Wednesday, November 6, 2013 how football clubs can learn from local councils
It’s a funny old game, but could football clubs learn something about communicating from their local councils?
by Simon Alton
Football is the biggest sport on the planet, with millions of us spending an awful lot of time and money following our club - whether it’s going to a game, watching it on TV or (as in my case) following updates on Twitter while keeping half an eye on the kids in the park on a Saturday afternoon.
The level of loyalty football fans show to their clubs is unequivocal and unlike any other brand/customer relationship. The vast majority of supporters would never dream of going to support another club if they were unsatisfied with the way their club was performing. It’s just not the done thing.
So with the kind of brand loyalty that most companies - and councils and other public sector organisations in particular - could only dream of, do football clubs really need to care about PR and how they communicate with their fans?
Frankly, yes. And a couple of unbelievable own goals (pardon the pun) regarding media relations by two major clubs in recent months demonstrate why.
And it got me thinking that these big glamourous football clubs could learn a thing or two from how we in the public sector manage our media relations despite constant challenge and often negative coverage.
Let me explain.
Newcastle United have just banned their local paper from attending any games or press conferences because - shock, horror - it reported that some fans were unhappy with the way the club was being run.
The club explained in a letter - which of course the paper published in full - that it was “frankly staggered” that so much coverage should be dedicated to a recent protest march against the club’s owner.
The march was only attended by a couple of hundred people, so should not have resulted in the total of 15 pages of coverage it generated over almost two months, the club angrily pointed out.
Why don’t you devote so many pages to our lovely positive community work, the club’s head of media implored.
Erm… yes, well. That’s not very likely really is it? The old cliche that bad news sells isn’t a cliche for nothing.
Another example is my club, Nottingham Forest. They are not allowing their local paper to interview any players or staff, and have banned The Guardian’s chief football writer for alleged trivial reasons I don’t have space to go into here - but it’s playground stuff.
Now I’ll have to declare an interest here - I started out as a journalist so you could argue I’m a bit biased. But I’ve been working in council communications for longer than I was a journalist so I’d like to think I’ve got a balanced viewpoint.
I now do some part-time freelance work for a PR company in the private sector, and whether you’re doing the PR for a local photographer, a council or football club, the underlying principle is the same: it’s ultimately about presenting the best possible image to the consumer.
But when you’re doing this through the mainstream media you have to remember the following basic rules:
● You don’t control the press
● They’re not there to peddle your PR messages without questioning them
● They need to sell newspapers/gain listeners/attract viewers
As a communications professional, the game is to get your message out there while safely negotiating these potential pitfalls.
Now all councils have similar gripes with our local press just as Newcastle United and Forest have - negative issues always get much more coverage than positive stuff.
It’s the way it is, and the way it always will be.
But that’s not to say we don’t challenge, of course we do. And we work hard to ensure that our positive messages get the best coverage they can by inviting reporters in to talk to people or visit projects.
It’s about playing the long game and accepting that a protest march threatening the future ownership of a football club is going to sell more papers than a nice fluffy story about footballers teaching disadvantaged kids how to take penalties.
You need to play the game, not throw your toys out of the pram.
For the life of me, I just can’t see how banning journalists can possibly result in more positive coverage.
Indeed, since the bans, the Newcastle and Nottingham press have published story after story about them. Football pundits and fans are debating why their clubs are reacting to the media in such a heavy-handed way rather than talking tactics for the next game.
With Nottingham Forest in particular, their very strong start to the season was overshadowed by talk of the poor media relations and conspiracy theories about the way the club was being run. Not exactly a positive outcome for the team.
So despite the less glamorous subject matter, a fraction of the budget, and fewer stellar signings, maybe the public sector could teach some football clubs a thing or two after all.
Simon Alton works in Shropshire Council’s communications team, and is a freelance PR consultant working with J&PR
photo credit
Reader Comments (5)
Whilst maybe banning the papers from a press conference etc (incidental they can't ban them from matches, that's against Football League rules) might be a bit heavy handed, you do have to appreciate that football clubs are in a unique position.
They are a business, but one that is treated differently to every other business. Would a newspaper dedicate 15 pages to a small group of people protesting about the running of any other business? I doubt it. However the football club is fair game for this sort of over the top press coverage. If I ran a business and my local paper dragged my name through the mud, I'd expect a right of reply.
Football clubs do have a loyal following, but their job is to turn that following into bums on seats and sales through the club store. I hear many people say they support XYZ club, but they then go on to tell me that they don't go to games, don't buy the merchandise and so on. I'm always left puzzled as to exactly how they 'support' that club. Looking at results on a Saturday night doesn't really count. It's up to the football club to turn those people into proper supporters. Those that actively engage with in their club. Now 15 pages of press coverage about some small demo isn't going to help that club.
15 pages in a local paper about a demo against a council isn't going to change the amount of Council Tax it receives. The number of claims of Housing Benefit will stay the same. Same for planning applications and so on. A council isn't a business in the same way a football club is..
The problem is that unlike local authorities who - however much senior officers and councillors might wish at times - disengage from the public. The public own them.
Football clubs have the same public character as a local council (ie, people care about them and are interested), but have resolutely private ownership.
In all these cases, it's not about the club being short-sighted, or making a mistake, because they're not trying to do anything other than reinforce their power and authority as people who have the ability make these kinds of decisions. To that end, the policy might lose some goodwill, but they basically don't care about that.
Both fair points, Peter and Dave, and I agree that as a business, football clubs have a different agenda than councils. My main point, though, is why would any business actively reduce media coverage about themselves by attempting to ban reporters from covering their activities? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
But I'm happy to be enlightened - that's what these blogs are all about!
Essentially, they're monopolists - as far as Newcastle United are concerned, they're already number one in Newcastle, so why try harder? They get money from Sky on a fixed contract, and so pissing off people locally has little marginal impact.
There is the old phrase 'no news is good news' but as far as newspapers are concerned this is not true! Local newspapers are having a tough time of it, they need to write stories that sell papers. Articles on the local football side sell papers. Even though there are some people that read a newspaper from the front to the back (strange) most of us 'normal' people always read the back page first. No I expect if you looked at the content of the papers in Newcastle then the football coverage would not have decreased since this action. The match reports will still be there. The only thing missing will be the inside scoops. But a local paper cannot remove its football coverage. It would be the death nail for it.