When It Rains, It Pours…A PR Nightmare at UNM

Ever have “one of those days?” Well, UNM Athletics is having “one of those semesters.”

UNM Athletics has been hammered by issue after issue making the national and international news – none of them in a good way. Bear with me as I recap the incidents briefly.

The first dealt with Lobo head football coach, Mike Locksley, who was hired in December 2008 and since then has created controversy left and right.  According to a California news website a former administrative assistant “accused Locksley of sexual harassment, age discrimination and retaliation. The plaintiff’s lawyer said Locksley told the woman she was too old to be attractive to recruits.” According to the NCAA Football Fanhouse (click here), the issue was resolved out of court and “All EEOC claims have been withdrawn.”

Then there was a terribly misguided September ad campaign tying Lobo Athletics to a local casino promotion: Lobo Loco ads blog (click here).

Next came an incident that recently played itself out over national ESPN interviews, where Locksley was accused of hitting an assistant coach. See this Associated Press article.   This was followed up by the thorough bungling of the investigation of the fight incident by the UNM Athletics department, as painfully described in this ill-advised and poorly executed press conference by UNM President David Schmidly and VP of Athletics Paul Krebs

As of Tuesday night, I understand the issue is now under further investigation by the UNM staff committee. All of this on top of UNM’s on-field troubles of a 0-9 losing football season.

And now comes the BYU vs UNM soccer incident that has again made the international news. I will let the video clip below from ESPN’s Sports Center speak for itself.

The player has been suspended indefinitely, issued a written apology, and has gone into hiding due to wide release of and strong negative reaction to the incident.  There have been many articles regarding the situation. Here are a couple of them:

• A letter to the editor of the DailyLobo (UNM student newspaper) by a BYU student
• UK’s Sky News call player “dirtiest” soccer player ever
• Brisbane Times calls incident an internet hit

UNM had no way of preventing or controlling this series of events, of course. Every school has or will have unforeseeable issues that plague them like this, although this non-stop series of one after the other has got to set some sort of record.

Yet several of UNM’s recent wounds were self-infllicted.  The Lobo Loco ad campaign, for example, was misguided from the start, and should never have seen the light of day.  And the press conference in which the UNM President and VP of Athletics tediously slogged through a laundry list of what UNM did wrong in the Locksley assault case was badly mishandled.

In fact, there has been scant evidence of any judicious, well-planned issues management from the institution.  Here’s what we all might take away from this unfortunate series of events:

1. Have an “issues management plan” (not just a “crisis plan”) in place that defines policies, procedures, and responsibilities.  Responses should be directed by a small team of the most experienced and trusted communicators on campus, rather than departmental (in this case, Athletics) staff.  Make sure administrators approve the plan in advance.
2. One clear, credible spokesperson should consistently deal with the media throughout.
3. Create talking points and guidelines for those who need to know regarding policy issues and the institutional responses and solutions.
4. Resolve the issue quickly, completely, and decisively the first time, rather than trying to “contain” or “compartmentalize responses. Letting issues trickle on is the worst possible approach.
5. Never allow the CEO to “own” all the problems and errors, only the solutions.
6. Act fast, act honestly, act comprehensively.

Hopefully this will mark the end of issues for UNM Athletics and they’ll be able to move forward with academics and athletics more productively.  We hope so!

Shrinking News Media and What To Do About It

Back in the eighties, I was the national science writer at Washington University in St. Louis. Ah, the glory days of PR, when there always seemed to be a ready market for news media pitches on science stories. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Research stories have been the traditional go-to area for universities hoping to increase credibility and name recognition in the news media. Twenty years ago, print and broadcast editors – lots of them compared to today – were hungered by the scent of advancements in science, especially when you were able to inject a whiff of economic development into your pitch.

And scientific research – hard sciences and social sciences, both – remains a stalwart for university PR, but the media resources for, and the space/time allotted to, research have both waned. Fewer outlets are devoting less space to research than they used to.

What’s a PR unit to do? Plenty!

The March 09 start-up consortium website, Futurity, is a great idea and brings to mind once again the idea of creating themed microsites. This one is a consortium aimed at letting “the public learn about important breakthroughs at leading research universities as traditional news outlets continue to shrink?” The site describes itself as “an online news magazine that reports on discoveries in science, health, technology, business, society, and the arts.”

Its scope is limited, at least currently, to 35 large research institutions and while it’s a neat idea, consortium sites aren’t the real solution for most institutions. This one, for instance, is more a resource for science junkies and the few science writers left, and is not likely to garner significant public attention because it’s not the way audiences want to consume such news – in oversized big-gulps.

But here’s the important nugget: Every institution should be looking online for solutions. And there is enormous ROI to be had by developing your own research microsite.

A themed microsite can either embedded in your current institutional website, or it can stand alone as a branded URL. And don’t think the idea is limited just to science research. You can make a waves through a “community outreach” microsite, or one devoted to “the arts,” or “economic development,” or whatever brand differentiator is most important to your organization.

The key is in creating focused, interactive, multimedia content and “drawing” your audiences to that site through advertising, viral tactics, social media, and push-pull e-mails that give audiences a real reward on the microsite.

I’ve noted in previous blogs the effectiveness of Virginia Tech’s microsite “thisisthefuture.” It’s branded, it’s interactive, and it involves and engages audiences with the VT “Invent the Future” identity, all while showcasing important applied research stories from prominent faculty.

Microsites provides a host of opportunities to reach your critical audiences with the exact stories you want them to see, and moreover, to give them a lasting, high-impact brand impression. So while the media outlets for science coverage have declined, we’ve never had a greater opportunity to disseminate stories about campus research.

Responding to Lies on Facebook

Should marketers respond to derogatory, damaging, or misleading information on Facebook and other social networking sites? If you haven’t dealt with this issue yet, you probably will have to soon.

Before you read this post, answer This Week’s Poll question on the right. Then stay tuned for next week’s recap of how colleagues responded.

Here’s the scenario:

You are the communications director at a public university located in a large metropolitan area. Your institution is being plagued by a crime wave – some of it violent – in the towns surrounding campus (not on campus). Several students have been assaulted, robbed, and raped on their way to or from campus. The university has launched number of safety and public information responses to deal with the problem. Meanwhile, a group of student activists launches a Facebook page lambasting your president and institution for not stopping the crime. Alumni and others join in. Criticisms include false, misleading, and wildly exaggerated gossip. Vitriolic comments are laced with blame and innuendo, often based on misinformation. Leadership is increasingly frustrated by the unanswered criticism, and worries that the media, students, prospects, and politicians might believe some of the outrageous claims on the Facebook site.

Interesting and serious problem (real, too!) with lots at risk. What’s your counsel?

Organizations in the public eye face increasing instances of disparaging social networking sites. These sites hone in on a variety of topics using the Internet stage to anonymously broadcast anger and criticism: alumni disgruntled with coaching choices; students dissatisfied with campus rules; faculty upset with leaders’ decisions. The problem includes negative comment threads on individual pages as well as social network sites that are created specifically to criticize or embarrass the institution.

Should you “correct” misinformation by posting rebuttals directly on the offending Facebook page? Should the CEO submit the “facts” with an appeal for restraint? Should you blast ‘em back with comments from your own anonymous third party?

What if the criticisms are true as well as embarrassing? Do you still defend the institutional point of view? Explain how you’re addressing the situation? Or ignore them and hope they go away?

In all cases, and despite the inclination to “correct” misinformation and defend organizational decisions, participating in antagonistic social network threads is a lose-lose decision:

1. You can’t win a debate in which you have no control over the medium or the ground rules. While you are bound to act ethically and honestly, nothing suggests your critics will, too.
2. You set a bad precedent by demonstrating that you’ll react to social networking slams. Defensive or conciliatory posts tend to motivate detractors. Do you really want to do that on a regular basis?
3. You lend credibility to negative and misleading comments by responding on their turf. If you want to keep from getting splattered with mud, don’t step into the gutter.

So how should communicators respond to slamming sites?

Ignoring social network criticism is like ducking your head in the sand. Marketers need to monitor what’s being said about the institution on social networks – through Google Alerts and periodic searches on popular sites, including Twitter. This gives early warning about potential issues and concerns simmering beneath the surface.

Valid criticisms need to be treated seriously – it could require internal discussion and decisive action regarding policies, programs, and services. From a communications standpoint, valid issues are best addressed in forums of your own choosing rather than on offending sites themselves. Your own website and social network channels are the obvious places to start, supported by traditional platforms when helpful. Focus on the positive – what your institution is doing to solve issues – without responding to the social network commentary.

For example, in the scenario above, the university launched an aggressive campaign (website, on-campus signage, PR, social media, and hand-circulated one-sheeters) to promote the initiatives under way to ensure student and public safety (which were considerable).

But they did not respond to or reference the negative Facebook site. Unless you want to advance misinformation and spur more of the same, it’s unwise to refer to or validate offending sites and critical commentary threads.

Oppor-U2-nity Missed

All week Good Morning America has been promoting its biggest concert ever. U2. Live. On Stage. At Fordham University in the Bronx. All week, I’ve been waiting. I tune in this morning.

The energy is palpable, even in the frigid air. The University has cancelled classes. Students have been up all night just about busting at the seams. They even get an early Irish breakfast in honor of the megaband. GMA cameras are flitting around interviewing students for their perspectives. I’m sure the campus has been buzzing all week. Clearly the message got around there.

Finally, just after 8, the band comes on. It’s huge. Just about every person in the massive crowd has cameras up in the air recording the moment. And I think: “Wow, now there’s a marketing gift handed to you wrapped in gold with diamond ribbon.” I can’t wait to get to a browser to see what Fordham has done with it.

Sadly, I report I was underwhelmed and, frankly, disappointed. The only visible evidence that something of this magnitude – and interest! – had occurred at all was the following headline at the top of the news section on the home page: U2 Transforms Fordham into School of Rock. See if you can spot it in the screenshot of the homepage below.

I’m not just singling Fordham out. I’ve seen colleges and universities miss these types of marketing opportunities way too often. In this day of participatory brands, of news immediacy, where people (your future students) love to feel part of what’s happening…words, frankly news releases, are not enough. By a long shot.

This morning, I couldn’t help asking myself:

• Why wasn’t the homepage altered to draw attention to this event or, why wasn’t a place created on the site that had a featured link to a gallery of images, student stories, and embedded video? Why did this huge event merit no more than a basic news release?
• Where are the videos of the event put up by the University? There was what appears to be a student posting on YouTube within hours, GMA was streaming live. Certainly there was a story to tell just about the activity in the days and hours leading up to the event, not to mention Father McShane saying Fordham and U2 in the same breadth in front of a HUGE crowd.
• Where were the live, on the spot, Tweets? There were approximately 240 posts on Twitter about the event as it was occurring and well after. Posts included everything from individuals to news media, but not one appeared to be by the University.
• Where are the pictures taken by students? Hours after the event, the website U2gigs had photos up of the event. Flickr had images posted by attendees. There were no images on the Fordham site.
• Why aren’t there comments/blogs from students, faculty, and staff about how great a place Fordham is to learn because they get opportunities like this?
• …and more importantly, I wondered, did Admissions and Development use this opportunity to engage their stakeholders, not just with an announcement, but by bringing prospects to the performance, hosting GMA-watching breakfasts in key prospect areas….inviting them to a online stream of the event hosted by a Fordham student/staff member? There are a multitude of possibilities.

In times when dollars are scarce, when pictures (especially ones that move) are more interesting to most of us than words, when we thirst to be a part of what’s happening by viewing, commenting, and following along, when the Web is the go-to-source for what’s happening; every time we don’t use those low-cost tools to tell our story and engage our audiences is an opportunity missed.