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.