelaide Football Club in the current media environment, particularly given how clearly biased and agenda driven most segments of the media seem to be. There are people in the media, not the just the one's in Adelaide that we all know, but some based in Melbourne, who are incapable of saying anything about Adelaide without it having at best a negative slant, but in general this negativity is endemic. Unfortunately this club is clearly loathed within football circles and the general media reflects this, they can deny all they want but it is clear.

I believe any media strategy going forward by Adelaide needs to be acutely aware of this unfortunate reality, and use it to the clubs advantage. One great media step the club has taken is to have Jason Dunstall head the review, great PR move at least as he still holds plenty of respect in Melbourne, where let's face it all AFL matters ultimately revolve at the moment.

Nothing I have mentioned is going to be easy though and going forward it will only be more challenging, as each and every aspect of Adelaide behaviour and performance is dissected and scrutinised far beyond any of the Victorian based clubs levels of scrutiny, and of course the outcomes of the review will only be more fuel for the fire!

 

[DoubleBlue2]

I have been waiting for this thread for some time. I work with a lot of journalists and have some insight into the scurrilous nature of the role.

The simple answer for the issues with the press is similar to the issues within the rest of the club....COMPLACENCY!

From the early internet era up until the modern social media landscape the club were able to manipulate the local media to our own agenda. The clever use of ambassadors and past players could control whichever message the club were putting out. It was simple to do as mainstream media would bend over for access to sell newspapers with the 'good' news that constantly emanated from the club.

With the new media, the club tried to get on the front foot by producing our own product and excluding others that did not contain ambassadors or wouldn't let us control the message. This was a regressive attitude that is now biting us on the behind.

Media is now immediate and national. If you don't let the truth out, the rumours will be even more spectacular, this has not been helped by the defensive attitude we have to any form of criticism (something that resulted from us never really having to face any). We aren't the only, or massively biggest, fish anymore, with immunity from negativity resulting from the need to sell advertising space in the Advertiser or on 5AA. We have value in being a bad news headline in Victoria or WA.

 

[SaltPeter]

We have value in being a bad news headline in Victoria or WA.

Equally enlightening and depressing. Simple, yet I’d never really considered it from that perspective

 

[John Who]

I think the onus is also on the fans to learn and educate themselves on the truths, the half-truths and the blatant media lies.

How we deal with the media is perhaps just as important as how the club deals with them.

The issue I have is that some journalists are repeatedly reporting junk news which are:
- hard to disprove
- not wanting to seek evidence
- wanting only click bait attraction by the online consumers

Fans need to be aware of some of these behaviours because it disrupts the club focus on moving forward and improving itself.

This post is a separate issue as to how I think the club is going (I don’t think it’s going very well btw, no duh John!).
But the media asses need to be made accountable and the fans need to understand where to put focus on, instead of jumping into conclusions for every news they hear negative about the Crows.

 

[John Who]

I have been waiting for this thread for some time. I work with a lot of journalists and have some insight into the scurrilous nature of the role.

The simple answer for the issues with the press is similar to the issues within the rest of the club....COMPLACENCY!

From the early internet era up until the modern social media landscape the club were able to manipulate the local media to our own agenda. The clever use of ambassadors and past players could control whichever message the club were putting out. It was simple to do as mainstream media would bend over for access to sell newspapers with the 'good' news that constantly emanated from the club.

With the new media, the club tried to get on the front foot by producing our own product and excluding others that did not contain ambassadors or wouldn't let us control the message. This was a regressive attitude that is now biting us on the behind.

Media is now immediate and national. If you don't let the truth out, the rumours will be even more spectacular, this has not been helped by the defensive attitude we have to any form of criticism (something that resulted from us never really having to face any). We aren't the only, or massively biggest, fish anymore, with immunity from negativity resulting from the need to sell advertising space in the Advertiser or on 5AA. We have value in being a bad news headline in Victoria or WA.

I think there’s 2 areas of concern. You are focusing on what the club should be doing more of and improving its public relations. This point I can’t and won’t argue.

The other major area of concern is that media are behaving like trolls in some segments of journalism. The club and its fans need to be more weary and protect themselves from these media trolls because just like any online trolls:
The more you respond , the more s**t it spills out right back at you!
The overall result: club and fans can spiral into a wave of malaise and lethargy and nothing is improved/gained.

Summary: we (fans) need to protect the club of media/journalist trolls, just as much as we need good journalism to give our opinions on the club we support.

 

[arrowman]

This stuff is Shutts domain, to develop strategies, manage implementation etc.

It’s not going well

Agreed, and my question(s) is/are

- Is Shutts actually qualified (enough) in this area? Being a former reporter might help, but it does not automatically qualify you to develop / implement media strategies, it's a different skill set - especially when it comes to implementation and getting the people in the organisation on board; and further to that

- As I said before, you are still dependent on the people in the organisation to be willing / able to listen, learn and follow these strategies and not think "they know best".

I don't know which of these things (or both) is happening. I'd be pretty sure Fagan "gets it", others maybe not so much.

 

[arrowman]

They can also use their platforms to deny or confirm. It takes a moment to post ''Eddie Betts has a contract for 2020 and the AFC wish to clarify this and refute the rumour from (insert media numpty) ''

It takes 2 minutes to type up and send to social media guy to post. Its simple, direct and highlights the person spreading the story. If the person gets named enough times people will stop believing them

Further to this - and I don't think the club has done a bad job on Eddie - the Eddie situation is a good example of where the club needs to (and IMO has) tread carefully and use precise language. The club has already said "he is a contracted player", which is true, of course. Apparently Fagan has said "He is not on the trade table" which is also true. And all of this is good.

It does not mean that there are no discussions going on, or that Eddie may be considering a move on his own account, or that the club is not aware of this possibility and willing to facilitate it (at the right price). All of these things are possible, but the club has no business alluding to them or playing anything other than a straight bat when asked.

BUT then what happens is (for example, possibly): Eddie does ask for a trade, it happens, and the media (or supporters) then say to the club "you lied / you weren't transparent / look, we were publishing stories about Eddie leaving the club and you DENIED IT!" Or "the club was BLINDSIDED after weeks of denial!" No, we bloody didn't "deny it" and no, we weren't "blindsided". In a situation like that, the club can't win. Best they can do is play it as well as they can, and IMO they have done this.

 

[Brasher]

Because we are soft, we carry no fear or awe about us and do not demand respect.

Which allows any media commentators who have barely graduated high school and with football experience extends to kicking a brace in the Chelsea under 12s knowing they tee off on us to grab a few extra hits without genuine repercussion.

The alter ego is why Malcolm Blight could get away with butchering metaphors and calling one of his players pathetic. Blight was respected, very much held in awe and just crazy enough to make you fear him.

Mark Ricciuto was probably one of the most respected players of his time but has turned into a guy that just seems happy to have extended his time in the football inner circle now. We need the off field equivalent of Roo ironing out Dean Kemp or leveling Lance Whitnall at Princes Park during a thunderstorm.

 

[Bovo]

This is a common point of discussion, so I thought it might be worthy of a thread. I'll begin - long post alert

1. I don't believe the AFC (or any club) should be expected to respond to every story / rumour in the media. It's not a good use of time and energy, it can just give oxygen to stories and engage the club in an ongoing public debate where it's not needed.

The media's gonna do what the media does. We don't have to get sucked in to playing their game.

2. At the same time, when the story is complete BS, the club should issue an immediate and unequivocal denial. But ONLY when it's complete BS. If there's any sliver of truth behind it, or it's speculation about something that may well happen but is under consideration behind the scenes and in confidence, it's probably best to stay out of it. Because even the most carefully worded statement can be (wilfully) misinterpreted) and/or give more weight to a story with a "CLUB DENIES" headline.

3. Either way, any such communication has to be clear and consistent, across all the people. There's no room for inconsistent messages / wording.

4. Supporters are not entitled to have the club come out and respond to every rumour/story, and it's not "secretive / non-transparent / keeping supporters in the dark" if the club chooses to not do that.

5. There is room (need?) for clubs - not just the AFC - to take a harder line with total BS stories. Media nuffies need to be held to account. But that doesn't extend to lawsuits, as some have suggested. That's a waste of time and resources, a distraction, and stands very little chance of success.

Examples from recent times:

1. Eddie Betts rumours - club gets a pass. State the facts, do not get engaged in a public discussion about a player's future. It is disrespectful to the player, apart from anything else.

2. Tom Morris BS about player survey - Pass. Came out straight away and called it out.

3. Richard Douglas "retirement" - Fail. We didn't offer him a new contract, that's perfectly reasonable and not at all a bad news story for the club (arguably it's the opposite). There was no need for it.

4. The camp - Well, fail, duh. There was a lot of BS in the media, and it would have been a difficult one to handle, apart from anything else you don't want to get involved in selective denials because then the media just picks up on the bits you haven't denied and goes "well what about...". Difficult, but the club managed it very badly.

So overall, while I agree that the club has been poor at media management over the past few years (at least), I don't think it's as bad as some would say, and I don't think the Betts / survey issues are examples of the club getting it wrong - quite the opposite.

Finally - where we do get it wrong, who is responsible? I guess most people would point the finger at Shutts, and fair enough, I guess, however:

1. Is it Shutts' fault that he has been, perhaps, put into a position where he's actually not fully capable? I don't know, but is he actually a quality / qualified media / PR person (when it comes to things like messaging), or is he just a communicating / draft media released kind of guy who has wrongly been put solely in charge of all media / PR / messaging matters? It's like, I don't know, putting a decent bookkeeper in charge of your financial management and then blaming the bookkeeper when that fails. Because either you don't understand the difference between a bookkeeper and a financial manager, or you're too cheap to pay up for an actual financial manager.

2. And I think this is important: Even a good media / PR / messaging person will struggle if the management don't listen / don't want to listen / won't be told. I've known very good media/PR people who are driven to distraction when their internal clients (Board, CEO etc) just don't listen / respect the expertise and just carry on regardless.

Discuss

There is a flaw in this. If it is bs then flat out and deny it. If there is a sliver of truth don’t say any thing

Media says Smith is looking to go to GWS. If the club says nothing, this is true. So the club has to say something. You see where I am going with this? It will cause more of a stir, ecause unless the club calls bs it has to be true. I am all for the club hiring a hit man to solve some of the erratic media issues. Just saying

 

[GreyCrow]

Further to this - and I don't think the club has done a bad job on Eddie - the Eddie situation is a good example of where the club needs to (and IMO has) tread carefully and use precise language. The club has already said "he is a contracted player", which is true, of course. Apparently Fagan has said "He is not on the trade table" which is also true. And all of this is good.

It does not mean that there are no discussions going on, or that Eddie may be considering a move on his own account, or that the club is not aware of this possibility and willing to facilitate it (at the right price). All of these things are possible, but the club has no business alluding to them or playing anything other than a straight bat when asked.

BUT then what happens is (for example, possibly): Eddie does ask for a trade, it happens, and the media (or supporters) then say to the club "you lied / you weren't transparent / look, we were publishing stories about Eddie leaving the club and you DENIED IT!" Or "the club was BLINDSIDED after weeks of denial!" No, we bloody didn't "deny it" and no, we weren't "blindsided". In a situation like that, the club can't win. Best they can do is play it as well as they can, and IMO they have done this.

I would rather the latter than leaving an empty vacuum. I could be wrong but I figured Eddie was trending on twitter for 36 hours. 36 hours of people losing their s**t

Eddie is much loved. But if Eddie chooses to leave then that's on Eddie.

I understand your point about the media twisting it back but one statement saying "after long consideration Eddie has decided to move on. Earlier statements were true at the time they were said"

 

[Slippery Pete]

Agreed, and my question(s) is/are

- Is Shutts actually qualified (enough) in this area? Being a former reporter might help, but it does not automatically qualify you to develop / implement media strategies, it's a different skill set - especially when it comes to implementation and getting the people in the organisation on board; and further to that

I don’t think it’s a question of qualifications.

It’s a question of personality, judgement and intuition.

There aren’t that many people at the club whose CVs would say they’re woefully underqualified. That’s why you keep getting the club saying “look, he’s done this this and that!”

And that’s the problem. You need good judgement to appoint people with good judgement. You can’t just rely on a CV.

We have a lot of people with lousy judgement. That’s absolutely plain to see.

 

[arrowman]

I don’t think it’s a question of qualifications.

It’s a question of personality, judgement and intuition.

Yes, that's what I mean. Not formal qualifications, necessarily, but relevant experience and personal qualities. I'd take an experienced media manager with a track record in that field, who has never worked in the media, let alone sports media, over an inexperienced (in media management) sports journalist every day.

And that’s the problem. You need good judgement to appoint people with good judgement. You can’t just rely on a CV.

We have a lot of people with lousy judgement. That’s absolutely plain to see.

The bit I don't know about is the selection process or the thinking of the people who made the appointment. If they gave more weight to "sports journalist" than "media manager", if they would turn down the kind of person I described above because "no experience in a football / sporting environment", then yes, that would be poor judgement.

I know someone who could to the AFC media job standing on her head. And she barely knows how many players there are in a team. And maybe, head to head in a selection process, she wouldn't have got the job.