The London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) last week released their social media guidelines for their 70,000 volunteers, in which they ban individuals from posting pictures or release details of athletes, VIPs and dignitaries in backstage areas at this summer’s 2012 Olympic games.

In the hope of keeping a tight-lid on the London 2012 brand and messaging organisers have made the outrageous statement that social media will be managed by its communication team.  Such level of control is going to be nearly impossible given the number of individuals that will be operating behind the scenes.

A large majority of news outlets already use social media channels as a source that adds value and content to unfolding stories, so rather than control the possible behind the scene messages, why didn’t the communications team look to embrace these channels and empower volunteers add an extra layer of information?  It begs the question, will volunteers have to hand in the mobiles before each day that they work, sorry, volunteer for free?

Surely empowering volunteers as behind the scenes crews would act as a way to bring the spirit of the Olympics closer to the people.  Those athletes, celebrities and dignitaries that are caught in a scandal would only have themselves to blame.

As several other bloggers point out, the call by LOCOG goes against the International Olympic Committe’s (IOC) own guidelines and recommendation.

We await and see how this develops.

The International Olympic Committee has released it’s Social Media Guidelines for participants and other accredited persons at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

The four-page document is the IOC’s attempt to recapture the ground it never had when Twitter became the must-have channel for those competing at the winter Vancouver 2010 games.

Remember the death of Georgian Luger Nodar Kumaritashvili and how the footage of the tragic accident ended up on YouTube, Twitter and other social networking sites.  Happening just before the opening ceremony and the online chatter accentuated the lack of control and understanding that the Olympic committee had over social media and which cast a shadow over the Vancouver Olympics.

In the guidelines the IOC ‘actively encourages and supports athletes and other accredited persons at the Olympic Games to … post, blog and tweet their experiences.’ it directs those competing to avoid using social networking sites ‘for commercial and/or advertising purposes.’  If athletes and other accredited persons do break these guidelines then they risk accreditation being withdrawn.  More worrying for athletes is the threat of possible expulsion from the games.

So how will these guidelines affect the work of public relations agencies working with athletes and their sponsors?  Will non-accredited sponsors see these guidelines as a red rag to a bull?  How strong will ambush marketing play during the 2012 Olympics?  Remember how Dutch beer company Bavaria got, as The Daily Telegraph describes, ‘36 women wearing skimpy orange dresses attend the Holland versus Denmark game‘ to promote Dutch Bavaria beer in breach of Fifa guidelines.  Organisers of the stunt were then arrested.

What are your thoughts? How important will social networking play for brands that are sitting outside the tent and that will never be able to be a participant in the Olympic experience?

IOC Social Media Blogging and Internet Guidelines-London

England’s Football Association gave us a lesson this week on how not to secure change within FIFA to rid it of the ‘alleged’ <cough!> corruption.

For too long FIFA has been a self-serving and inefficient organisation.  Like many international governing bodies it’s executive committee has become distant from the supporters who actually and in this case own the game.  For FIFA football is all about the business – getting and securing the best sponsorship and trickling these deals down into local associations, many of which are run on a shoestring.  That said and as has been reported those who sit on the top table of this once venerable organisation have become unconnected with the people who play this sport.

The politics of sport is ugly and ruthless.  But let’s be objective, FIFA has 208 national member associations – more than any other international governing body.  The UN itself has 192 states as members.  These national member associations represent the world and it’s various and diverse cultures.  What is acceptable in some of these countries would be deemed unacceptable in western democracies.  But equally, some of the West’s own behaviours would be deemed wrong in many of the states that are represented within the FIFA family.  That still is no excuse for much of the activity that has become endemic within this broken organisation.

All this doesn’t excuse the moralising of the UK press towards how FIFA operate.  If you read the media from around the world you would be forgiven for thinking that it is all above board.  In fact, read Spain’s sports daily Marca or As or any other title from South America or Africa and the only quotes about the alleged corruption come from local titles that quote the stings made by The Times and Sunday Times.  Moralising in my opinion doesn’t help with change.

To coincide the publishing of stories about corruption to days before the voting for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup was short-sighted by UK newsdesks.  Yet ask UK journalists and you’ll get an answer about public interest.  Really?  Is it better to run a story before the voting or possibly just after?  Would news outlets have got better stories in the lead-up to an English World Cup?  All very odd.  I’ve had conversations with a few journalists who’s view is that they should be independent and I agree.  But the question from a public relations perspective is how you secure change?  Are some outlets chasing numbers rather than using their skills to enable better transparency?

Public relations can be a force for good.  Sure, many people see this profession as one that focuses on spin and misinformation.  But, in countries such as the UK, with a good relationship with media outlets PR could work in harmony to achieve the change that is required within FIFA.

So as we approached this week’s FIFA’s 61^st Congress we noted the media and the English FA once again making a stand for what they thought was right.  It was a question in my opinion of preaching and not teaching.  What they did was get it very wrong, to the extent that their behaviour possibly helped Blatter secure a fourth term in office.

The public relations campaign activity by The FA leaves a lot to be desired.  Fit for purpose?  I leave you readers to decide.

There used to be days when Britain was good at understanding the world, at doing deals and assisting and promoting best practice.  FIFA needs to change, but so does The FA, who is in grave danger of becoming irrelevant to the football family.

Comments by Sky Sports presenter Richard Keys and pundit Andy Gray about assistant referee Sian Massey and West Ham Deputy Chairwoman Karen Brady this weekend highlight the problem that football in the UK has.  Their off-air sexist remarks highlight outdated and out of touch views in the The Premier League, Championship and lower divisions.  Dealing with them, will help give UK football a much needed rebrand.

Keys and Gray have been the leading commentators on Sky Sports since the channel’s inception in 1992.  The game though has moved on since then.  It’s become far most athletic and its audience has been more diverse, with many more women watching the game, if not on TV then at their chosen grounds.  Yet for too long we have heard the views of these two out of touch pundits on how a physical presence is needed in games where fast flowing and thinking football is played.

Sadly though Sky Sports hasn’t kept apace with the changes in the game and in their audience and that has damaged how game it funds is perceived not just overseas, but by sponsors and advertisers that swell the channel’s own coffers.  Would advertisers pay for slots on Sky Sports when the way they present the game is outdated?

Keys and Gray have permeated views and made acceptable views that have not helped the English game develop.  They are out of touch and certainly off-side.

Of course questions have to be asked as to how these recordings came to light, but it certainly looks like they were leaked.  And this can only be a good thing.

Gordon Brown learned the hard way about how you are ‘always on air when mic’d up.’  And of course Richard Keys has previous for foot-in-mouth.  Being in the media and being ‘outted’ to the pack must hurt, but it’s about time that Sky Sports does its job in presenting the game as one for all and not just for men.

Keys and Gray are not just one of the problems in how the game of football is perceived.  New pundits that know about the modern game will help Sky resolve this PR nightmare that it finds itself in.  Who knows, maybe washing your dirty laundry in public can be a good thing for Sky Sports and for the game.

***BREAKING NEWS***

This story is developing.  Within hours of posting Sky Sports sack their Chief Pundit Andy Gray for comments he is alleged to have made in December while recording a Christmas special, which a dutiful PR has just leaked onto Youtube.  Goodbye.  See below:

Fifa vice-president Jack Warner branded the BBC “unpatriotic” for deciding to screen an investigation into the football governing body so close to the vote on 3 December which would decide the host of the 2018 World Cup.

Regardless of what the sports and football world might think of Mr Warner, we have to question the thinking and rational for not just the BBC’s Panorama programme, which was screened last night, but the Sunday Times expose a few weeks back.  These two media outlets claimed that their investigations were in the ‘public interest’, but the timing of their broadcast couldn’t have been anything other than fatal.  Unpatriotic, as Mr Warner said might not be that wide of the mark.

Since news broke of what these two outlets were doing the Football Association has been scrambling to still be in with a chance to host the 2018 World Cup.  It’s pushed forward its power players to rally the nation into showing strength in unity.  England’s World Cup 2018 bid international president David Dein called for the nation and by default the media, to get behind the bid.  Prime Minister David Cameron and Prince William will both be in Zurich on Thursday supporting the bid.  But this might just be the public face for a bid that is actually intended to change Fifa rather than secure the World Cup.

I am not for one minute arguing for investigative journalism to be gagged.  Nor am I condoning the culture of favour that exists within Fifa, an organisation that promotes Fair Play on the pitch, but ignores it in the boardroom.  Let’s be honest, are these investigations really in the public interest, this being common well-being?  Such a claim is more of a catch-all.

There are three sides to every story – two sides and the truth.

The big question is about the communications expertise that exists within England’s bid.  Did England’s bid team have the necessary power to work with the media?  Was it able to influence the timing of such and much needed investigation?  Could the media’s work help in England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup?  Or did England just know that it didn’t stand a chance, which is why it embarked on a campaign to reform Fifa.

We will be anticipating with anguish the results of Fifa’s Executive Committee’s vote on Thursday.  The bid’s Facebook page has support from people from over 170 countries!

Bookmakers Better Bet have signed former Arsenal player Paul Merson as their new Brand Ambassador.  An interesting choice given that Merse claimed some time ago to have lost £7 million on gambling, which led to him being declared bankrupt in 2007.

So why appoint a self-confessed [former] gambling addict as the face of a bookies?  Surely appointing Merson is like appointing La Winehouse as the brand ambassador for the Colombian Tourist Board.

Since those dark days of his, Merson has been a regular on Sky Sports News as a pundit on the Gillette Soccer Saturday show.  So I guess that must have been the clincher for Better Bet; sign-up a pundit that regulars down the pub can recognise and your in the money.  Because I am sure that many people would want to place a bet after seeing Merse, after all, what could go wrong with one little wager, eh?

Brand Ambassadors after all are by nature people that can help promote and advertise a product, company or brand.  They have an element of celebrity that can help the company promote itself and its products in a controlled manner.  They become the human face of the organisation, a person that clients and importantly potential clients can associate themselves with and can help drive sales.  Ambassadors have to be asprational characters that can help get the clients messages through.

Just look at how David Beckham helped Gillette increase sales even with all the gossip that was surrounding him at the time.  Sales of Gillette products in the Far East, where there’s still an obsession with all things Beckham, broke records.  The deal was put together by Hill & Knowlton’s London office and while it was claimed to be one the biggest sponsorship deals the client was pleased with the results of their association with a person that even today is making headlines wherever his career takes him.

Meanwhile, in a statement Better Bet said: “The customers love Paul and can relate to him.”  Before adding: “I don’t know about his gambling problem in the past. He doesn’t hold an account with us or bet with us.”  It’s a kind of bearing your head in the sand after the horse has bolted (at the 3.15 at Lingfield no doubt.  Ed.) comment.

When researching candidates for the position of Brand Ambassador the first thing an in-house PR team or agency must do is analyse how candidates will affect the brand and reputation of their client or employer.  It appears that this hasn’t been done.

Sports sponsorship is an import tool in the PR armoury, especially in the US.  Get it wrong and you damage your brand.  Get it right and everybody wants a piece of the stardust that your ambassador brings to the company.

This is one to watch!

And if you want an alternative view on the deal then read ‘Celebrity Sell Out’s Altenative View of the Merson Campaign.’

***UPDATE***

Today, 26 March 2009, Betting firm Better have annouced that they have dropped their brand ambassador Paul Merson from the advertising campaign due to the large number of complaints they’ve received.  I wonder what they’ll be saying to their PRs?  A serious and harsh word if I were them.

More here: “Betting firm drops Merson from ad campaign.“

Another week passes in England’s infamous silly-season. While there is no football taking place, the pencils of Fleet Street’s footie scribes are as sharp as ever with stories of treachery and deceit. Yes, football’s finest want out, a trip elsewhere, often abroad and often undermining the Premier League’s claim of being the best League in the world.

With plenty of cash in the bank, English clubs should be safe from the predatory Presidente’s of this World. But no, Real Madrid’s wish to take the Portu-geezer-in-chief Cristiano Ronaldo to Spain is promoted in their constant denials through media outlets such as Spain’s sport’s dailies Marca and As, while at Adebayor confuses even himself with his “I am staying at Arsenal, but watch this space” type comments.

So, given that England hosts the world’s richest league, why is it that every summer clubs like Manchester United and Arsenal and others are subjected to negative headlines involving overseas clubs? Why is it that Fleet Street’s titles, who hype up our League and its headline-givers during the season, turn every summer into a season for despair for supporters of the League’s top-tier clubs?

Well, the reason is that the reporting of sports news, especially football, in England is quite different to how it’s reported in the rest of Europe, especially Spain.

While in England and the rest of Britain sports news is part of each newspaper, filling numerous back pages, Spain, Italy and France have dedicated daily sports titles – from Marca and As in Spain to La Gazzetta dello Sport in Italy and L’Equipe in France.

Having dedicated sports titles forces many of these media outlets to run more gossip and innuendo that wouldn’t be used as filler in the Britain. At the same time, the relationship between titles such as Marca and As and top-tier clubs in Spain like Real Madrid and Barcelona are very close. Some claim to be too close for comfort and for journalistic integrity. It is a relationship of convenience, the titles needs stories – as trivial as they might be, to ensure that advertisers and the paying-public are happy. This relationship often works in such a away that the clubs can get away with using these titles for propaganda, to boost the egos of the players that they wish to sign. It works very well for the club, the players and their agents. But, it often doesn’t work for English clubs.

But I hear you ask, what about all the nonsense that is printed in the back pages of The Sun, The Mirror et al every day? Simple really, The Sun might have six to ten dedicated pages to sport. Marca meanwhile has that focusing on a specific club in La Liga, often Real Madrid. Sports dailies in the rest of Europe have pages and pages more space to fill, which often leads to much more nonsense and spin, comment and innuendo, misinterpretation, which is often benefits clubs in the papers host country. And it is these stories that then get picked up over in England and run as ‘real’ news. And of course agents know all this works, just call one of these papers, say that you represent ‘Player A’ and say, as a source, that it would be a dream for them to move to Madrid, Milan or whoever. You can bet your last Euro that a title like the above would run this as a story.

Media in the Britain pride themselves of having integrity, with the majority of hacks keeping their club allegiances of their by-lined page. This is true for some, but not for many. Axes to grind can be very visible, with numerous people knowing journalists that are supporters of West Ham, Manchester United or Arsenal. But, for a League to be seen as the leading the world it needs the support of the media in the close season, and a PR strategy from clubs that make up the Premier League that challenges La Liga and Serie A at their own game. Somehow though I can’t see press offices of English clubs planting stories in foreign titles. To do that would mean increasing and improving the relationship with predatory tiles and for many clubs this would just not be a priority, even though it would make business sense. Funny how we over here in England see Real Madrid and Barca are sexy foreign clubs, while the same wouldn’t be thought in Spain of English clubs?

It really does show that when it comes to hype in PR, English clubs are just not that sharp. Possibly because we just don’t have the papers to fill. Maybe, just maybe, it is our media that is holding us from further promoting ourselves.

In the meantime though, it will be Spanish and Italian clubs, together with registered and unregistered agents that will keep their focus on taking the Premier League’s gold back to mainland Europe. And really, we only ourselves and our media to blame.