One Equestrian Sport Undertakes Media Training, But May Be Too Late

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.

Publicity Stunts Can Backfire

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.