You Can't Simply Play the Satire Card When You Screw Up

For those of you who may have missed it, last week Megyn Kelly, who is essentially Bill O'Reilly in training, claimed that Santa Claus is white. Well, sure, the representations that the majority of Americans see on a daily basis during the holiday season depict him that way. But that wasn't what she was trying to convey. She said that Santa Claus is white, only white and can pretty much only ever be white.

Oh, boy. Okay. Where to begin? In an argument that nobody tried to start with her - or anyone who claims to defend against the crusade against Christmas (looking at you Bill O'Reilly) - she felt the need to make some fairly questionable comments on many, many levels.

Looking aside the fact that Santa Claus is, well, not a real person (sorry kids!) and therefore can be whatever race, gender, sexual orientation you want him to be, why is this even an issue? Why are we trying to pick fights over whether or not guy who dresses in an all red suit, uses magic reindeer to fly his sleigh to deliver presents to every child in the world and somehow manage to fit down a chimney is white, black, hispanic, asian? He's probably not even a real human being if he can manage to do all of those things!

Naturally, the national media jumped on this in a heartbeat and derided her for her comments. I mean, they really let her have it. And why not? Public figures such as herself should be mocked for saying things like "Santa Claus is white, get over it" (note: not a actually a direct quote, I'm summarizing here).

So what does Megyn do after all the criticism? She tries to turn it right back around and claim that it was all satire.

Goddamnit, people, you cannot simply play the "satire" card when you screw up and are looking for an easy way to deflect judgement. That's not how it works. The way individuals throw around the word satire is reminiscent of Alanis Morissette's use of irony - it just doesn't make sense.

Certainly, the strategy makes sense only from the perspective that it gives her an opportunity to turn the situation around on her attackers and attempt to make her the sympathetic figure. But if anyone ACTUALLY believes that this is satire, you're probably going to tell me the name of the clown college you got your degree from so I can let others know to avoid it.

So here is a note to all those public figures that make inappropriate and baiting statements: just because you have a loyal band of followers who will back you up doesn't mean that the rest of the public can't see right through your bullshit.

Very rarely in times of crisis comms is it best to try and turn it around on your attackers. Deflecting the blame to another party is dangerous at best; but spinning it 180 degrees back to those who rejected the initial comments adds further fuel to the fire. And typically people aren't going to just go along with it. When you look to blame another party, you better have a strong platform to stand on or your character and reputation will continue to serve as a punching bag for those whom you upset.

All I know is that I would hate to be part of Fox's PR department if it means dealing with fire drills like this every week.

TTBG #5: Thankful All Through The Year

Thanksgiving weekend is truly special time during the year. Much of society has become so consumed in the "now-now-now" of life that we neglect to recognize the things in our world that are important to us.

I've been blessed with some truly special people in my life - friends from home, friends from school, coworkers and, most importantly, family. And when it comes to a weekend that is fully dedicated to these people, it is easy for me to appreciate all that they have done for me. This Thanksgiving was no exception as I was fortunate enough to spend it with my girlfriend's family in Massachusetts, marking the fourth different Thanksgiving location in the last five years for me. Whether Boston, D.C. or Athens, I've had the good fortune of having people I care about to share the weekend with.

But as I lie in bed on a Sunday night before returning to the workweek and the hustle and bustle that comes with it, I can't help but feel like the good memories and appreciation that I have felt this weekend will disappear the second I start replying to emails. It isn't as if I choose to allow this to happen; life just starts to pick up the pace again and it becomes harder to slow down enough and give that thanks all year long.

Thanksgiving shouldn't be seen as the best opportunity to really demonstrate how much we value people and places in our lives. Thanksgiving should be the reminder that we need to be doing it every day of the year. We have the holiday to give us an in-your-face sign that we always need to take a look around and see that our life gives us much for which to be thankful.

Call a friend who you haven't heard from in a while. Shoot an email to the family. Write a letter to your grandparents. It doesn't matter the delivery mode; it matters that you take the time and effort to show you care. And you'll find that people appreciate it even more in the months of April and May as they do November and December.

Love and gratitude don't simply have to be sequestered to a few weekends out of the year. Let them flourish and keep the world thankful all through the year.

The Birds Attack J.P. Morgan, Twitter Edition

Twitter, for better or for worse, has forever altered the way that humans connect with one another on a daily basis. It took the basic concept of the text message and changed it from a private conversation between two parties into a public platform for all to spread their opinions.

This, in turn, brought corporations into the social media fold as customers would be frequently tweeting away about what they loved and, more commonly, what they hated about about the brands. Twitter serves as an excellent medium for customer relationship management for brands: an opportunity to directly connect with unhappy customers to address their concerns and transform them into brand advocates. At least, that's what effective social media management looks like for a large brand.

But for some companies, consumers spit so much vitriol at them that no matter how much the brand communicates with them, its image cannot be fixed. This is where the strategy around how a company uses a tool like Twitter. Marketers and PR pros have to look carefully at a company's position in the eyes of the media, the consumers and its competitors to help dictate its social media strategy.

Clearly, J.P. Morgan missed the memo on this lesson. Right in the middle of its settlement negotiations with the US government over its role in the 2008 financial crisis (which ultimately resulted in a $13 billion settlement), the team at J.P. Morgan decided that this would be a good time to host a Twitter chat with its vice chairman, Jimmy Lee.

Call me crazy, but people don't seem to like banks very much since 2008, do they? And I don't exactly think that this is uncommon knowledge. So it should come as no surprise that thousands of individuals descended upon the Twitter chat's corpse like vultures and picked it apart so badly that J.P. Morgan ceased the chat right in the middle of it. But the damage was already done by the time they stopped it. They completely lost control of the situation.

J.P. Morgan, in its defense, isn't the first major brand to have a screwup like this. McDonalds experienced a similar crisis when it tried to start a chat with the hashtag "McDStories". It was quickly hijacked by various groups that used the social platform to bombard the brand with its grievances. Just like J.P. Morgan, McDonalds had to stop the chat almost immediately. The fact that J.P. Morgan committed the same exact social media sin after all of the negative whiplash that McDonalds saw from this makes it all the more embarrassing.

Customer relationship management is a tricky business. Don't engage with customers and they complain that you don't listen to them. Listen too closely and you just might not like what they have to hear.

But when it comes to brands like J.P. Morgan, giving consumers a vocal platform where many voices can drown out one may not be the best option. If the company's intention was really to target students in particular, as they claim, set up a series of seminars on college campuses and have local leaders appear there to speak with the students. While it may require slightly more money and time, it is in a situation that the company can control.

Twitter really has changed the way that we interact. But that changes means different things to different parties. Brands that want to communicate with their consumers or spread a message must closely examine the inherent risks that these changes have brought and weigh the benefits against them. Otherwise their carcasses will be picked clean by the flocks of tweeters above them.

TTBG #4: Hats Are For Outside, Not The Restaurant

Admittedly, there are not a lot of violators in this category. But the ones who do are egregiously ignoring not just a simple gentlemanly move, but just plain common sense. When has it ever been okay for a guy to wear a hat inside of a restaurant? And why would it be okay?

It's not raining meatballs inside. You don't need to protect your hair from the sunlight. The restaurant isn't so cold that you're losing heat from your head.

And if you are at an outdoor restaurant and you're wearing a fedora like you're Jason freakin' Mraz, do us all a favor and just stop. Show yourself the door and walk into traffic. Because it doesn't get worse than that.

In all seriousness though, I have seen this happen before and it baffles me. It wasn't like I was at Mooo or Davio's in downtown Boston (both nice steakhouses), because those restaurants would actually tell you to remove a hat if you were wearing one.

Nope, I've been at several establishments where it wasn't quite nice enough to tell the guy to take his hat off, but you can be sure that he was drawing stares from those around him. I don't know if the wife/girlfriend/fiance/mistress just didn't care or didn't notice, but he should know better regardless.

The gray area is when you are at a bar that serves decent food at it. A laid-back environment like this may lead to the belief that a man doesn't need to remove his hat. But here is a good rule of thumb for that: if you even have to think about this at any point, then the hat should probably come off. Anything above a fast-food chain should scream "take it off" and is also another good rule to adhere to in the future.

To recap: don't wear a hat in a bar, don't wear it in a club, don't wear it in a restaurant. If you have to even stop and think about it, then it should come off. End of story.

Notable exception: bars that show sporting events ONLY when said sporting event is on and others in attendance have a hat on.

Previous Entries
#1 Stop Peeing on the Seat#2 Put the Toilet Seat Down when Finished
#3 Eat to the Pace of Your Company

TTBG #3 - Eat to the Pace of Your Company

We are going to move away from the topic of bathroom decorum for a little bit, although I am fairly certain that I could come up with about two dozen other tips on that topic alone, and make our way to the dining room. Let me preface this post by noting that the tip that I am going to state is generally more applicable to eating in public places versus the comfort of your own home.

One of the more commonly overlooked pieces of etiquette is the concept of eating to the pace of your company. Whether it is a first date, dinner with your parents or celebrating a wedding anniversary, the occasion doesn't really matter. It could be the best steakhouse in the entire world or it could be a burger at the dive bar down the street - you should always be conscious of how quickly you are eating your food relative to your company.

To understand why this is important, let's take a look at this from a date perspective. Imagine looking around a restaurant and seeing a woman having a conversation with her male counterpart and having a plate half-full. She's clearly still eating, but she just hasn't devoured the food like one of the hyenas in the Lion King. Meanwhile, the man across from her has already practically licked his plate clean, making the woman uncomfortable as she is left to eat by herself. Not exactly a situation any person wants to be part of on a date.

On the flip side, if a man is eating so slowly that the lady has taken care of her plate and is waiting for the check, he needs to reevaluate the way that he paces himself when eating meals.

The idea isn't to dictate the pace of meal consumption yourself; rather, it is important to remember that making the other person - doesn't matter who it is - feel comfortable when they eat is the key. You receive your food at the same time for a reason. Try to, at least, finish your food at roughly the same time.

Admittedly, this is not one of those things that people are going to notice frequently. But you will likely find yourself experiencing better conversation and meal-flow as the pauses to eat and to speak will come more naturally. Meal etiquette is a tough topic to nail and there are plenty of other tips that I will plan to cover (looking at you guy who licks his fingers clean and continues eating from a group dish), but locking down the small stuff is a place to start.

Previous entries:
#1 Stop Peeing on the Seat
#2 Put the Toilet Seat Down when Finished

PR: Targeting The Appropriate Reporters

As PR professionals, we are often asked to create news where there isn't any available. The enterprising process for stories is often times difficult and tedious. It generally means leaving no stones unturned and searching for connections between seemingly disparate topics.

Sometimes you may develop a great pitch with a storyline that would fit for your executive - one that you haven't seen discussed much in the media. The pitch may have legs and land your team a couple of interviews, pending that you are pitching the right journalists.

I have written in the past before that PR professionals need to stop blasting pitches and releases to any journalist that may even have smallest amount of potential interest. And I do believe that that is still the case.

But even pitches that are carefully researched, developed and fine-tooth combed still may not resonate with certain journalists. Two different reporters for a website may cover the same topic. One may focus on a strictly news basis - executive leadership changes, product announcements, etc. - while the other may prefer to try and create a dialogue with her readers - thought leadership and industry trends.

As PR pros, we have to be able to look at what a reporter writes about most frequently, combined with the contents of our pitch, and target the correct reporters. Just because two journalists cover the news of a new Nike shoe doesn't mean that they should receive the same pitch. This is especially true if one focuses on the information in the press release and the other covers the design and craftsmanship.

I was following up with a reporter who didn't like my original topic and asked me what else my executive had to discuss with him. When I let him know that our team was working to develop another storyline, he came back to me with six simple words that summed up what I should have remembered just looking at his coverage history: "Here's a hint: come with news."

I won't lie: I thought that the pitch was good. The topic is something that he covers. But there was no way a conversation with him and my executive would have taken place given his writing style and that's a fact I should have recognized before I pitched him.

The art of the media pitch is difficult to master. It is why there are so many bad PR people out there that are clogging the inboxes of experts (not that I claim to be one) and giving the profession a bad name. Before you send out your next pitch, take an extra second to put yourself in the reporter's shoes and consider whether this is a conversation that they would be truly interested in having. If the answer "no" crosses your mind for even a second, then it should be back to the drawing board.

TTBG #2: Put The Toilet Seat Down When Finished

I am the youngest of four children in my family. I have two older sisters and an older brother with my oldest sister being six years older than I am. The four of us had to share one bathroom growing up, which, as you can imagine, was a nightmare at times. My sisters had more random trinkets for getting ready in the morning that I never really considered the bathroom to be mine. It had always been their domain.

Now, one of the things that came from this situation is I learned at a very young age what a guy must to do survive in a girl's bathroom.

Touch nothing that isn't yours. Showers should be short and should not use very much of the hot water. My shampoo went on the lower levels of the rack in the shower. They got first dibs on warm showers after a cold soccer game.

Sure, sharing a bathroom with a girl sucks. And I think that many guys understand that the bathroom, by and large, is not a place where we spend as much time. So I don't have any qualms following the unspoken agreement between the sexes to model the bathroom off of what the woman wants, not what is most practical for men.

This means putting the toilet seat down every time you pee. I know what you're thinking and, yes, it is far easier for us to just leave the seat up at all times. Then we can stroll right into the bathroom, go about our business and continue on with our day.

But getting into the habit of lowering the toilet seat every time you are finished (only after you have flushed!) is a small gesture that makes life a little bit easier for the woman in the household, be it your mother, sister, girlfriend or wife. That way when it is four in the morning and they get up to use the bathroom in the middle of the night, they don't just fall right into the toilet bowl when they groggily stroll in.

The thing that baffles me the most about this particular tip is that it is so unbelievably easy and I see guys so frequently fail to actually perform the task. The two additional seconds it takes to grab the seat shouldn't even be something that is seen as "gentlemanly". It should be seen as mandatory. It is is an easy habit to develop.

If you're anything like me, you've already accepted that the bathroom should be for the lady's convenience and not your own. So next time you're zipping up your fly and going to wash your hands, stop, turn around and lower the seat for the females in your life.

Tips to Being a Gentleman - #1: Stop Peeing on the Seat

I spend a decent amount of time on this blog writing about sports, music, public relations or pretty much whatever I feel like at the time. That's all well and good, but I don't think that it really goes anything to help people. That's why I have decided to start posting tips to being a gentleman (TTBG).

I'm not doing this because I think I can sit down with the Queen of England and not commit a single act that the royal family would deem "inappropriate." I burp and frequently. I'm more flatulent than a whoopee cushion. I don't swear like a sailor; I more closely resemble a Jesuit priest in that category, which many would argue is worse.

I drink. I yell. I lose my temper. I talk shit about people when they aren't around and when they are.

I'm not exactly a bastion of decorum. Despite all of this, I have learned a thing or two along the way and I think that I should share that knowledge.

Acting like a gentleman at all times is hard in today's world. It is, however, a small step in earning the respect of your coworkers, friends, family and peers. And it is one thing that no person can ever take away from you.

The world has enough bro-ey idiots out there to last everyone a few lifetimes. Guys, let's take it upon ourselves to actually change our ways and make the world a more enjoyable place for the human race.

So, without further rambling, the first TTBG is:

#1 - Stop Peeing on the Goddamn Toilet Seat in the Bathroom

That's right. One of the first ways that you can be a better gentleman is by acting like one to your fellow man.

Ask yourself this: would you ever go to your friend's house or apartment, leave the seat down, piss all over it, not flush the toilet and leave a few stray hairs on the toilet seat? Of course not, because you aren't a savage. Unless you would, in which case, you're a worse human being than I thought.

So why would you ever go to a public restroom and do the same thing? If every guy that used a public bathroom simply took the extra five seconds to lift up the seat when he pees and (note: this step is critical) leave it up when he flushes to prevent water splash as the water goes down the drain, the bathroom would be a much more enjoyable experience.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of having to clean the toilet seat off like I'm prepping for open-heart surgery every time I need to take a poop. What I'm suggesting isn't going to take up your entire day. And I can assure you that other guys will appreciate it they come to a public toilet and it more closely resembles their own toilet than an outhouse.

Guys need to start paying it forward to their fellow man. So next time you head to the john, stop peeing on it. Stop leaving hairs on the seat. And start treating the bathroom like it is your own. It's a small step that will take you a long ways.

49ers & Texans Fans Embarrass Selves and Franchises

Mob mentality is a remarkably powerful psychological phenomenon. The more formal title to this groupthink and it has best exemplified in such blunders as the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Simply put, groupthink is the decision of a group to proceed with a course of action that many deem incorrect, but do not voice it as they strive for conformity.

It doesn't take too much for groupthink to settle in and the real-world examples are abundant. A charismatic coworker in a meeting who may want to push his agenda over the company's greater good may result in his peers agreeing because they fear appearing disloyal or oppositional. Groupthink can take perfectly good people and unknowingly force them to commit terrible acts.

It should come as no surprise then that at an NFL game, where 50,000+ people are united around a common cause (their team) and have massive exposure to alcohol, would become affected by groupthink and make their fan base look utterly classless.

Towards the end of the San Francisco 49ers and Arizona Cardinals game, the Cardinals' defensive end, Calais Campbell went down with a neck injury. He had been down for several minutes with what appeared to be a serious injury and team doctors called for a stretcher to take him off the field. In their clear lack of attention to the matter at hand, fans did what they deemed most appropriate when a player has been seriously injured: they decided to do the wave.

I am, admittedly, horribly against the wave ever appearing at sporting events, particularly in the middle of play. If fans want to do it at halftime, during timeouts, in between innings, go for it. But it has no place going on in the middle of the game. And if there is one time when it is definitely not okay, it is when a player is down with a potential neck injury and who has been down for several minutes at this point.

But, not to be outdone, the Houston Texans fans may have actually found a way to top the 49ers. Their quarterback, Matt Schaub, has not had a strong season. He had thrown a pick-six in four consecutive weeks as the Texans struggled out of the gates. Texans fans grew impatient quickly and were calling for TJ Yates to take over the starting job. Down 31-6 in the game, Schaub was sacked and landed awkwardly on his leg, resulting in one truly disgusting slow-motion replay. Texans fans got their wish as Schaub was sidelined.

But they had to take it one step further and really hammer home the "bread and circuses" mentality and cheer when the injury occurred. Honestly, the behavior is so deplorable that it doesn't even deserve condemnation. I don't care if your quarterback is Ryan Leaf, JaMarcus Russell or Blaine Gabbert, you never cheer when a player is hurt whether mildly or seriously.

Both fan bases should be completely embarrassed. Their behavior was absolutely barbaric. People need to show respect for their fellow human being, especially when the worst transgression that these athletes have taken against the fans is a poor performance.

I don't think that every single person that was at both of those games and cheering or doing the wave are bad individuals. If I had to guess, there were a few bad apples that started it and alcohol, not a fear not conforming, helped give it momentum.

At the end of the day, however, the motivating factors don't really matter. The fans still demonstrated a complete lack of etiquette. I was happy to see that Jed York, the 49ers' owner, publicly admonished the fans and I hope that those words do not fall on deaf ears. Because athletes our fellow human beings deserve more respect than that.

Where Is The Connection Between City Sports & The Furlough?

I work across the street from a City Sports in Boston and go there often during the week to pick up an assortment of needs for my workouts. Since I go there once a week or so, I figured that it makes sense to give them my email for when they have any special deals in the store.

I desperately needed a new pair of goggles and planned to stop in the store on my way home from work. Shortly before I packed up my things, I received an email from City Sports that had the following subject line:

"Government Employees: We'll Never Shut Down Great Savings"

At first I simply stared at the subject line blankly. I was sure there had to be a connection there that I was missing other than a shameful attempt to latch onto a timely subject for their own profit.

Sure enough, there wasn't anything more to it than a shallow marketing attempt to encourage consumers to shop at their stores.

"Don't let the government shutdown keep you from the fall fitness apparel and accessories you've been waiting for. From now until the end of the current shutdown enjoy 15% entire in-store purchase."

In public relations, we frequently see journalists talking about bad pitches that they receive, especially in the wake of a timely news topic when PR people try to spin (and I hate associating that word with our profession) a connection between the current event and whatever product their are hocking. So it doesn't come as a surprise to me that marketers would make the same mistake in this instance.

This is just a hunch, but there is nothing that tells me that any government worker that has been furloughed from the shutdown is going to give a damn about 15% off at City Sports to get the "fall fitness apparel and accessories [they've] been waiting for." I imagine that they are slightly more concerned with when they will be able to start working again and can continue providing for their families.

Playing off a current event like this to reach your entire customer base is one thing since not everyone is directly affected by the shutdown. But trying to draw in the one group of people who are suffering the most - the furloughed workers - from this is pathetic.

I strongly hope that they pull the promotion and apologize to those government employees who are not currently working. Because I would bet they would give up the next 10 fall seasonal accessories to be back at work.

An Untamed Colt Lyerla

By now most Oregon Ducks fans have moved on from Colt Lyerla, the once-promising tight end who had started twelve games for the Ducks over the last two years. It shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to see Lyerla leave as he and head coach Mark Helfrich had been battling ever since Helfrich suggested that Lyerla sat out the Tennessee game for reasons other than an illness.

Lyerla had shown flashes of brilliance over the past two years with the Ducks. But he also had far too many dropped passes and missed blocks mixed in there to make him a truly consistent threat.

He also wasn't exactly what you would call a team chemistry guy and had a penchant attracting too many headlines for the wrong reasons.

After not traveling to Colorado with the team this week to play the Buffaloes, Lyerla officially announced that he is leaving Oregon, effective immediately. He indicated that he will not be trying to transfer to another school in the meantime, but plans to make his way to the NFL.

I'm not entirely sure how Lyerla expects to make it there, except maybe as the towel and Gatorade boy on the sideline. There is no doubt that Lyerla is talented and could be playing on Sundays if he got his head on straight.

But the NFL, more so than any of the big four, places a premium on a player's character. Lyerla would certainly get dinged for that, in addition to his relative inexperience at the college level.

Worst of all for Lyerla? This doesn't really hurt the Ducks. Obviously having a focused Lyerla around would benefit the Ducks offense. But he hasn't demonstrated the maturity or consistency at this point for the team to continue planning on him reaching that level any time soon.

Johnny Mundt has demonstrated himself a capable replacement for the time being and the Ducks already have numerous other weapons on offense. Sure the teams they have been playing haven't exactly been the toughest around; but they are still hanging 50 on teams like their lives depend on it.

This is just addition by subtraction. The Ducks lose a guy who was clearly butting heads with the coaching staff and had already proven to be a distraction off the field with his immaturity. Something tells me that the team harmony doesn't change with Lyerla leaving as the Ducks are just focused on winning the day each and every day.

As for Lyerla, well, I wish him the best. I hope that he proves me wrong and grows up and makes it to the NFL. But a wild Colt won't make it far with the attitude that he has now.

Why PR Pros Can't Treat Journalists Like A Punching Bag

Bad public relations professionals make me cringe. I don't consider this to be an easy profession, but there are far too many bad PR pros out there that give the rest of the industry a bad name.

I follow dozens of journalists on Twitter and they will frequently post about bad pitches, off-topic press releases and general pet peeves of theirs when it comes to my profession. There are many more public relations representatives in the world than there are journalists, which puts them in a position of power. They are the gatekeepers to what becomes news and what doesn't. Adhere to their requests or fail to see your company name in the headlines.

At first, I feel my blood boil when I see them bad-mouthing PR pros. Then they post about the pitch/release and why they're frustrated becomes abundantly clear. When a reporter covers health and fitness, don't pitch them on auto news. In my world, pitching a cloud reporter on the topic of hardware is tantamount to a glove slap and a challenge of their honor.

Misguided pitches are one the surefire ways to get ignored by a reporter on future efforts. Journalists are not stupid and can tell when a pitch has good intentions behind it, but may have just found its way into their inbox instead of their colleague's. What they can't stand, and what they shouldn't have to put up with, are pitches that don't even fall into the realm of their coverage scope. Reporters at the top of their industry will receive anywhere from 50-60 pitches a day--and that's probably on the conservative side--so they do not have time to put up with bad PR pros blasting them with an irrelevant press release.

PR people will be quick to pin the blame on their clients. As PR is truly a job in the service industry, we are at the behest of our clients' requests. But any good PR professional knows when to push back and how to set expectations. This prevents you from having to reach out to the Wall Street Journal when you should be contacting the Boston Herald.

We have to stop pounding these reporters with these poorly constructed, off-topic and ill-timed pitches and press releases. They can't cover everything and your best chance of being that nugget is to really tailor and target your pitches to fit their coverage area.

And we need to convince them that we aren't just robots that believe in blasting press releases and other content our clients give us. Only once we have done that can we change the power dynamic between us and preserve the symbiotic relationship that should exist.

The Toronto Raptors and the Drake Effect

The Toronto Raptors named hip-hop star, Drake, as a team ambassador today, making him the third musical artist in the last couple of years to invest in an NBA team (Jay-Z and the Nets; Will Smith and the 76ers). The Raptors have struggled since entering the league as an expansion team in 1995 as they have only made the second round of the playoffs once - in 2001 with Vince Carter as their star. In addition to poor play on the court, the team has not been able to draw attendance despite the large Toronto market.

Obviously, the fact that the Raptors are generally terrible at basketball has not helped them put fans in the seats. There is the added element that the people in Canada just generally do not care that much about basketball as hockey is the only true national sport there.

Insert Drake. The Toronto Raptors are trying to pull a Brooklyn Nets here by bringing in a hip-hop mogul to serve as the face of the franchise. Drake's actual involvement will likely be minimal in the day-to-day, but he'll be front and center at games and will probably serve as a primary spokesperson for the team. Basketball and business decisions will be made behind close doors by others, but Drake will be the smiling face to help deliver the news.

So what does this mean for the Raptors moving forward? From a basketball standpoint, not much. Free agents and franchise-altering players are not overly interested in moving to Toronto. It's cold, they have to compete with hockey and taxes are a bit more taxing than, say, Miami. The Raptors are still shackled with high-paid players who just don't deliver.

From a business standpoint, I will be interested to see what happens with Drake. Jay-Z transformed the Nets, taking them from a franchise that has to give away tickets for basically free to a team of swag-stars that sells out the Barclays Center despite mediocre results. Of course, Jay-Z didn't have everything to do with this. Mikhail Prokhorov has cavernous pockets and isn't afraid to spend money to improve his team. Running the Nets to him isn't a business investment like so many NBA owners. But the allure of Jay-Z - a legend in the rap game - and his consultancy helped expedite the transformation process for the Nets.

Drake isn't Jay-Z. Maple Lead Sports and Entertainment (Raptors' owners) and Prokorhov are a little different in how they conduct business. The Raptors don't have the roster that the Nets do.

But I will be interested to see how this plays out. Like it or not, rap artists have ties to the athlete community and do hold influence in some form there. I'm not suggesting that Drake is going to bring LeBron to Toronto in 2014--especially in light of his Miami locker room fail after the Heat won in June--but I do think he'll benefit the Raptors as a business. And I don't think that he'll be the last rap star to join the ranks of an NBA team either.

Is JC Penny Promoting Bullying? No. Just No.

This isn't a serious question, is it? God, I really hope that people aren't actually that upset about this.

On CNN this morning, they ran a segment on JC Penny's newest back to school television advertisement. The story was about how many were upset with the recent spot as it seemed to promote bullying in schools, which has become a seriously hot button topic lately, particularly in the wake of the recent video capturing three 15 year old students beating a 13 year old student on the bus.

Take a look at the new commercial:

People's outcry stems from the :14 second mark in the video. The advertisement's suggestion is simple: wearing the wrong clothing could "make or break" your first day at school. By the looks of the lonely boy at the table, his first day broke in a big way.

I am a little confused though. Why is this all of a sudden considered bullying? TV advertisements have been telling us for decades that if we aren't wearing the right shirt, lipstick, deodorant, shoes, jewelry, etc., that we aren't superior, the fastest, the smartest, the sexiest, the absolute best in the world. That is how these companies sell their product. They pinpoint a certain "critical" characteristic that society deems so necessary and brand their product as the gateway to whatever pinnacle we are trying so desperately to achieve.

If I don't drink Gatorade, I'll fail to succeed in sports. If I don't wash my body with Axe, girls won't want to be sexual with me. If I don't buy a huge diamond and propose in a completely outlandish way, then my girlfriend won't marry me.

This is not a new trend, everyone. Commercials have long tried to convey to us how we can better ourselves with whatever product they push. The reason that you buy Gillette at the store instead of the generic shaving cream is because deep down you truly think that Kate Upton will want to sleep with you if you are grooming the correct way.

So JC Penny says that the outfit that a kid wears on the first day could make or break the year. Exaggeration? Of course it is. But so are all of the other examples above as well. Nobody ever remembers what anyone wore for the first day of school. And even in grade school and middle school, when first-impressions are so critical with judgmental peers, it doesn't alter your entire year.

At no point in this video is there even a scene of anything remotely close to bullying. That two second clip of the kid at the lunch table alone got everyone so bent out of shape--nobody says "Oh, man, what a loser. Look at what he is wearing!" or anything remotely close. The scene passes so quickly that if anyone were paying half attention, they wouldn't have even noticed.

Yet, somehow this ended up as a serious segment on CNN this morning. "Is JC Penny promoting bullying with their new advertisements," they asked. No, CNN and reactionaries, they are not. Put down your pitchforks and open your eyes. Because if this is the type of advertisement exposure that gets you worried about how your kids will turn out, you clearly aren't paying close enough attention to the world around you.

Tim Armstrong Creates Headaches for His PR Team

Everyone has had moments where their tempers get the best of them. When I was in high school, I screamed a few expletives at a referee in my basketball game after he repeatedly missed calls. As quick as the swears were out of my mouth was as fast as I had received two technical fouls, an ejection from the game, and one extraordinarily disappointed mother on the ride home from the game.

But one good thing about my incident is that it took place in a half-full gym and the ramifications certainly didn't extend beyond my driving privileges for the next week (although, when you are 16, this is the world to you). Tim Armstrong is the CEO of AOL and is known for his brash persona. In charge of the once leader in the internet experience, AOL has had a hard time reinventing itself as it fell further and further behind competitors.

Naturally, this whole situation has caused stress throughout the company for the better part of a few years. Earlier this week, Tim Armstrong held a company call to announce the reduction of AOL's hyperlocal news websites, Patch, from 900 to 600 total. This, obviously, meant that there would be staff reductions.

While Armstrong was delivering his presentation, a member of the creative team was taking pictures of the presentation. Armstrong was not entirely pleased with this action and lost his cool. He didn't just have a few choice words for the man like I did the referee; no, he fired him on the spot. Told him that he could get up, leave the meeting, and not return the next day to AOL.

Naturally, this leaked to the press because when you are a high profile executive at a name-brand company and you act like a child in front of 1,000 employees, news will get out of it. Armstrong isn't exactly beloved at AOL and this didn't do anything to help his reputation. The press picked up on the story immediately and stories were being posted around all the major news and tech outlets.

Armstrong, the head of the company and main public-facing employee, couldn't control his temper and acted like a child. It is as simple as that.

Naturally, this story combined with the Patch reductions dominated the news cycle for the full 24 hours as the AOL PR team did the best they could at picking up the pieces. In many crisis situations, there is an opportunity to turn the issue around and capitalize off of it, if the company handles it correctly. However, in this instance, there wasn't exactly a lot that AOL's team could do.

Armstrong ultimately apologized to the employee, but that is an expectation at that point. There was no way that the director would come back to AOL at that point, even after the apology. There is no way for Armstrong or AOL to undergo proactive actions that demonstrate company reform or a commitment to righting the wrong. All they could do was field calls from reporters and provide "no comments."

The danger of a CEO like Armstrong is that they're a ticking time bomb. PR teams shouldn't have to have a crisis response plan to "Your CEO lost his cool in front of 1,000 employees during a recorded meeting and unjustifiably fired the creative director, so now what?" No amount of media training and coaching of an executive can change the outcome of a situation like that.

No matter how heartfelt the apology, no matter strongly committed Armstrong is to the regretful rhetoric, and certainly no matter how many phone calls from reporters the PR team takes will allow Armstrong and AOL to recover from this particular black eye. For the next couple of weeks, maybe even months, AOL will be connected with this event.

There are times where good PR and crisis management skills come in handy. This is not one of those times. Sometimes the instance is small, but the consequences are severe and essentially irrevocable.

Yes, Google Killed PR...If Agencies Only Focused on Press Releases

For those of you who keep tabs on the world of public relations, there was a particular article that was floating around from agency to agency. It provided quite a bit of talk around the water cooler. Although it spread spread like a wild fire, it certainly didn't elicit the feelings of angst and worry as one would expect. In fact, the general consensus was bewilderment and general amusement.

Tom Foremski is a contributor to the technology website, ZDnet, and a notorious PR-loather. On Thursday of last week, he posted an article titled, "Did Google just kill PR agencies?" following Google's changes to their page ranking in their search function. In an effort to deter people from trying to chat Google's search algorithm's by pumping their press releases full of SEO language, Google announced that it would actually be purposely lowering these search results to punish those offenders. This should come as no surprise as Google's search engine algorithm is the foundation of the company and they certainly don't want people trying to cheat the system.

Foremski, however, suggests that with these rule changes, Google is turning PR agencies obsolete. Essentially, he bundles all of PR into the development of press releases and warns PR professionals that we are all doomed because Google will now start to punish companies that try to maximize their coverage through as many links and press release repostings that they can muster.

Sigh. I don't even know where to begin with this.

Let's just start with the obvious fact that when we develop press releases, most agencies are not just looking for repostings. On the contrary, while marketing folks and product managers may consider a reposting a press success, many PR professionals only aim for original coverage. This frequently means sending out the release (or more commonly a pitch on the story), arranging a briefing for the vendor and the journalist, and providing the rest of the information over email for a story that the journalist crafts himself (by the way, PR people, if you want a good laugh, please check out Foremski's article from 2006 on what he would like PR professionals to send to him to help write his story. You'll get a kick out of it).

So, no, Tom, if the release I write doesn't end up on 30 press release aggregator websites anymore, I won't really lose any sleep over it. Nor will my clients. Because the one article that I land in an InformationWeek or your own ZDNet will draw more impressions that those release websites would in ten years. For PR pros who hold themselves to a high standard, a straight cut and paste of a release isn't a victory and these rule changes will only continue to whittle out the lazy individuals.

The next biggest issue with this article is the suggestion that PR agencies are just machines that churn out release after release: mindless zombies that insert marketing-speak into carefully designed templates, day in and day out. Foremski makes it seem like our job is to sit at our computer, just trying to load the system with so much of our client's information that Google will help boost our efforts with their algorithms.

I would invite Tom to come join me for a week at work to see what we actually do. Executive messaging, thought leadership campaigns, media pitches (not press releases), social media, digital content development, crisis management, etc. In fact, of all things associated with public relations, the press release is the one that I spend the least time developing. In the 14 months I have been in the industry, I have written one press release and one newsbyte. That's it. I've also managed to secure coverage for my client in a variety of respectable technology publications through the tactics I mentioned above.

We are not robots. We don't push out press releases with the same frequency that we drink cups of coffee. We do not settle for press release repostings. And we certainly don't rely on Google to produce positive news coverage for our clients.

If a PR agency's business actually suffers from these rule changes, then they are doing a disservice to their clients as it is. The press release is merely one sword in our arsenal as public perception shapers and one that should only be drawn in completely necessary situations.

Google certainly didn't kill PR. The search behemoth is just trying to make us develop all of our skills, not just the press release.

600 Meters to Golden PR: The Farah-Bolt Challenge

For those of you unfamiliar with the world of track & field, here is a quick background for you: Usain Bolt, the Jamaican sprinter who is better known as the fastest person in the history of mankind, was challenged by famed British distance runner, Mo Farah, who recently completed one of the more impressive gold medal doubles winning both the 5k and 10k at the 2012 Olympics. They are the pinnacle of their respective events and hoards of fans admire them for their dedication and success on the track.

Both Bolt and Farah, however, also have accomplished a significant amount off the track as well. Mo Farah has set up the Mo Farah Foundation, which is aimed at providing life-saving aid to the population of east Africa. Usain Bolt's foundation is aimed at empowering the youth in poverty-stricken areas to fight their way out of the poorest of neighborhoods through education. Bolt and Farah have taken their star status and used it to address the places they came from, generating positive change for thousands of individuals in desperate need of help (Note: while Farah competes for Great Britain in races, he is a naturalized citizen, originally born in Somalia).

It doesn't take an expert in track & field to tell you that running the 100 and 200 meter dash as Bolt does requires a completely different type of athleticism, training, and mentality as running a 5k or 10k a la Farah. And certainly nobody would expect the two to line up against the other for an unfamiliar race. Neither would have anything to gain.

But Farah made an interesting proposition to Bolt: lengthen the race to anything over 600 meters and let's go toe-to-toe. The kicker? Fans get to decide just how long the race will be through a vote. A race that is 600 meters is not in either's wheel-house (although my gut says anything over 400 and Farah has the advantage) and would certainly make for an enticing event.

And because these two understand how to use their fame and opportunities for society's benefit, the proceeds of the race would be split between their two charities. Something tells me that both of these men's publicists know a thing or two about how to do their job well. A Farah-Bolt showdown would certainly draw a great deal of publicity for the athletes and their charities. Even something so simple as televising the race in an hour-long special -- where a TV station could then take the ad revenue it normally receives, donate it to the charities and ultimately generate their own positive story -- would bring in thousands of dollars for their causes.

It is incredibly refreshing to see athletes recognize that they have enormous opportunities to benefit others less fortunate than them and actually follow through on those chances. These are the types of activities that make professional sports athletes such gold mines of opportunities for positive change. And with some simple PR, athletes can build out their own brand off the track, outside the arena, off the ice and in the places where people really want to see change.

If the Farah-Bolt challenge goes through, this could be a fantastic case study in the way that PR professionals should consider leveraging their athletes. This does require individuals such as Farah and Bolt who are committed to making changes outside of their lives as athletes, but the opportunities are ripe for the taking. It just requires a little outside-the-box thinking, but a single event such as a crowd-sourced race between two track stars is exactly that.

The Lululemon Fiasco, or Why Transparency Won Out

It was certainly one of the more bizarre crises that we have seen in recent times. With front page articles online and in the press highlighting the common issues for large companies, product recalls, oil spills, layoffs, etc., famed yoga pants-makers Lululemon found themselves in the press's crosshairs after they recalled their trademark athletic pants because they were see through. One could not help but chuckle at the issue given the run of crisis issues we have seen over the past few years.

There was one group of people who were certainly not laughing over the issue of see-through yoga pants (and, no, it was not the father's of daughters who wear them): shareholders of the company. As a publicly traded company, Lulu Lemon has to answer to their shareholders at the end of the day and when they have to pull a product that is 17% of their product line, that is not such a laughing matter for those who own part of the company.

But much of the way that Lululemon handled the issue alleviated any of the potential pitfalls. The first, and perhaps most important, step they took was owning responsibility to the issue. They came right out and said they were recalling the pants and explained exactly why. By doing this, they helped control all the details around the recall and what the next steps were. Whenever companies face a major recall, it is generally a reactive response to an event or series of events that has led to negative attention. The Firestone recall issues are a textbook case in what not to do in a recall and the company was forced to dig themselves out of a massive hole as a result.

Lululemon was not dealing with an issue of the same severity as the deaths of drivers due to poorly made tires, but the fact that they were the ones who broke the news before any public outrage surfaced helped squash some of the negative publicity. They admitted outright to what the issue was and promised to fix the problem as quickly as possible. While all companies do this in time of crisis, Lululemon's devout customer base trusted them to correct the issue because the brand had already built such strong loyalty with them. This is no small point in times of crisis and helped the brand keep control of the situation.

Standing in front of the issue allowed them to set the tone of the conversation. The storyline did not become "Will Lululemon recover from this debacle?" Instead, the tone was more of "When will the pants return for their customers?" As Lululemon owned the problem, they were able to report exactly how long it would take before their product would return and they could pinpoint exactly what they needed to do to prevent the same issue from occurring. This prevented any false story-lines from appearing and helped limit their negative exposure.

Finally, true to their word, the pants returned to stores not too long after the crisis was originally announced. By sticking to their promise of producing an improved pant in a short period of time, Lululemon walked away from the issue relatively unscathed. Their stock price actually exceeded its price pre-crisis and their loyal customers continue to trust the brand. The company is a perfect example of how to handle a crisis and should certainly be seen as a role model for how to tackle problems head on before they spiral out of your control.

When facing a crisis, always remember:

• Honesty at all times is critical. If you don't have an answer at that time, that is better than making one up.
• Always be proactive. Crises can pop up at the most unexpected times and places. But being able to own the problem and the tone is critical to minimize repercussions.
• Don't make promises you can't keep. If you promise to fix a particular issue, you need to be 100% confident that the problem is solved before the public sees the product again.
• Have a plan in place. In the case of a product recall, know exactly what circumstances warrant a recall. Every department should be ready to act quickly and squash the problem before it gets out of control.

PRISM and the Tech Giants' Responses

The US government isn't the only institution that is having a bad week when it comes to public perception. The PRISM scandal has pulled in a group of elite technology companies, whether they wanted to participate in this mess or not. Google, Facebook, and Yahoo are just three of the companies cited directly in a presentation from the NSA that Edward Snowden leaked to the British newspaper, The Guardian.

The details around how these companies were/are involved are certainly not flattering. They were originally accused of, essentially, turning over their servers to the FBI and NSA to pour over in search of clues for potential terrorist attacks. This includes search terms, emails, online conversations, bank statements, and everything in between. It became so in-depth at one point that analysts were claiming that the US government could see exactly what you were typing at any given time, meaning that I would certainly have raised a red flag or two for this post.

In the days since the news first broke, details around just how involved the Googles of the world are involved are unclear. But it didn't take long after The Guardian's original implication for the CEOs of those companies to immediately come forward and deny any knowledge of the program. This is important to remember moving forward: they denied even knowing of the program at all, let alone the extent to which they are allegedly involved.

From a communications perspective, these companies had to act fast. Google, Yahoo and Facebook were all swift in their denials, with Sergey Bin, Marissa Mayer, and Mark Zuckerberg quickly making public appearances to personally assure their users that their data is safe. On the surface this is the obvious choice to make. Certainly none of these companies want to be painted with the scarlet "C" (for conspirator), so a denial makes sense.

But as I mentioned above, details around this are murky at best. The companies were named directly in a report from the NSA. I think that it is highly unlikely that the NSA would have this report that states that these companies have given them access to individuals' data. The NSA has its reasons for withholding the truth; but I am suspect that they would outright lie in this regard.

For some reason or another, these companies that we trust on a daily basis with our most personal information were named in the report. A great deal of context is missing and there are more questions than answers right now. But it begs the question: if all of these companies were named in the report and they claim to know nothing of it, just what were they doing there then?

Now this brings us back to the original denial that these CEOs made when the news first broke. They all claimed to never have heard of it, have no role in it and tried to build a wall between them and the US government. If you believe that they were in the presentation for a reason, then this denial could prove problematic. We don't know what the extent of their involvement is, but it sounds like that they aren't actually just handing over their servers to the NSA and FBI. But that certainly doesn't mean that they have completely clean hands either.

Perhaps they don't know what PRISM is and have not heard of that project name. But they might know of it as another project name. The risk here is that if it comes out that they knew this is what the government was doing at any point, then they lied to their entire customer base at a time when that base needed to trust them most.

The danger of crisis communications, as in this case, is that if not handled quickly and properly then the issue can come back and bite you. As of right now, these companies seemed to have dodged a bullet with their denial and questionable details. Combined with the surprising unveiling of the whistleblower,  the spotlight left them. For the time being.

But if further down the road the public finds out that they played some part in PRISM, whether they knew it or not, that's going to seriously damage their brand. And if it turns out that their hands aren't covered in blood, their communications team deserves a beer or two for acting fast and squashing the problem before it exploded into a full-blown crisis.

We're watching a potentially great case study on crisis communications unfold before us. I hope that for the sake of those comms teams they get it right.

PR: Unique Coverage vs. Press Release

A client of mine recently issued a press release on an update to a product. The news was not expected to garner a great deal of media coverage, just a few of the friendly publications that we generally work with that expect to be kept in the loop on this type of news. News like this is generally meant as an FYI; if the reporter wants to cover it, great. If not, no worries, harder news will be available in the future.

Later that afternoon, after the pitches had been sent out and the release crossed the wire hours before, an email came in with the following subject line:

We Made It Into The Wall Street Journal!!!

Now, imagine my surprise here. This wasn't hard hitting news, as I mentioned. Just general updates, while important to those people who use the product and a select individuals, aren't expected to land in any major publications, especially the Mecca of news websites: The Wall Street Journal.

After opening the email, the confusion of what happened quickly became apparent. When a release crosses the wire, it is sent out to hundreds of publications who subscribe to wire services. They are the only way they that newspapers and websites can keep track of the tsunami of news that comes their way each day. Whether or not a release is posted to website is up to the editors. Simply a yes or no can ultimately determine if the release is posted on the website or not with no input from the editors to the actual content.

When I clicked on the hyperlink included in the email, I was, in fact, taken to the Wall Street Journal's website. The opening line of the article in question, however, started: (PR Newswire). For those not familiar with PR, this is the only sign that a PR professional needs to see to know that this is a press release reposting.

In my mind, this is not an original piece of coverage. I do not fault the individual who sent the email congratulating the team on a WSJ piece because they did not know any better. If someone sees the piece of news on a website like that and isn't familiar with wire services, then why should a PR person expect them to tell the difference? But when I look at that link, I don't take any pride in that.

Sure, my team wrote the press release and pushed it through approvals. The client approved putting it over the wire, so why shouldn't we be excited that the WSJ decided to post that release? Because when your release is featured next to one describing the new flavors of yogurt from a food distributor and your client is in technology, it just doesn't feel as special.

Editors just have to decide which companies' news they will post from the wire. The release is just a dime a dozen. But when news is sent directly to an editor, they express interest and ultimately write a story on the news or a briefing with an executive, that is when it becomes an accomplishment. That is news that the editor felt was significant enough that it warranted a separate write-up from the press release.

We received a few nibbles of interest from the friendly publications that I mentioned earlier. We held a couple of briefings and saw some positive stories, albeit short ones. Those stories, the ones on news websites that don't receive 1/100th of the monthly visitors that the WSJ does, mean more to me than a press release pickup.

A great release can certainly result in positive news coverage. But simply having the words of the release copy and pasted directly from the wire is not the same as a journalist selecting to learn more about the story and it just shouldn't count the same in the minds of PR professionals.

We didn't bother to make the distinction for the client as congratulations was passed around throughout the team. In rare situations, it is okay for the client to see the world of media through rose-colored glasses and this is one.

Just think about how satisfying it would be, though, to get an email back from a WSJ reporter saying, "I am interested in learning more about the news today. Can you connect me with an executive?"

A well-written press release is nothing to deemphasize. I just hope that the first time I send an email saying, "We Made It Into The Wall Street Journal!!!" it is because an editor chose to get back to me. Then it will be time to pat ourselves on the back, because our job as PR professionals will be complete.

The Legacy of a Kidd

The New York Knicks' Jason Kidd announced that he is retiring after 19 seasons in the league. The man has played with Phoenix, Dallas, New Jersey, and New York, racking up triple-doubles at an impressive rate. Standing at only 6' 3", Kidd was always one of the toughest players on the court, rarely missing games and banging bodies with big men to grab rebounds and seal those triple-doubles. He's been a leader on every team he's played on, leading Dallas, New Jersey, and New York to conference finals and an NBA Championship in Dallas in 2011.

He's amassed an impressive collection of awards throughout his career. Co-rookie of the year in 94-95. Five First Team All-NBA selections. Nine First Team All-Defense. Second all-time in assists and steals. Strong and heady, Kidd has used his size, durability, and court intelligence to develop an incredibly impressive resume. It has earned him a spot in the conversation for best point guards in the last couple of decades.

We definitely haven't seen the last of Jason Kidd in the NBA. Guards, in particular, have a tendency to make their way to the bench as coaches due to an acute knowledge of managing the whole team on the floor. Kidd is a general on the floor and always has been one. There is little doubt that he will continue to extend his legacy as an individual who understands the game of basketball on a level that most cannot even fathom.

But what bothers me about Jason Kidd and the celebration of his career is how his past is mired in anger issues and domestic violence. In 2001, as most know but seem to conveniently forget, Kidd was arrested for domestic abuse of his now ex-wife. The two were able to reconcile their differences for the time being and Kidd made a (tacky) public acknowledgement of his love for his wife every time he shot a free throw by blowing a kiss to the basket. Anger management classes and this display of affection and all is forgotten in the eyes of basketball fans.

Several years later the two filed for divorce, each with claims of violence from the other. Clearly, violence of some kind was at the heart of their issues. Kidd stopped blowing the kisses, the media didn't pay attention anymore and that was the end of it. Kidd went on to win a championship with Dallas in 2011 and finished off his career with an appearance in the Eastern Conference Semifinals with New York this year.

As it happens so frequently, the issues in professional athletes' personal lives are forgotten, shadows of the successes in their more public identities. And that is why I won't be celebrating Kidd's retirement. And it is why I am not rooting for him moving forward.

Everyone is entitled to some amount of privacy in their personal lives. You and I are afforded a certain amount more than professional athletes, one of the sacrifices they make when they select this public life.  But one thing that will become public, whether athlete or regular Joe, is if you are arrested for abusing your wife. Jason Kidd did just that and that should be his legacy.

Far too frequently we allow the accomplishments on the court, field, pitch, or rink to be our primary image of a player. The way they carry themselves in games can be exonerated simply by adding digits to the wins column. We, as sports fans, must hold ourselves accountable for how we judge players, in turn holding athletes accountable for their actions.

In addition to the list of his accomplishments on the court, Jason Kidd was named the NBA's Sportsman of the Year twice. It's just too bad he couldn't extend that to his personal life.

Try As You Might, I Still Won't Watch

I've heard all the arguments against the NBA. I don't bother to take the time even trying to correct them at this point.

They don't care about the game. They are paid too much. They are all a bunch of thugs and criminals. Nobody plays any defense whatsoever. It is just a bunch of 1v1 on offense. Everyone is so lazy. Blah. Blah. BLAH.

I don't care at this point. If people do not want to watch the NBA, just don't watch it. Don't beat me over the head with weak, overused platitudes that you can't confidently back up and you just say it because you have heard others say it before. Just go for it.

But, please, for the love of God, do not try and convince me to watch college basketball. Spare me the "They try so hard! They want to win so much more! The crowd really gets into it!" argument because it will never make sense to me. Socrates could walk through my door right now and try to persuade me to drop those overpaid felons and he would fail. I am convinced that I could fight off the Imperius curse even if someone attempted to make me watch college basketball.

Oh, really? Do they try sooooo hard? So do middle school kids, but that doesn't make me want to watch them. No amount of effort can offset a general lack of skill or ability to control the game.

But, Pete, you're being unfair; how about how badly they want to win? Of course, they want to win because all they have at stake is a free education and an opportunity to play in the NBA. That's right, college fans, your precious little Energizer bunnies try as hard as they do to make it to the NBA. If you are trying to tell me that every college player wouldn't trade away a National Championship for the opportunity to play in the NBA, you clearly never played competitive sports. That's a no-brainer.

Well at least they entertain the crowd and it isn't as expensive! The crowd really has something to cheer about! You're right. When I watch sports on TV, I absolutely care about how into the game the crowd is. The play on the court doesn't concern me if I can watch a few thousand drunk frat boys wearing flat brim hats and long-sleeved rugby polos. Now THAT'S passion. You're right.

They play such hard defense in college? That must be why so many college players come in and incessantly score, right? Since the 1992-93 season, twenty years ago, only FOUR rookies have averaged more than 20 points per game coming into the league (Shaq, Tim Duncan, Blake Griffin and Elton Brand). Man, those college guys sure know how to come into the league and tear it up! Must be the fact that the NBA defenses are so lax compared to college!

I am not trying to convince anyone to watch the NBA with this. I am done wasting energy trying to demonstrate how demonstrably superior the NBA is to college basketball if you care at all about how the game is actually played. Don't watch the NBA.

But don't try to sell how good college basketball is to me. Because I am not buying what you're selling.

Kendrick Lamar: Worth the Hype?

The big musical story of 2012 was the ascension of two unlikely musical stars who looked to redefine musical genres who have, frankly (no pun intended), gone rather stale: Frank Ocean and Kendrick Lamar.

I love Frank Ocean. I think that he is a fantastic hybrid of of old-school R&B and the positives of this new wave style that many artists have attempted to play. Not only are his beats and lyrics original and clearly indicative of his true mentality, the man's voice makes the human race swoon. He'd melt frozen butter with it if someone challenged him.

The hype for Frank Ocean is there and he earned it. Not to mention, he has already done more to break down the exhaustible stereotype of men in this part of the music industry by admitting to being a bisexual. If nothing else, he has certainly established himself in the history of the genre for this reason.

But I am not so sure about Kendrick Lamar. I'm a notoriously hard first listener of new albums, particularly for artists who come in with so much hype and I have never heard of before. Very rarely do I listen to albums the first time and enjoy them, my own favorite artists included. And Kendrick Lamar was no different in this regard. Underwhelmed would be the easiest way to explain the way that I felt about it.

Insightful lyrics for sure, Kendrick taps into his personal life experiences to draw inspiration for his songs. **Side note: it will be interesting to see 5-10 years from now if he is still utilizing those past experiences or if he will go the way of so many rappers and lose sight of his roots. That remains to be determined though** But the beats? The rhythm of the songs? I don't know, it just didn't resonate with me.

Now, I have listened to the album probably two dozen times and it has grown on me. I am somewhere in between where I once was and where the hype level is. His beats continue to underwhelm me, but the more that I read about him, the more I see the influence of his childhood on his lyrics. Never underestimate the significance of tapping into personal experiences when engaging in your work.

One of the main reasons I think that people are so into Kendrick Lamar is because he sounds like old rap. Now, in now way am I claiming to be an expert on rap history. In fact, I know only probably a little bit more than the average person. But I know enough and have listened to enough of it to realize the similarities between it all. I also don't know how to communicate these similarities because I am not some independent coffee shop drinking, fake glasses wearing, ironic mustache donning Pitchfork writer **I read Pitchfork frequently. Big deal**

At the end of the day, I don't really know how I feel about Kendrick Lamar. I think he is talented for sure. And he might be one of the better new rappers in recent memory. BUT, I will be interested in seeing where he is in a few years. Will he still be the insightful poet with words he was on the first album, or will he be another poster boy of perceived rap stereotypes?

Dennis Dixon Redux? My Take on the RG3 Injury

In 2007, in a game against the Arizona Wildcats, Oregon fans watched a budding national championship birth crumbled on Dennis Dixon's left knee. Nevermind the fact that he had already busted out a 44 yard touchdown merely minutes before as if it were easier than the term papers written for him. All it took was one misplant on that knee and, POOF, gone. Oregon went on to lose the game with Brady Leaf as their starting quarterback. The season finished its tailspin with a loss to Oklahoma in the Holiday Bowl.

Rewind one week before that game against Arizona. Dennis Dixon scrambles up the sideline against Arizona State in a matchup between two top five teams in Autzen. As he is pulled to the ground, his knee jams and then locks. He hobbles to his feet and finishes out the game. Ducks fans let out a sigh of relief.

Fast forward one week after the Arizona lost. The story emerges that Dennis Dixon experienced a partially torn ACL in the ASU game. There were only three people who knew: Dennis Dixon, then head coach Mike Bellotti, and the Oregon team doctor. They weighed their options and Dennis Dixon was adamant about playing. They agreed to not tell anyone about it and the doctor gave the okay for Dixon to play. A national championship, after all, was on the line for the Ducks. How could Dixon sit out?

Does this sound familiar to the RG3 situation? If it doesn't, you have been living under a rock. When I watched Griffin scramble for a first down at the start of the fourth quarter and the instant replay showed him grimace with every step he took, all I could think was: Dennis Dixon. When I saw his knee buckle on that play when he fell over, all I could think was: Dennis Dixon. And when it became clear that the ACL was just gone, the same thought once again: Dennis Dixon.

Both RG3 and Dennis Dixon wanted to do what was best for their team. Any athlete in their situation would do the same. For one, the average career in the NFL is terrifyingly short and these players know that every down could be their last. And that is especially for a quarterback in the playoffs in his rookie year.

Anyone who blames RG3 for wanting to be on the field has clearly never been a part of organized sports before at basically any level. He knew that the only chance his team had to win was if he were out there leading them, injured or not. RG3 acted in a way that is expected of an athlete, particularly one of his caliber. It is the same reason why Dennis Dixon laced up his cleats to play Arizona even though he knew his knee could go at any second.

No, there is no fault for RG3. But Mike Shanahan, you, sir, do not get off so easily. Here is my problem with Shanahan's decision to put RG3 back in the game: he should know better. He is practically in charge of all football operations in Washington. They traded three first round picks for the #2 pick used on RG3. The Redskins gambled away their future on this guy.

RG3 no doubt has the skills of an elite quarterback. He will dominate this league one day. But it certainly is going to be harder now after his second ACL surgery on that leg. And Shanahan knows this now, but he will truly learn it the hard way.

Shanahan has to have the good sense to tell his young, ambitious, and committed quarterback, "You've played a hell of a game and the season has been one to remember, but you have at least 10 more ahead of you. I am going to have to sit you for the rest of the night." RG3 could be pissed and demand to be put back in, but it shouldn't matter. He is just a kid in the game of football compared to Shanahan. And the coach's responsibility, especially at that point and time, is to protect his player. No, not just any player. But the franchise player.

RG3 wants to play every game like it is his last. That's because he is a competitor. But just as Mike Bellotti made the mistake of letting Dixon keep playing, so too did Mike Shanahan. A coach must know the line between what is best for the team at the time and what is best for the team in the future.

Tostitos Surprises Veterans: An A+ Effort

For those of you who watched the Fiesta Bowl last week, I hope that you had the opportunity to see the video that was played during halftime which showcased one of Tostito's recent CSR efforts. Tositos brought together 20+ veterans and told them that they were going to get an opportunity to play a game of flag football arranged by Tostito's event staff. Fairly simple.

At the same time, they gathered together some 5,000 people and told them that they were going to see a free concert. But neither party was aware of what the other was involved in. So imagine the surprise to  both groups when the veterans were supplied with real jerseys and locker rooms and then an opportunity to run out of a tunnel to the tune of thousands of screaming fans. At the end of the game, the two groups got the opportunity to watch a free concert, capping off an outstanding night for all.

But what really set this apart was the celebrities that Tostitos brought in to coach and play with the veterans. Current Ohio State coach, Urban Meyer, and legendary former Florida State coach, Bobby Bowden, were up and down the sidelines trying to lead their team to victory. Kurt Warner and Marcus Allen were on the field with the veterans, passing, kicking, and rushing with the veterans. Owen Wilson, Neil Evertt, Marcellus Wiley, and Samantha Steele all participated in the festivities as well.

As far as creativity goes, I'm fairly lukewarm on this idea. But what really made the difference is how well Tostitos executed the entire event. Everyone's faces seemed to communicate happiness and true surprise, fans and veterans alike. And I know that when they compiled the shots for this video, they obviously went for the best possible visuals, but something tells me they were not short on valuable material.

More and more companies are turning to these types of events to drive their corporate responsibility efforts. Frankly, I don't think that companies should ever move away from CSR that involves veterans. Nobody in their right mind is going to suggest that a company has ulterior motives when they go to help the troops.

Overall, I was truly touched when I was watching this video. And that isn't something that happens very frequently. With all that is going on in the world today, moments like these are true reminders that there IS still hope in humanity. Maybe a bit hyperbolistic, but any brand that is capable of eliciting that kind of emotional response has certainly crafted an impressive, and touching, campaign.

Read the press release about the event here.

Come On, Chip, I'm Groveling Here

Dear Chip Kelly,

Please, please, please do not go coach the Cleveland Browns.

I have come to accept that you will leave for the NFL. And it pains me to say so. You came back this year simply to win a National Championship and you were denied by a field goal once again. You went down to the wire with the Bucs last year, but presumably wanted to leave your mark on college football forever and came back for one more year.

One more year and no National Championship. Only this time, we aren't going to be so fortunate to have you stick around for next year. Cleveland wants you so badly, they flew down to Arizona to speak with you before the Fiesta Bowl.

I trust that you will stick to your mantra of "Win The Day" and address the NFL coaching propositions when that day arrives. But I'm not naive enough to believe that college football and Oregon dominance holds the same allure that it did last year.

So go to the NFL. Make loads of money. And you'll probably be successful. Just don't do it with the Cleveland Browns.

Here is the thing about the Browns, Chip: players, coaches, and fans go there to die. Cleveland's run of mediocrity over the last two decades is impressive in a twisted sense. The revolving door of players and coaches makes pretty much everyone DOA when they step off the plane in Cleveland.

Chip, I really think you could be successful in the NFL. I also think you could go on to be the greatest NCAA football coach that history has ever seen. And if I were in your position, I would take my fat salary at Oregon, my incredible facilities and outrageous amounts of money from Nike and build a program that goes toe-to-toe with the big boys year after year. But, I'm not you.

I can't stop you from going to the NFL. But I can pray like hell you don't do it with the Browns. Chip, you're way too good of a coach to take over a franchise like that. I do not want to see you flame out in the NFL because you are trying to coach bad players in a poorly managed organization.

If it means one more year at Oregon and waiting to see what else is available next year, so be it. But I have seen too much from you to see you take a chance in Cleveland.

Know that I will always be behind you, even if you do take the Browns job. But I'll watch with one eye covered in that case.

Sincerely,
Duck Nation

Social Media as a Love Drug: Destructive or Complementary?

The New York Times has an interesting series of articles up right now debating the role of social media in today's relationships - Social Media Is a Romance Contraceptive. Before I started to read the various opinions from the dating experts (if there can truly be such a thing), I spent a significant amount of time thinking about how platforms such as Facebook and Twitter affect my relationships and those of my friends and families.

I used to think that Facebook provided a good outlet for one person to get to know another. While many people attempt to maintain their privacy by hiding their pictures, posts, and activities on the site, it generally isn't too tough to dig a little deeper for information. Looking up mutual friends provides one quick outlet for scratching the surface. THe information that Facebook offers up in the pre-dating stages can help someone decide whether to pursue or look in other directions. Certainly in this instance, Facebook absolutely aids in the development of romantic possibilities.

I can think of a few instances where this has resulted in successful dates and a few disastrous mismatches. Facebook isn't always going to provide the best or most accurate representation of the person. For the purposes of a pre-relationship, however, it serves as a pretty solid base and can certainly catalyze relationships.

In my experience and that of others, I can safely say that is where social media platforms stop being beneficial to relationships. One of the stupidest arguments I see arising because of social media is the Facebook relationship status. For those who are single and perusing Facebook to see who is single, a person listed in a relationship certainly makes their job a little easier for who they may want to date. Beneficial for the single person, certainly. But for the couple in the relationship, that simple act of listing themselves in a relationship may have prompted a war between the couple.

Facebook is a quasi-dating website whether they intended to have it function like that or not. Anyone who says that they have never looked up someone they were interested in to see if they were in a relationship or not is a liar. But just as some people do not want the public to see their pictures or wall posts, some do not want it public who they are dating. Seems reasonable, right? Unfortunately, in today's world, many couples see the relationship status as an important step in the dating process. If you do not want to be listed in the relationship, questions of trust arise.

What, you are afraid that people will know you are taken and not want to talk to you? You need the satisfaction of talking to girls/guys who think you are single? My attention isn't good enough?

Now, I realize that at the age of 23, my dating experience is limited. But as someone who grew up in the generation of Facebook's ascension, I would like to think that I know how this goes. The relationship status is a microcosm of what Facebook does to relationships. If not treated carefully, it plants seeds of distrust and insecurity. Facebook and social media on the whole can take even the most stable relationships and start to crack them with suspicions, whether justified or not.

Posting on a person's wall too frequently, posting a questionable status, being tagged in a picture with the wrong group of people. I have seen every single one of these instances result in an argument between a couple, which is absurd, absolutely. But the problem is that social media is weaved so cohesively into our everyday lives that we cannot help but cause these problems. To the older generations, these issues sound insane. To people my age and a little older, everyone can name an instance where they have fought over an incident from social media. Or they know someone who has.

The biggest problem with social media and relationships is that it doesn't offer any productive value for couples. It doesn't build romance or trust. Think about the couples that you know who use Facebook to talk about how much they love their significant other or to show off the flowers they were bought through a mobile upload. You hate them. I hate them. They annoy practically everyone on social media. It is exactly why you see fewer and fewer people talking about relationships on Facebook. I'm not interested in your Valentine's Day plans, just like you probably are not interested in mine. And I can almost guarantee you that none of your other 800 friends want to know either.

Social media, and Facebook in particular, is just not the place for people to enhance their romances. As I mentioned earlier, Facebook serves a great purpose to see whether people are single or taken and to give a quick high level summary of an individual. But beyond that, it doesn't deserve a place in relationships. It razes them faster than Monica Lewinsky ever could.

The problem is that it is too late. Social media is in relationships for the long haul. For better or for worse.