The Calacus PR Blog

There's a reason why John Terry has had so few personal endorsement deals over the years.

Despite his high profile, tremendous success and on-field reputation as a battler who leads by example, the misgivings over his off-field persona have made sponsors reluctant to invest in him. He simply doesn't fit the image most sponsors want to promote.

Footballers want to do their talking on the pitch, to quote the cliché, and it is no wonder that so many of them struggle when thrust into such a public environment at an early age.

The days when players might join supporters in the pub after the game or wander around the local shops unhindered may be long gone.

For young players at top clubs, the wealth they accrue from early on is hugely disproportionate to that which their peers tend to earn, and showing off is an understandable temptation.

Being one of the best footballers in the country is an accolade most young kids dream about and few will to achieve. The fact that most players are sheltered from the media and cosseted these days means that they are ‘protected’ to such an extent that perception and reality rarely match.

Players don’t understand that they are role models not just living the dreams of millions, but representing their communities and nations as well.

However important or not John Terry considered it to behave as captain of Chelsea, he has a personal responsibility that goes beyond rousing his team-mates and inspiring his fans when wearing the armband as captain of England.

Terry is representing his country – he is the highest possible ambassador for English football and in truth, he has let his country down once too often.

Tales of womanising may not be new for the England captain, but on the back of revelations of family misdemeanours including drug dealing and shoplifting, threatening behaviour, gambling issues and betrayal of friends, his image has taken a serious battering.

When Terry had the first inkling that the press had  discovered his off-field misdemeanours, he should have gone on a PR overdrive, taking positive steps to admit to what he had done, espress his remorse and be brave enough to realise taht he had tarnished the England captaincy and therefore had to resign.

It has been said that Terry is not the sort who would ever resign, but that in itself underlines his weakness - the inability to realise that he is not beyond the laws and conventions or decency and respect.

Whatever happens now, his excellent performances as a defender will always be inextricably linked to his off-field behaviour.

The fact that a judge suggested that Terry’s pursuit of a gagging order against a national newspaper was as much about protecting his personal endorsements as anything else has hardly helped matters.

It was a red rag to the media bull, who doubled their efforts to make sure they exposed the true scale of Terry’s misdemeanours.

So what now?

Terry can publicly go for marriage counselling, endorse or support charities and spend more time giving something back to the community but it will do little to restore his personal reputation that will not be seen as cynical or superficial.

It is only when he makes personal sacrifices that he will claw back any respect from fans and the general public. It’s hard to say whether that respect really means anything to him anyway.

With the World Cup only a few months away, England need a united squad who fight for each other.

Sadly, Terry’s actions have undermined that necessary togetherness and resigning the captaincy, rather than waiting to have it taken away by strict disciplinarian coach Fabio Capello, would at least have shown that he had some sense of responsibility, however superficial that may have been.

Perhaps now Terry can reflect about the damage he has done to English football and his team and start getting his head down and focus on his on-field responsibilities.

Prevention is always better than cure but having a plan in place to deal with the sordid allegations rather than trying to stifle their publication may have been a better strategy for Terry and his 'advisors'.

Sadly for him, he is far better at protecting his goal than he is at protecting his own reputation as a leader and role model.

As a football fan, I have never liked the timing of the African Cup of Nations.

While I understand that there are georgaphical impications which would make playing a tournament at the height of summer something of a challenge, the competition has some image problems to address.

With so many of Africa's top players now plying their trade in Europe, their absence from club competition for a month is more than just a trifling inconvenience.

Until the competition moves out of season, perhaps to years that do not feature a World Cup or UEFA European Championship, it will always struggle for popularity and credibility.

But the despicable violence that took place on the eve of the tournament also had a terrible impact on the competition's credibility.

As one pundit on BBC television said yesterday, whatever happened in the Cup of Nations, the 2010 edition will always be remembered for the murder of three members of the Togo entourage rather than any excitement on the field.

While I can understand the confusion surrounding Togo's withdrawal and then plea to be reinstated, the ACN organisers missed a trick by not giving the players and Togo Federation a few days to decide what to do after the tragedy.

Subsequent claims that Togo could not return to play their games because satellites could not be reconfigured did little to help the Confederation of African Football (CAF)

But for the CAF to announce this weekend that they will ban Togo from the next two ACN competitions has done untold damage to the reputation of football in Africa.

It displays a lack of sympathy for those who died or lie injured, like reserve goalkeeper Kodjovi Obilale who still has a bullet lodged near his spine.

CAF President Issa Hayatou may claim that he is trying to protect the integrity of the ACN but the truth is that this action has done much to undermine it.

Can you imagine Israel being banned from the Olympic Games after the atrocities in Munich in the 1970s? Of course not.

Pressure on Hayatou to resign will grow following this sorry action, which shows a profound lack of compassion, let alone public understanding.

This is a massive year for football in Africa with the FIFA World Cup taking place in South Africa.

Perhaps it needs the vision of a man like WC2010 organiser Danny Jordaan, a man who understand the global football landscape as well as having Africa in his heart, to take over as CAF President to restore confidence and credibility to the continent's football.

Have you ever been trapped in a train tunnel for an extended period of time?

I travelled back from Paris once and should have been home by 9pm with a house move taking place the next day.

I finally got home at 8am the next morning with no option than to drink a coffee and keep going.

As a regular user of the Eurostar, I've experienced the good and the bad of the service. At its best, Eurostar is the most convenient train service for cross-channel travel.

I've missed trains because the timetable has been changed without great notification. I've been stuck in tunnels and held up just by the tunnel and each time, I put up with it because there is NO alternative. The ferries just don't get you there quickly enough.

Six Eurostar trains were trapped in tunnels on Friday and Saturday, causing huge concern and discomfort to travellers - and services are still not back to normal.

My nightmare delay was caused by that old classic, leaves on the line.

And I'm fascinated that Eurostar has been able to make modifications overnight to help trains cope better with 'unprecedented weather conditions' as they have been described by senior officials.

Surely a company that deals in travel can start making these arrangements, if they cannot be implemented permanently, as soon as weather conditions deteriorate?

Thousands of Christmas travellers are now seeking alternative ways of getting to or from France and it has done nothing for Eurostar's reputation.

For those who have used the modernised ferry services, it may not be as quick but it is a positive alternative and this weekend's experience may have put some people off Eurostar for good.

The communications undertaken by the train company has left much to be desired.

From what I have seen, it has taken two days for spokesmen to speak concertedly to the media and therefore the travellers to let them know what's really happening - and that just isn't good enough.

It is imperative that any company that relies on customer service - and Eurostar certainly does - has a robust and flexible communications plan which is implemented as soon as any issue arises.

That should include speaking to passengers regularly, updating via the internet, Twitter, Facebook and conventional media to reassure current and future passengers and their families of what is going on.

In this Web 2.0 world we live in, they have failed to make great use of Twitter to keep people updated, while some customers have tweeted about being left in the dark, literally and metaphorically, without information.

Whether it is true or not, Eurostar gave the impression that they did not have a plan or any idea what to do and that is why there was a delay in updating the public on developments and comprehensively as they should have.

It is often said that it is not a crisis but how you are seen to be handling it which can shape your standing in the public eye.

Eurostar's failure was not to have problems caused by the weather.

It was a slowness to speak to everyone about the challenges they were facing, even if they did not have the answers immediately, to show an urgency to deal with them.

As it is, Eurostar has not even appeared to be in control and certainly not done all they could to look after those who have been so desperately inconvenienced by the delays and technical problems.

By jumping straight to a compensation message, they have suggested that throwing money at people will alleviate any lingering frustration and reluctance to use the service in future.

Coherent, regular communications updates to the general public and directly to those concerned would be far more effective.

Showing you care immediately, even when things go wrong, is the key to success in the world of communications.

Eurostar will not suffer in the long term, but a thorough review of their crisis communications strategy is essential to prevent this sort of thing happening again.

There has been a huge amount of debate over the past few days about the X Factor and Simon Cowell’s ‘dumbing down’ of the music industry by pushing for Joe McElderry to have the Christmas number one.

Talent shows have always been the subject of ridicule, of disdain amongst the intelligentsia who believe organic or high brow success is the only benchmark of genuine quality.

It’s easy to have a high minded opinion of what is talent and what is worthy of critical acclaim – and what’s not.

Classical art, literature and music will always be revered in a way that makes popular contemporary offerings so much more difficult to compete with.

Cultural snobbery is the easy option in an era where originality becomes more and more difficult to achieve.

Remember that some of the great artists and poets of past eras received little recognition until they had died.

Pop music, by definition, is something that is popular with the masses rather than being something accessible or attractive only to the upper echelons.

My days as a pop fan are probably over now but with friends in the music business, I know that anything that encourages people to listen to music and to buy it, whatever it is, has a benefit.

Yes, the X Factor model is geared at rewarding the Cowells of this world more than the artists and there is a fair argument to suggest that it’s not tapping into the huge plethora of talent that plies its trade at clubs and venues up and down the country.

Maybe there is room for a Band Idol as well, but should that also fall on Cowell’s shoulders or could someone else not take up the mantle?

The fact is that while the contestants on X Factor may not always be the most talented performers or singers in the world, they provide entertainment which is lapped up by the masses and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

While Cowell may make hay while the sun shines and let winners go if they do not continue to be profitable, the fact is that people such as Joe McElderry have now achieved something beyond their wildest dreams and even if it only lasts for a short time, is there really anything wrong with that?

There is an argument that culture – and in this case music – should be a blend of what the people want and what they need, but again I ask whether that should all be the responsibility of one man?

If Simon Cowell decides to promote and run a talent competition which gets some of the highest television ratings of the year and provokes voting that compares to political campaigns, does that make him to blame for the cultural or populist shortcomings or obsessions of society?

No, of course not.

While in other countries, success is celebrated, sadly, over here, we like to knock those who have made it and we look to see them fail.

Cowell may come across as smug sometimes and who can blame him for lapping up the success that has come his way by using his talents to create an industry that has been adopted by countries all over the world?

Cowell has even suggested organising debating shows ahead of the forthcoming election and I read one report today suggesting he should keep his nose out of it.

But with election voting figures waning and the need for fresh thinking to engage all aspects of society in the democratic political process, is it such a bad idea?

Simon Cowell knows how to influence popular culture and make dreams come true for those who never thought they would get a chance (Susan Boyle, anyone?) – and how to make money from it.

He may not be everyone’s cup of tea but it would be so much better to use his talents in positive ways rather than try and lambast him for his success.

I got into a fascinating debate with a friend at the weekend about the relevance of Tiger Woods' personal misdemeanours in the big scheme of his career.

My friend pointed out, quite rightly, that Woods remains one of the most exceptional golfers of all time and whatever he has done personally, that will remain the case.

He added that woods has not proclaimed at every opportunity what a great man and a great husband he is.

That is down, he said, to the agents, the marketers and the PR men and to a certain extent he is correct.

Woods has been a marketers dream because he is a black man in a white man's sport (ostensibly) and helped to promote golf to a wider audience than it has ever known before.

Just look at the figures of viewers when Woods plays in tournaments or when he doesn't - they drop significantly when he is absent.

But it goes beyond that.

Woods may not have proclaimed he was an impossibly virtuous individual, but earning close to $1 billion has not come through sporting excellence alone.

Woods has been part of the development of an image which has set him up unreasonably as a paragon of virtue, of excellence and a role model across the planet.

He has given black people and those living in developing countries the belief that they too can raise their lives to new standards.

You don't have to be a golf fan to know who Tiger Woods is or what he stood for.

And that's why so many sponsors flocked to him and, understandably, he was only too happy to accept the millions they offered him to raise their profile, highlight their values and engage with the audiences they sought to attract.

In all honesty, Woods' public persona has been somewhat bland, such is the control he and his advisors have had over his image.

If Woods had simply separated from his wife and his communications team helped him to deal privately with his personal problems, perhaps he would have had no need to announce he would take a break from the sport.

But the sheer scale of his infidelity has been so extensive that it will be no surprise if more companies follow Accenture in ending their arrangements with Woods.

These companies stand for integrity and trustworthiness, traits which golf and Woods were supposed to embody.

While the likes of Nike and Gillette (despite pulling back slightly) will probably stand by him in the long term, many others will walk away.

Woods needs to get back on the course and keep doing what he does best - winning major tournaments.

In the end, that is what he will probably be remembered for most in years to come.

But by allowing himself to be put on such a pedestal, he was always there to be shot at if the slightest misdemeanour came out.

Woods' spectacular fall from grace is a lesson to all not to paint yourself as a paragon of virtue, especially if the true story is something completely different.

From the moment Tiger Woods was involved in a car accident 10 days ago, the rumour mill has been going into overdrive.

A lot of journalists and media types already knew something more was going on that a simple road incident but the extent of the alleged misdemeanours by the world’s biggest sporting icon has surprised most of us.

Tiger Woods has always maintained a perfect off-field image.

That’s why he has become the wealthiest sportsman on the planet, amassing a wealth of almost $1 billion through deals with the likes of Gillette, Accenture, Nike, EA Sports and others.

As a mercurial sportsman Woods’ impact on the global landscape is perhaps beyond even his comprehension.

When Woods burst onto the golfing scene in the early 1990s, he was a revelation, a black American proving his excellence in a traditionally white-dominated sport.

Insititutional racism still exists – bigotry and prejudice is everywhere, bubbling under the surface and Woods had done so much to prove that black sportsmen could be a success in a typically white sport.

Unlike boxers with their bravado; footballers with their posturing; and athletes before Usain Bolt brought new life to the sport, Woods gave respectability to black sportsmen in a way no one had done before.

I was shocked by his statement last week when he said he was “…dismayed to realise the full extent of what tabloid scrutiny really means. Personal sins shouldn’t require press releases and problems within a family shouldn’t have to mean public confessions.”

You’re wrong, Mr Woods. Your wealth has been based on your sporting success and squeaky clean public persona and that has now been shattered.

He had a bigger responsibility to maintain his standards than possibly anyone else in sport – and if he didn’t realise that or like it, he was perfectly happy to take the huge wealth that came his way as a consequence.

The public love a hero but there’s been a case of shadenfreude as more incidences of alleged misdemeanours come to light.

Will it harm the Woods brand in the long run? Most PR experts say no, as long as he keeps on winning, with other sportsmen cited as examples who recovered from scandal.

The difference is that none of them earned as much or were as ubiquitous as Woods, nor lived a life based on the integrity and solid values he built his brand upon.

With success comes temptation, opportunity and the show you’re human after all.

Regardless of what he said before, the only way Woods can recover some of the respect he has lost is by staging a very public press conference where he opens his heart and, without necessarily going into details, vows to make amends.

I’ve spoken to people who claim to feel very let down by his actions and there’s no doubt he has set back the progress he made when blazing a trail as one of the greatest sporting talents of his generation.

There’s more to being a great sportsman than just winning, as Woods is finding out.

As a former journalist, it pains me to see how the industry has developed over the last few years.

Day rates for freelances haven’t risen in line with inflation; daily and Sunday staff are being asked to work across all titles, resulting in the loss of some jobs; and the internet has meant that gaining a share of voice has become dispersed as blogs and social networking takes its toll.

But the beauty of the internet is that it allows everyone access to the news, entertainment and information they require.

Want to find something out about the latest diet, watch your team’s latest performance or learn more about the history of penicillin? The internet is the place to go.

And Google, which undoubtedly leads the way both as a search engine and perhaps for browsers, email and suchlike, is the place most of us go to find what we want to find out about.

But Rupert Murdoch is frustrated by this.

I read The Sun, The Times and Sunday Times online and don’t pay for them (though I do also buy them and use their sites more for breaking news) – and Mr Murdoch doesn’t like that.

In some respects, I understand why, because the lack of income from readers has had a direct effect on the fate of journalists.

But what Mr Murdoch should be doing is finding new ways of maximising his website income through advertising and banners.

Advertisers should be paying a premium for their ads to be seen by visitors to News Corp sites because those sites have content which is of great interest. But it is not always unique content.

Mr Murdoch is planning to erect ‘pay walls’ which will charge for online content on the Sun, the Times, the New York Post and the Australian, amongst others.

This will involve removing News Corp titles from Google searches and possibly running them through Bing, the Microsoft search engine, where readers will be directed to pay if they wish to read further.

Will readers start making the move profitable for Mr Murdoch and his empire? I’m not so sure.

The fact is, there will always be ways of reading online content and if News Corp continually stays ahead of the game (possibly investing any online subscription profits in firewalls to stop potential hackers), people will just go elsewhere.

A number of media organisations, including the BBC and The Guardian and Observer, have already declared that they will not charge for online content and that in turn could give them an advertising revenue advantage (in the case of the Guardian/Observer) by driving more readers to their sites.

The beauty of the internet is its accessibility and when information is available so freely, will News Corp and Mr Murdoch really be able to change the face of the worldwide web?

Watch this space – and I promise I won’t charge!

I’ve discussed my views here in the past about the importance of the sports ‘Crown Jewels’ and the list announced on Friday makes interesting reading.

The advisory Review Panel, led by former BBC journalist and Football Association chief David Davies, was always going to be contentious and it was impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

Even though I don’t tend to watch them myself, the omission of the Winter Olympic Games, the Epsom Derby and Rugby League Challenge Cup Final has caused more than a little surprise.

The fact that England's home cricket Test matches, the Six Nations, Commonwealth Games, World Athletics Championships, Cricket World Cup - final, semi-finals and matches involving home nations and Ryder Cup are now all to be up for grabs raises a number of questions.

It suggests that any cricket other than the Ashes is not important enough to be available to the masses – and the same goes for athletics given that the two biggest events for British audiences after the Olympic Games are the World Athletics Championships and Commonwealth Games.

It’s also interesting to note that the UEFA Champions League, which needs commercial funding to sustain its lucrative benefits, has no requirement even for terrestrial highlights under the current recommendations.

The fact is that sport is incredibly important – it provides entertainment, promotes patriotic and community fervour.

But is at grassroots level where sport provides the most positive impact.

When spectators, young people in particular, watch sports events, it captures their imagination and encourages them to get involved themselves.

That, in turn, promotes healthy living, a sense of respect for opponents and collaboration with team-mates, dedication and determination, focus and discipline.

In those respects, the transferrable benefits of sport have such a huge potential influence on society.

Participating in sport can cut the strain on the health service, reduce crime levels in young people, and provide experiences which benefit people in the workplace. It’s a no-brainer.

Yet it is getting more and more expensive to watch sport live, putting added pressure on television to provide viewing opportunities for those who cannot watch events in person.

Paying for sports facilities, coaches and equipment requires massive funding – and as many of the sports federations have said today in reaction to the proposed revised list, preventing certain events from signing lucrative subscription or pay-TV deals could prove disastrous for grassroots sport.

But it’s interesting to note that despite the benefits of Sky’s investment in sport through its coverage deals, only around six million homes currently subscribe and so can watch the events, which is less than a quarter of the total audience.

And how much of the Sky money actually goes all the way to the grassroots?

If you take the Premier League, for instance, since its inception, clubs have invested heavily in foreign players and big wages, rather than developing and nurturing lower league players whose transfer fees provided a knock-on all the way down the football tiers.

Watching sport is inspiring.

If federations have to work harder to secure additional sponsorship, the fact that the potential audiences will be so much larger than on subscription channels should be compelling enough an argument to make up the shortfall.

This Sunday is a hugely important day in the British calendar.

In the week when so many British servicemen have lost their lives in Afghanistan, Remembrance Sunday takes on even greater significance, if that were possible.

The antics of an idiotic student, filmed urinating on a war memorial when drunk recently, underlines how easy it is for younger generations to forget what suffering and sacrifice has ensured the sovereignty of this country over the centuries.

And so it would seem appropriate - and not before time - that the Premier League football clubs show their support and understanding by embroidering poppies on their shirts for this weekend's matches.

Arsenal, for instance, are to auction their shirts off to raise money for the British Legion charity and I expect other clubs have other worthwhile money-raising plans as well.

But the fact that two of the country's biggest clubs - Manchester United and Liverpool - have refused to adorn their shirts with poppies despite overwhelming public outcry is a public relations disaster.

How quick and simple it would have been to join the other 18 clubs in the top flight to show their respect for those who have fought for their country.

It is especially ironic given that both have suffered from significant non-military disasters - the Munich air crash in United's case and Hillsbrough in Liverpool's - which have provoked so much sympathy from the wider sports community.

Any change of strategy would now be seen as a climbdown, but still be preferable to digging in their heels about a cause which is so worthy.

Other columnists and bloggers have spoken about 'Poppy Fascism' which seems ironic since the last great war ensured far-right parties did not spread their tyranny and destruction, at a huge cost of life.

Both clubs will no doubt do their bit to raise money for the British Legion anyway, but what a missed opportunity!

As Warren Buffet said, reputations take years to gain and moments to lose and how much sympathy goodwill or sympathy will the clubs now deserve after such a small minded act which does nothing for their public relations?

Most people who own professional sports clubs are in it for one of three reasons.

They might be diehard fans who want to give something back to their communities.

Or they are investors who think the club they buy into will be worth a lot more in future with a bit of personal glory along the way, perhaps.

For some, clubs are a plaything when they get bored of sitting in the bay just off Monaco, racing powerboats or attending glitzy parties.

A lot of these owners will come and go, their popularity or fortunes waning as their ambitions wither away, leaving their supporters wondering what went wrong.

Newcastle United have not enjoyed success for decades, despite huge investment and some of the most fanatical fans in the country.

Their support and the focus on the club within the city underlines how important success is in the North East and despite challenging for the Premier League title and reaching a few cup finals, silverware has been hard to come by.

I’m not sure what Sports Direct multi-millionaire Mike Ashley was thinking when he bought the club for £134m in May 2007 but overnight he went from a recluse who no one really knew to someone who wanted to wear the club’s shirt and sit with the fans.

Hiring Kevin Keegan might have been predictable, but it was a way of showing the fans that he knew what they wanted and the first step in possibly challenging for honours again.

By the end of last season, Keegan had gone and has subsequently won a constructive dismissal claim against the club, while Ashley has failed to sell the club on two occasions and seen its value deteriorate after relegation last May.

Even for someone with his money, the investment required and the hero-to-zero notoriety which comes with on-field struggles must have been something of a shock.

So Wednesday’s announcement that the club ground is to be renamed sportsdirect.com@St James' Park Stadium must rub further salt in the wounds of fans who have suffered greatly under Ashley’s reign.

As I said, owners come and go, but for supporters, developments at their club are front of mind almost all the time.

Footballers are getting more money while sponsorship deals are also on the increase yet the cost of attending games is increasing and almost prohibitive for a family of four.

This move looks like a way of boosting the owners’ coffers until someone is found who will buy the club when, possibly, they will have returned to the Premier League, instead of showing some empathy with fans who have witnessed the chaos going on at the club over recent months.

Perhaps renaming the stadium the Sir Bobby Robson St James’ Park would have been a better short-term solution until a big sponsor is found.

The late Newcastle manager was a legend on Tyneside and the move would have perhaps reminded fans that the club’s owners did have an ounce of understanding and sensitivity for them after all.