I often hear members of the equestrian community complain about the amount and quality of media coverage that show jumping receives. When there is negative coverage of any kind, they typically blame the messenger. Having witnessed this, time and time again, from two different vantage points, I am more likely to be amazed when it does get any coverage.

The people who run show jumping tournaments, who govern the sport, and who speak for the sport, seldom give the media any incentive to bother. I have been both a journalist covering the sport and a publicist representing the most high-profile figures in the sport. I recently tried to obtain results from a tournament that is sanctioned to host a World Cup Qualifier. One would expect that in order to be sanctioned in that way, a federation would require the tournament to have a good media relations policy. Federations in most sports would.

The management of the tournament in question did not answer their telephone or respond to e-mails for a three-week period. During two of those three weeks, the tournament was underway. Nearly a week after the tournament ended, I received a response on Facebook, rather than by phone or e-mail. This response complained about my requests for results and complained that I had told my readers that I was unable to obtain them.

The management of this tournament should consider it to be a lesson learned. If you treat the media like a nuisance, they will react in one of two ways. They will go away completely – leaving you to complain about no coverage. Or, they may become more of nuisance because you put their credibility on the line and force them to explain the absence of some information to their readers. You may consider this bad coverage. But, as I have written before, most negative coverage is preventable.

This incident is only one of many similar ones that I have encountered. They continually remind me that this sport has a lot of growing up to do to become “big league” sport. Many sports federations require media training for their members. Many sports federations dictate standards of media services to their member events. Even if a federation does not want to promote consistency and professionalism within the sport, it is in the best interests of all events and individual members to refrain from treating the media like a nuisance and then complaining about what ends up in print.

Media training should always be pro-active not reactive. Athletes and other representatives who are properly trained to respond to the media and to do interviews can prevent problems like unfavourable coverage. We have seen situations in Canadian show jumping where the actions of an athlete or the actions of an untrained and inexperienced media representative have resulted in unflattering publicity. The equestrian community has usually reacted with anger towards the media, not towards the athlete or other representative. Maybe anger towards the athletes or representative would not be appropriate either. None of us should be expected to do well at something in which we have no training.

The weekly British magazine Horse and Hound is reporting that British fox hunting representatives are now undertaking media training. This comes after years of negative publicity and a ban on fox hunting in Britain. The actual role the publicity played in the ban is not clear, as fox hunting is controversial for a variety of reasons. See the report here: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/article.php?aid=285538

However, media training, at this point, is an excellent demonstration of why training should be pro-active rather than reactive. The damage has been done. Recovering from it will be difficult, if not impossible. Reversing the ban would seem unlikely.

Some sport organizations, both professional and amateur, require athletes to take specified media training before competing in the sport’s top-level tournaments. I advocate this not because media training is my business, but because I have seen the results when an athlete fails to understand the media. I have ceased to represent more than one client, based on their refusal to take training or change conduct. I have also seen the difference it makes when an athlete has either taken training or has a natural skill in media relations.

All horse sports, and all athletes and their respective sport organizations, can learn from the British fox hunting experience and from Canadian show jumping’s experience. Media relations training can prevent negative publicity. It can also enhance and increase all publicity. It is not just for athletes. It should involve everyone at any level that might meet the media or plan media services . That includes event staff, volunteers, athletes and administrators. When used, as British fox hunting is doing, as a way to react to negative publicity, it may help in some situations. But, it is always better undertaken before problems arise.

One of the biggest stigmas that show jumping must overcome, as a sport, is the perception that it is an elitist private club. Yet, the actions of those within the sport often perpetuate that image. Maybe some are happy to be part of a private club. Maybe they feel the sport can survive financially without growing public interest. Maybe they feel fans are a nuisance. Maybe they don’t believe that marketing to more people results in more people becoming involved. That involvement may be as a participant, a sponsor or various other roles that equate to increased revenue.

This has long been an image problem for all equestrian sports but, recently, it was brought glaringly to my attention. A page on the social networking site Facebook calls on people to become supporters of the Canadian Equestrian Team. It goes by the name “Canadian Equestrian Team Supporters”.  At the top of the page is the following statement from the page’s administrator (grammar and sentence structure is his or hers, not mine) “I think our Canadian Equestrian Team is under appreciated and under supported. You look at the states and right from juniors they are very well supported. I think our CET is really good they just need more support. I mean you do have Spruce Meadows!”

The goal of this Facebook page is to garner support for a sport that is seen to be under-supported. Most Facebook pages are to garner support for something, therefore they welcome all those who wish to join. But the “Canadian Equestrian Team Supporters” page has one important difference. One must qualify to join. The following, very telling, statement appears where most pages invite people to join: “This is a closed group. Members must be invited or approved by admin.”

As a media relations consultant, I am not one who believes social networking sites are “media”. Some disagree with me. Such sites can, however, be a powerful tool in the whole marketing function. I did a Facebook search for support pages for many other sports and did not find any others that are “closed”. This page demonstrates a systemic view in the sport that the “private club” approach is acceptable. Yet, while it is seen as acceptable, there is plenty of complaining when others fail to be supportive, financially, or otherwise. The administrator may well be someone at the grass roots level who believes he is doing the right thing.  That would illustrate just how systemic this minset is.

I have serious questions about this Facebook page. What is the criteria to be a Canadian Equestrian Team supporter? What would rule someone out as an appropriate Canadian Equestrian Team supporter? Who would be granted the authority to decide? Does the Canadian Equestrian Team endorse this and, if not, why have they not asked the administrator to take it down or change it?  The “admin” does make a confusing reference to Spruce Meadows. He could learn a lesson by looking to them. Spruce Meadows does not draw 50,000 spectators in a day by sending a message that they are a private club and want to stay that way.

The most popular subjects on this blog are about equestrian terminology and the language of the sport. I call it “Horse Speak”. Among the most common Google searches that bring people here are phrases like “show jumping lingo”, “equestrian terminology” and “equestrian slang”. The second-most frequently read post in the history of this blog is “The Language Barrier of Equestrian Sport”. It was prompted by confusion,  during the Olympics, between the show jumping phase of the three-day event and the sport of show jumping.

 Although this blog is about media relations for show jumping, the word “equestrian” itself creates one of the many terminology challenges associated with that sport. Another of the most frequently-viewed posts on this blog, “The Trouble With the Word Equestrian”, talked about that.

Never were both of these terminology problems more clear than during, and after, the Rolex Kentucky Three-Day Event, which was held recently. When three-day eventers and their followers talk about this event, they call it simply “Rolex”. Television commentators during last year’s Olympics often said “this was his Rolex horse”, as if everyone knows exactly what that means. Name recognition is a good thing for any sponsor. But like any good thing, it can go too far. A Rolex is a watch. It is not a place. You can’t go to Rolex. It is not, in itself, a special event. Rolex, the watch company, also sponsors the show jumping and dressage World Cup Finals. Those two events were held close to the same date as the Rolex Kentucky Three-Day Event. Rolex also sponsors the International Equestrian Federation World Rider Rankings. So, what is “Rolex” when you use that word alone? To the listener or reader, it is a watch. And singling out a three-day event as “Rolex”, with no further description in the name, does a disservice to Rolex’s other sponsorship. Statements like “I’m going to Rolex”, or “This is my first Rolex”, or “This is my Rolex horse” make no sense in plain English. They are simply bad speaking practice if the sport ever wants to be media-friendly. And, also, bad practice if they want to give their sponsor fair value for all the ways they spread their money around different equestrian sports.

But the terminology problems surrounding the Rolex Kentucky Three-Day Event don’t end there. NBC promoted their television coverage of it during the Kentucky Derby broadcast. They called it the “Rolex Kentucky Equestrian Championship”. What is an “equestrian championship”? There are at least ten diverse equestrian sports.  In my opinion, however, this was not NBC’s fault. They were left with little choice. A large part of good media relations is branding and image-making. When the International Equestrian Federation re-branded the official name of the three-day event as “eventing”, it was big branding blunder. No member of the public could be expected to understand what “eventing” is. Therefore, no journalist is likely to use the term. “Eventing” sounds like an activity like party-hopping. But, you would go from one special event to another.

When I suggested on a social networking site that NBC’s naming of the Rolex Kentucky Three-Day Event was misleading, it became clear that the three-day eventers in the group are a defensive lot. I got the usual response from one member who thought NBC had to “dumb it down” for the ordinary people. I’ve also blogged before about why the equestrian community thinks they’re smarter than people who don’t understand their language. In actual fact, I think it’s smarter, not dumber, to know that equestrian isn’t the name of a single sport, to know that “eventing” isn’t actually a word, and to know that a Rolex is a watch.

There is a, seemingly, common misconception that being a public figure in the media limelight means you can make money giving interviews. The fact is, that legitimate media outlets do not pay for interviews. The reason is simple. If they are paying you, they can also tell you what to say. Hence, it is no longer real news.

This misconception came to my attention on different ocassions in different ways. When asked to do an interview with a high profile magazine, one equestrian asked me “How much will they pay me?” There is a pay-off to having the kind of exposure this opportunity provides. But it is not a direct payment from the media organization. It comes from positioning yourself as a high-profile person in your field, who warrants coverage by big media outlets.

The second time this misconception was drawn to my attention was when I was quoted in a newspaper article about a former client. I was accused, on an internet forum, of “selling your story”. The article contained two simple quotes from me. I was not the subject off the story. It was not “my story”. Several people were quoted in it. No one was paid, nor would they ever be by the media outlet in question.

You will hear stories, and sometimes they will be true, of magazines and tabloid newspapers paying for the first photos of a famous child,  or the sole rights to photos of a wedding or other special event. It is the exclusivity that gives the photos value. It is also the degree of celebrity of the people involved. It is also not mainstream sources of news that do it.

So, if you are asked to do an interview, no matter how high-profile the publication, don’t ask for money. Just consider yourself lucky to get the exposure.

I posted a short time ago about the difference between specialty media and mass-market media. In North America, where show jumping is a niche-market sport, infinitely more coverage of it appears in specialty publications. The stark differences in approaches to journalism between specialty and mass-market media can make it more difficult for athletes, event management, equestrian federations and their specialty publicists to understand the needs of the mass-market media. Therefore, under the North American model, no real education or experience in dealing with the media is in place until an opportunity in the mass-market media come along. Then, the sport develops a reputation for lacking media-savvy.

A recent post on a UK journalism website  illustrates how vastly different show jumping journalism is seen in a country where show jumping is seen a sport with mass-market appeal.

Online Journalism News felt it was newsworthy to announce a new show jumping editor at the popular horse magazine Horse and Hound. This news appears on the site along with news from major British newspapers and wire services. The new show jumping editor comes to Horse and Hound from the BBC. What is even more interesting are her own comments about her new position. “Just enjoying the sport and loving horses is not enough”, the new editor, Jennifer Donald, said. “It is quite a specialized role”, she says, but adds “I think it helps to have experience writing on all sorts of subjects”.

In North America “just enjoying the sport and loving horses” often trumps all other requirements. Not only in journalism, but in publicity management and marketing the sport as well. If the sport is to grow and its fan-base to increase, the management of the sport has to recognize the need for education and experience in any business role connected to the sport. Stronger journalistic practices in the specialty media would give all os the sport’s stakeholders exposure to professional journalism to deal more professionally with mass-market media.

http://www.journalism.co.uk/8/articles/533861.php 

When I do presentations about improving media relations, I stress the importance of having good research skills. On my website bio, it talks about my experience as a researcher for television productions. I am often asked “What does this have to do with media relations?”. In a nutshell the answer is “A lot.” Media relations requires many other skills too. I used to get annoyed with a client who always referred to me as ”a good statistician”, but never praised my ability as a publicist. You can be a good statistician without being a good publicist. But you can’t be a good publicist without being a good statistician. 

A good journalist has good research skills. A good media relations representative, or publicist, has good journalism skills. One of the primary functions of a publicist is to recognize a good story angle or story “hook”. In order to do that you need to have a lot of information about the subject and recognize the strongest story, with the strongest “hook”. If you are seeking publicity, arm yourself with information. If you have a wealth of information you are more likely to be interviewed or to be successful in pitching a story idea to a journalist. Without rock-solid, current information, there can be no story.

Once a journalist is working on a story, a good publicist can also provide much of his research for him. This will be mostly by directing him to sources and supplying statistics, facts and figures. 

Just working in, or being part of, an organization does not mean you are equipped with this kind of research. Broad-based knowledge is different than the kind you gain from on-going, in-depth research. If you continually research the kind of facts and figures that appeal to journalists, you will recognize stories quickly.

Good research skills mean being able to take a subject about which you know very little and quickly become an expert. It means having the skills to find and verify the most current data on the subject. Such skills involve more than putting the subject name in a search engine.

In sport, a good statistic can be a story in itself. Due to the volume of show jumping research I have done over many years, I have recognized record-settiing achievements approaching. One, that received a large amount of publicity, was recognized nearly two years in advance. No journalist would have known about it otherwise. Building anticipation is a great way to generate publicity.

Show jumping is one of the few sports that has no single source for basic statistics and information. If you do a Google search for “golf statistics” or “tennis statistics”, you will find some quality sources of this kind of information. The same is true of most other sports.

Listening to commentators on an American show jumping broadcast recently, I was shocked at their lack of facts about the subject. Inaccuracies were abound, ranging from the way the jumping order is created to the way riders qualify for the World Cup. They had no facts and figures on the competitors. “He’s a great guy” was the most frequently-heard commentary about various riders.

Statistics that are available about show jumping are often scattered between different sources, not kept up-to-date, or lacking key information such as scores. This is one of the ways in which the sport of show jumping needs to modernize in order to successfully interact with media and sponsors.

It was this void in the sport that prompted me to create a website with just such information. www.equestrianjumpingcanada.com is still a work in progress and will continue to grow. Current information will be added while it is current.  

When you hear the term “publicity stunt” most people think of doing something outrageous in public to attract publicity. A publicity stunt doesn’t always have to be so blatant and overt.

This blog is about media relations in the sport of show jumping and I’m surmising that we are currently seeing a good example of a stunt gone bad. If I’m wrong, then it’s still a valid media tip to understand the mechanics of how publicity stunts can backfire. Any time you use something that is not a real story because you know it will garner big publicity it is a stunt. It does not qualify as media relations.

This is why understanding how to “think like an editor” is so important. First the facts must all be completely accurate. The angle of the story shouldn’t be blatantly self-serving. A good media story will have an angle that is of public interest. There might be a good guy/bad guy scenario, but it is not a requirement. If there is, you better make sure your statements and facts about the “bad guy” are accurate.

Pitching a bad, reckless, story to a reporter or editor can backfire in different ways. People who know the facts will recognize an agenda behind a story. In many cases, they will boycott the media outlet, write letters to the editor, or refuse interviews with that organization in the future. If a media organization knows you have damaged their credibility, they are unlikely to show interest in story pitches from you or your organization in future. Sponsors may also be offended if they learn that the big publicity for their event was a self-serving stunt for the management, the publicist or anyone else.

Negative feedback to a media organization can become a problem between the reporter who had an interest in the story and the editor. If the reporter sold the editor a “bill of goods”, that relationship can deteriorate.

The recent cancellation of a popular Canadian show jumping tournament was linked (however accurately or inaccurately) to a high-profile article that was published about it last year. The original article did not appear in the sports section of the newspaper, where a story about a show jumping tournament belongs. That, in itself, raises questions about how much “editor appeal” the story pitch had. The content sparked anger. Sparking anger with readers doesn’t always make a story illegitimate. It happens often for the wrong reason. But, this one was recognized as a “non-story” even by those with no media experience. As someone with experience in the media, I feel they were right.

Now, as opinions differ on who pulled the plug on this tournament, the same writer is back with a new version. She grovels about her original story as though trying to justify it. It’s as though she’s actually reporting that her article did cause someone to pull the plug on this tournament.

A journalist should have only two possible positions on his or her article. They should stand by their story or they should apologize and issue a correction of any factual errors. If they were led astray by a renegade publicist, that could be part of their apology. But it should not be an excuse, because a good reporter doesn’t take his or her cues solely from a publicist. They know the makings of a story and check the background themselves.

In economic times when there is an epidemic of sponsorship withdrawal, a major newspaper has devoted half a page in the news section to the cancellation of what they called a “Horse Show Put Out to Pasture”.

So the backlash from publicity stunts can range from angry people to someone losing their job, to cancellation of an event. The latter can be by the venue, the sponsor or whoever is pulling the financial and logistical strings to make it happen. It’s a big price to pay for one piece of publicity. A good story angle could probably have been found. Make sure you have one if you are going to approach the media with hopes of a big story. 

Who owns a photo of you?  The answer may surprise you.  In all but a few cases, the photographer owns the photo and all rights associated with it.

One exception would be if the photographer were commissioned by a third party (possibly a magazine or corporate sponsor) at the time it was shot. Even in this case, it would have to be specified in the agreement between the photographer and the third party for the third party to retain any copyright. Another exception would be, if the photographer were trespassing on private property when he took the photo. That would allow you to stop the use of it and override the photographer’s right to sell it.

If you purchase a photo from a photographer who has taken one of you, all you own is the paper on which that photo is printed. Or, if you purchase it electronically, all you own is the right to print it once for a specific use, unless otherwise specified. The personal use of that print is all that is normally included. You can show it to your friends, hang it on your wall or keep it in a photo album. Any other use, such as publication, posting on the internet, or use in advertising requires another purchase from the photographer. What you are purchasing is the “right” to use copyrighted material, for a particular use. The photographer sets the fee.

This becomes a factor in media relations in several ways. Small publications, such as specialty media and community newspapers, will often entice you to break copyright law. After an interview they will ask, “Do you have any photos we could use with this article?” Yes, you have photos, but you do not own publication rights to them. Legally, it is between the publication and the photographer to establish those rights. Yet, too often, the subject of an article just hands over their favourite photo for illegal reproduction.

People who are in the public eye also often have websites. Reproduction of a photo on a website is equivalent to publication. It is NOT like hanging it on your wall. It is in the public domain. Websites are also, in some cases, considered advertising. Use of photos in advertising is more expensive than editorial use, because the user is expecting to make money from the use of this photo.

The digital age has created another thorny issue in photo copyright. Scanners with home computers make reproducing anything easy. If a magazine publishes a photo of you (that they had all legal rights to use) that does not give you the right to reproduce it. Read the small print in the front of any magazine and it will say something like “Reproduction of any kind in whole or in part is strictly prohibited by copyright”.  Reproduce that photo layout of yourself, and put it in the public domain, such as on a website or in an advertisement, and you have two possible opponents in court. In most cases, the publisher and the photographer would both have copyright violation cases against you.

The question of who owns your image is a different issue and an issue for another post. Obviously, there are non-editorial uses of photos where your permission is required to use your image. Even in those cases, the rights to the photo belong to the photographer. You may make a deal with a sponsor who wants to use your image. That is between you and the sponsor. The right to use the photo is between the sponsor and the photographer.

The only time you would have copyright to a photo of yourself would be if you commissioned the photographer to take it and had a provision in the agreement giving you copyright. Copyright law is so sweeping that the exclusive rights to photos (unless otherwise contracted) remain with the photographer, or his estate, for fifty years following the photographer’s death.

Whether issuing news releases or doing interviews, dealing with specialty media and mass-market media should be very similar. The specialty media would, presumably, be in a better position to do their own research and connect with appropriate interviews. They should need less detail and explanation about the significance of a particular event, about scoring, and about terminology. And they will use different terminology in their reports. However, unless you have the time and budget to do two different news releases, it does no harm for the specialty media to receive more detailed explanations. I also feel that if “insiders” in the sport are continually exposed to the more user-friendly language of the mass-market media, the “insider lingo” of the sport will eventually change.  

However, there are more subtle differences when it comes to dealing with specialty equestrian vs. mass market media. Recently an “equestrian journalist” said to me that it is her job to promote the sport. A journalist’s job is never to “promote”. No matter who their readership is, their job is to report the facts and provide a balanced report. Being “balanced” doesn’t mean you have to find something negative to balance everything that is positive in your story. It just means that you don’t begin with a one-sided view of the subject and feel you have to stick to it. Too often, in niche-market sports and industries, this cross-over between journalist and “promoter” is encouraged. This is often because all, or most of, the advertising in a specialty publication will come from within the industry or sport.

Advertising opens up another thorny issue when dealing with specialty media. Equestrian magazines will sometimes convey an expectation that the subject purchase advertising in order to be the subject of an article. Such direct payment in return for coverage would be unethical in most mass-market print editorial. The editor should be seeking good stories that appeal to their readers. Those stories will not always be about subjects that are willing to purchase advertising.

If you do happen to have an advertisement in the same issue where editorial content about you (or your business or event) appears, then ask the publisher to place them in separate sections of the publication. This ensures it does not look like paid editorial.

Whether or not a subject gets the biggest benefit from mass market or specialty media is a worthy debate that will differ for each individual situation. A rider or event who is in the start-up stages will have a hard time breaking into mass market media. However they will gain recognition with potential customers – such as competitors for an event and horse owners for a rider with a horse business. At the top national or international level, the biggest benefit, undoubtedly, comes from coverage in the mass market media. Daily newspapers and national television will create the kind of name recognition with the general  public that is capable of attracting major benefactors and corporate sponsors. It is also what creates the fan base that makes those benefactors and sponsors want to be a associated with a person or event.