They Wonder Why Equestrian Sport Doesn’t Get Media Coverage!

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.

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. 

Equestrian Community Needs to Desensitize Itself To Publicity

Telling you to desensitize yourself to publicity may sound contrary to my role as a publicist. A publicist’s job is to get you, your organization, or your special event more publicity. I’m not recommending that you be insensitive to the benefits of and amount of publicity. But it’s unprofessional and hurts the sport’s relationship with the media when you display over-sensitivity to the specifics of it.

 

There have been several pieces of publicity about the Canadian equestrian community recently that have provoked strong reaction. Journalists and the people they chose to interview have been berated on internet bulletin boards and in personal attacks. Some of that reaction may have been warranted, but all of it was not. Just because you don’t like a story, doesn’t make it bad journalism. The equestrian community is developing a reputation as one of the most sensitive groups that the media covers.

 

Few people like seeing their own quotes in print. Many don’t like seeing their own story told. Others revel in it. It hurts to see your friends, or an organization in which you are involved, portrayed in a negative light. However, if you are involved, the story may seem more negative to you than to average readers. If the story is “journalistically sound”, there is no reason to make complaints to editors. It can hurt future coverage of equestrian sport or provoke more of the same type of story. With some journalists, the more you complain, the more “hard-hitting” their stories will become. Why? Because they can. They don’t need harassment from overly sensitive subjects and the legal limits on what they can say are usually much broader than what has provoked your complaints. 

 

There are many things that determine if a story is “journalistically sound”. A quick test would be to ask yourself: Are there any facts stated in it that are not true? Is it “balanced”, meaning does it show opposing perceptions of the story? Were the people who were interviewed quoted accurately? Does the writer seem to have an agenda or an opinion he wants to convey that is not supported by the facts he puts forth?

 

Hopefully the answer is yes to all of these questions, except the last one. The answer to the last one should be “no”.

 

If it passes the “journalistically sound” test, you have nothing to complain about, whether or not you like the story. Like it or not, complaining to the editor, in that case, will only make you look childish and whiney.

 

If you feel you have cause to complain, your letter should have the same qualities as a journalistically sound article. Stick to the facts. Tell the editor what facts were wrong and how. Tell them who was mis-quoted and how.

 

Keep in mind, that truly negative publicity seldom happens without cause. The media is not out to get you or your organization.

How “Bad Press” Happens

“Bad press” is not unique to equestrian sport. So, normally this post would appear on my general media relations tips page. However, recently there has been a lot of buzz created in the equestrian community over an article that appeared in a major newspaper about a former client of mine.

 

The headline was extremely accurate if it had applied to recent situations that were not mentioned in the article. The article itself had little relevance to the public interest, nor was it a story worthy of this broad-based coverage.

 

However, it did serve as a lesson in one of the many ways negative publicity can occur. I had warned this client that he was heading towards some negative publicity. On repeated occasions, he failed to appear for media engagements to which he had committed. He stopped answering his phone, even for people in his “inner circle” because he knew he was in media demand.

 

Being inaccessible does several things in the eyes of the media. It raises a red flag to the media that the subject has something to hide. It simply makes the media not like you because you make their job difficult and waste their time. Not showing up when you have made a commitment indicates an unacceptable level of disrespect and arrogance. Raising a red flag that there is something to  hide will cause some members of the media to go digging in the subject’s private life. Making the media dislike you and displaying arrogance may make some members of the media want to show the subject in a negative light. Then, they may look for any reason to do so.

 

Even if the story doesn’t have much merit, a sensational headline can achieve exactly that result. That is what happened recently and irked many members of the equestrian community.

 

There can be many causes of bad publicity. Bad publicity is sometimes also bad journalism. It was in this case. But it may have been driven by the actions of the subject. That means that, like a lot of negative publicity, it was preventable. If that is what caused it, the subject is as much to blame as the writer and the editor who allowed it.