Media Savvy

[roo_stew]

Its probably a boring observation but after watching On the Couch and Wallace Wednesday thsi week it dawned on me just how much more professional Richmond appears in the media these days. Browny was excellent particularly with the odd leading question, (re Pettifers taunt) and avoided further bull******** or issue. Richo has become much better also and Plough obviously is a media "package"

It seems a peripheral thing but somehow I think it makes us look all the more credible and earns a level of respect from the great unwashed. I used to dread a Spud interview full of ''umms n arrghs" and "yeah well we are travelling OK" as well as every other hackneyed cliche that he rolled out whilst not looking at either the camera nor the interviewer and displaying the IQ of the Mongolian Racing Trout.

For me it is just one more thing we are starting to get right and are now actually using the media rather being used.

 

[jezza]

Good points RS, it is good to see us looking more professional in the media and I think it started probably back with the press conference announcing DF wouldn't be coaching this year, something we handled far better than the Hawks or Crows. What upset me in the past was that the players and coach went from being open and friendly with the media, to then having a media blackout, then back again and so on, they couldn't decide what they wanted and in the end we came off looking very unprofessional.

It surprises me how often the issue of Kane Johnson and the media comes up, to me it's just not a big deal. We have a leadership group of 4 and 3 of those are prominent and capable in the media so it's not like the club is suffering in any way from not having a highly-exposed captain. If we were lacking in the media, then fine they can complain about it, but with Wallace, Miller, Brown, Richo and Bowden all out there I see no problem.

 

[turtle27]

It surprises me how often the issue of Kane Johnson and the media comes up, to me it's just not a big deal. We have a leadership group of 4 and 3 of those are prominent and capable in the media so it's not like the club is suffering in any way from not having a highly-exposed captain. If we were lacking in the media, then fine they can complain about it, but with Wallace, Miller, Brown, Richo and Bowden all out there I see no problem.

Interesting point Jezza, I for one am not concerned that Kane doesn't have as much media attention as say Bucks or Voss. What do others think, should Kane be the "face" of Richmond, rather than the others in the leadership group?

From what Browny said on the couch, it sounds as though he is adding more value from within the club, especially to the younger blokes, rather than being on the news or in the papers.

 

[IDGAF]

To get sponsorship you have to be professional and marketable and i cannot understate the importance and the supurb job that plough has done for us in this area this year .

I would love to get a figure on the number of positive and "feel good" articles that have come out of punt rd. in the last 6 months .

Having said that though , Nathan Brown is a bit of a natural and quite well drilled in the artform . So you play to your strengths

I think that our club over the years has adopted a bit of a seige mentality at times where we have closed shop at times rather than using the media to our advantage so the steps that have been adopted over the last 6 months have not only been fantastic but very , very , crucial for the re-birth of our club .

I regard the successful manipulation of todays media as critical for the future sustained success of our club ..... ( and plough knows it to )

 

[jezza]

Interesting point Jezza, I for one am not concerned that Kane doesn't have as much media attention as say Bucks or Voss. What do others think, should Kane be the "face" of Richmond, rather than the others in the leadership group?

From what Browny said on the couch, it sounds as though he is adding more value from within the club, especially to the younger blokes, rather than being on the news or in the papers.

It's funny you mention Buckley. Yes he gets plenty of exposure, but to me he seems uncomfortable in the media and certainly isn't a natural. I get the feeling he has been put under pressure to be more prominent, it's not through his own desire to be out there. I think we're much better off letting the guys who are comfortable in the media do that work and let Kane concentrate on leading rather than push him into the media where he won't come across as well.

 

[jake]

I think the issue of certain people being media savvy and others not is pointless, as it is both the media who carve the public image we see, and the media who annoint the title of media savvy and not to these figures. How many times last year did we hear the media tell us that Wallace's media capabilities were a big plus. Indeed back in 2001, Danny was a portrayed as call-a-spade-a-spade man's man who the players could relate to. The media machine is a selective one, and reporters can make their subject appear in any way they want. Moreover, the reporter is likely to involve their pre-conception of the subject (e.g. Wallace - steady and reasoned vs. Spud - circa 2004 a simple country bumpkin) in the context in which they are reported.

In any case, this is such a non-issue, as although Wallace and Frawley may, as a result of what we see in the papers or on telly occupy opposite ends of footy intelligencia, in the spectrum of society as a whole, and as a result of the PR training they are all shaped by, they occupy that narrow band, somewhere between cliche-merchant and utterly uninteresting that is reserved uniquely for the footballing fraternity. It is very rare that a footballer speaks their mind, and when they do (e.g. Riewoldt the other day), they cause such a ruckus that they must be wondering if "yeah at the end of the day we have a system in place" would have been a better response.

 

[Harvey Leadpipe]

On both points of the us using the media rather than the media using us, and attracting sponsorship, that thought dawned on me while driving home from the Dome on Sunday. Does anyone else have the feeling that we are basically out there endorsing and proudly promoting AFG and Motorola, rather than standing behind TAC and waiting to be told off like naughty little schoolboys? Any TAC publicity in the past was only promoted by negative activity. Sub-consciously, I think even the change of sponsor has had a positive impact on this team.

 

[roo_stew]

I think the issue of certain people being media savvy and others not is pointless, as it is both the media who carve the public image we see, and the media who annoint the title of media savvy and not to these figures. QUOTE]


JaKe I agree to a certain extent but make the point that perception is a powerful ally and however we are annointed to gain a postive and more importantly credible one is a useful process to be able to orchestrate. Actuality has precious little to do with media and it is more what we are perceived to be rather than the real Mc Coy that the broader football communitty will judge us on. Those keen enough will go beyond that to find their own truths.

A bit like the game itself it is also how our media people perform under pressure that is the real reflection too I guess.

 

[jake]

I think the issue of certain people being media savvy and others not is pointless, as it is both the media who carve the public image we see, and the media who annoint the title of media savvy and not to these figures. QUOTE]


JaKe I agree to a certain extent but make the point that perception is a powerful ally and however we are annointed to gain a postive and more importantly credible one is a useful process to be able to orchestrate. Actuality has precious little to do with media and it is more what we are perceived to be rather than the real Mc Coy that the broader football communitty will judge us on. Those keen enough will go beyond that to find their own truths.

A bit like the game itself it is also how our media people perform under pressure that is the real reflection too I guess.

Spot on with the first point, whilst I think the distinction is somewhat unfair, at least we are a beneficiary for a change. Good point that second one.

 

[IDGAF]

. Indeed back in 2001, Danny was a portrayed as call-a-spade-a-spade man's man who the players could relate to.

That is not true Jake

In 2001 Spud was portrayed as a buffoon whose own club went to the extent of gagging him so as to stop the drivel that spewed forth and tarred the RFC with the same brush as he was painted with .

 

[CJH]

All this media savvy may well be the work of Anthony Mithen. CC explicitly brought him onto the board to be able to provide some expertise in our relationships with the media.

The more publicity we get, the more attractive we are to sponsors. The next publicity wave must come from us getting more FTA games and then more Friday night games next year.

Why should a low-ranked team such as Collingwood dominate this slot? I know Collingwood have a large supporter base, but the critical mass for a Friday night TV audience would come from the neutral observer and they would much rather watch a quality game between 2 strong teams rather than a scrappy affair with a ordinary team that happens to have a large supporter base.

 

[Oh we're from..]

I used to dread a Spud interview full of ''umms n arrghs" and "yeah well we are travelling OK" as well as every other hackneyed cliche that he rolled out whilst not looking at either the camera nor the interviewer and displaying the IQ of the Mongolian Racing Trout.

Agree Roo. Also reckon we'll be cherry ripe when we take on the blues on Saturday!

 

[cairo tiger]

clearly wallace is a media delicacy and that is a main reason why we got him, ohh and the fact the bloke can coach

 

[julzqld]

I was talking to someone at the club the other day and commented on how media savvy TW is compared to Spud. This person told me that TW welcomes the media to training sessions etc whereas, especially in the dark days, Spud actually banned the media, fans - everyone.

 

[Colonel Matrix]

(re Pettifers taunt).

Can someone please fill me in on what the taunt was? I missed it.

 

[surpstar]

Evidence is simple

If you listen to some of the drivel that Frawley speaks when he's on the Sunday Footy show and TripleM, it's easy to see why the Tigers are now better portrayed in the media.
Wallace is more polished, more insightful, and knows success from his Hawthorn days.

Spud was a part of the rabble that was St Kilda in the 80's-early 90's, he learned from hacks, and is a result of being around mediocrity