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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
Formula One is like marmite –you either love it or hate it.

One the one hand, you have an international tournament that provides glamour, drama and excitement like no other sport.

On the other, you have the argument that it is all about the machine, not the driver. Ferrari’s failure to continue winning every season following Michael Schumacher’s retirement may raise questions about that but Lewis Hamilton, so dominant over the last couple of seasons, has faltered alarmingly despite his obvious talent.

His team, McLaren, have had their problems, of course. They were found guilty of viewing documents from rivals Ferrari and fined heavily and then again admitted to lying at the start of this season when Hamilton finished on the podium.

This week, Renault Formula One team has released team bosses Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds over a deliberate crash by Nelson Piquet Junior, who had left the team in August.

Piquet admitted that he had crashed to help senior driver Fernando Alonso last season in Singapore, prompting legal proceedings against the Brazilian for damaging their reputation.

It should never have come to that, of course.

Given the recent departure of Briatore and Symonds, clearly Renault knew that they were guilty – and their admittance of the charges underlines that.

Briatore, whose reputation for being combatant both at Renault and Queens Park Rangers FC has made him a fearsome figure, is likely to have to leave elite sport altogether now, and perhaps that is for the best.

That Renault have reversed their initial stance underlines how seriously they take these accusations and how damaging it could be for their future to be found guilty while trying to conceal the truth.

Former Formula One driver Eddie Irvine said today that every team tried to stretch and bend the rules wherever possible, which hardly helps the credibility of the sport.

Will Renault still have a team in 2010? Only the FIA, the sport’s governing body, know what they will do.

For the good of Formula One, a punishment of the utmost severity for actions which ultimately affected the course of a race weekend must be considered.

And for Renault, the slow job of restoring their reputation must be as comprehensive as possible with charitable initiatives, new codes of conduct, open and honest dialogue with every stakeholder.

Time is a healer and Formula One may be very separate to the consumer market, but Renault sales may be affected by the reputation of a company who showed no respect for the rules they proclaimed to support.
 
 

When I undertake media training or suggest that it would be a useful exercise for my clients, I often encounter the same one or two responses:

“I’m so used to doing media interviews, I don’t need any more training”

OR

“I watch media interviews on television all the time – it’s not hard so I don’t need any advice thanks”

As a former journalist, I know how hard it is and I often think I’m glad I’m the one in control and not the one answering the questions.

And that, of course, is the trick. Control the interview, control the situation, remain calm and do not say anything you have not prepared or are not confident about saying ‘on message’.

So I was fascinated yesterday to hear the press conference undertaken by golfer Sandy Lyle in relation to some comments he made last week and ahead of the Open golf championship, which starts today.

For those of you who don’t know, Lyle was asked if he missed out on the coveted Ryder Cup captaincy after walking off after 10 holes of last year's Open.

Ill-advisedly, he compared that incident to Colin Montgomerie accidentally dropping his ball in the wrong place after storms at the 2005 Indonesian Open.

“What he did was far worse,” said Lyle last week. “Monty dropped the ball badly and that is a form of cheating.”

Lyle realised, especially in the world of golf, with its gentleman’s rules and high regard for respect, that his comments were both damaging and inappropriate, especially since Montgomerie was cleared of any misdemeanour at the time, issued an apology for his mistake and donated his £24,000 prize money to charity.

Whether he was advised or not, Lyle absolutely did the correct thing in calling a press conference to apologise for his comments.

When a media storm breaks, especially ahead of a major event, facing the media and apologising for an error is the best way of dealing with it and hopefully softening its impact.

If Lyle had not spoken, it would perhaps have prolonged the “feud” as the media would phrase it, and detract from the important matter of the golf.

He admitted that bringing up the Montomerie incident, purely as a comparison to his own error, was a mistake. His wording was crisp and measured, his delivery sincere.

And that should have been that.

But where Lyle made a huge error was to answer questions from the media rather than finish his press conference there and then.

Perhaps he had been suitably media trained. Perhaps he had been rigorously briefed about potential questions and answers, primed for all the inevitable interrogation that would come his way.

My advice to him, on this occasion, would have been to make his statement and leave it at that.

It gave the media enough to feed on and showed that he had been suitably concerned to face them after his mistake.

Whether he had not been briefed or simply forgot his answers, the result was disastrous – a car crash of a press conference which saw Lyle say of Montgomerie's 2005 incident that “It was one of his mistakes....it will probably live with him for the rest of his life. It'll be cropping up.”

After resisting the opportunity to speak, Montgomerie was fully justified in eventually making a calm and measured comment about Lyle’s press conference, simply saying “It's a rather strange apology to be honest.”

That understatement gave Montgomerie the high ground and leaves Lyle looking even more foolish, especially when George O'Grady, chief executive of the European Tour, chipped in with a statement, claiming Lyle’s comments “are considered wholly inappropriate and ill-timed.”

Avoiding the media is never a good idea. Fronting up and showing contrition is the best way to limit damage and rebuild a reputation.

But know what you’re going to say and don’t waver from what you’ve planned to say.

Lyle has lost the respect of a great many people because he simply did not follow those simple rules.

It will take a well-crafted communications campaign to restore his reputation but, to use his own phrase, no doubt, this incident will “keep cropping up” and it was so easily avoided.

 
 

A friend of mine mentioned the other day that she would never buy the News of the World, turning her nose up at the tabloid because of its reputation for seedy stories and salacious gossip.

On the face of it, I would have to agree, especially given the trousers-down nature of many of their front page stories.

But the fact remains that the NotW has some exceptional journalists and is an agenda setting publication whose stories resonate around the world.

The former editor, Andy Coulson, had to resign two years ago, for malpractice undertaken by his journalists and in particular, Clive Goodman, who was hacking the phones of celebrities in a bid to get the stories other journalists couldn’t reach.

As PR guru Max Clifford said last week, anyone would be horrified to know that their calls and messages were being monitored and Goodman rightly went to prison.

That Coulson did not know what precisely was going on is perhaps understandable with a paper the size of the NotW and the number of stories that go through the presses every week, even though Goodman was one of his senior reporters.

Andrew Neill, the former Sunday Times editor, said last week that Coulson was either “incompetent or complicit."  and it’s hard to disagree.

Journalists are under huge pressure, especially at red top newspapers with global reputations such as the NotW, to deliver stories. As long as the hacks can back up their story, the editor knows that in more cases than not, selling more copies is the name of the game, not the manner of the story’s revelation. 

But with significant sums of money being paid to the private investigator, it does raise the question of why no one flagged up to Coulson the expenses payments that Goodman was shelling out and then subsequently why Coulson didn’t question it.

Coulson’s resignation was honourable and inevitable, admitting that since the tapping happened on his watch, he had to take ultimate responsibility.

But it was no wonder Conservative leader David Cameron, well aware of the power of the tabloids, hired Coulson and appointed him as chief of communications. As a PR man himself, Cameron was doubt impressed by Coulson’s pedigree.

Coulson has undoubtedly helped the troubled Tories become a viable alternative to Labour, albeit at a time when the incumbent government has been struggling for support and positive headlines anyway.

There has been talk of Coulson following the path of Phil Hall, another former NotW editor, and set up his own agency, even before his potential crowning glory of leading Cameron to Number 10.

But the latest revelations, that the NotW has settled out of court with Professional Footballers’ Association Chief Executive Gordon Taylor after his phone was allegedly hacked, have brought the scandal back to the news agenda once again and prompted the Press Complaints Commission to re-open their files.

Will Coulson survive or will he suffer twice for the misdemeanours of his former NotW colleagues?

Cameron has been loyal to his aide throughout the latest revelations but as Coulson is well aware, when the PR man becomes the story, it’s tricky to weather the storm.

He has said little, determined not to provide more fuel of his own to the media fire – and yet at the same time he and his party are allowing the critics and opponents dominate the share of voice with a story which could seriously threaten Cameron’s Prime Ministerial ambitions.

However loyal Cameron chooses to be, allowing Coulson to stay will raise questions about accountability, his judgement and, essentially, about the principles he wishes to build his proposed government on.