Professional sporting organisations and image management in the Web 2.0 era

Contenido de la comunicación

Introduction

The media landscape is presently in a prolonged state of flux, as it transitions from a top-down structure of production and consumption to a bottom-up structure of the same. By this I mean that media organizations traditionally produced content and imposed it on the people through mediums like television, radio and newspapers. Now the people have their own tools to create media content; and if it’s valuable, interesting or controversial enough then it will make its way up the media food chain until it is picked up by a major outlet.

For other organizations that rely heavily on the media as a way of promoting themselves, the shifting of production methods for content is a concern. For these organizations can no longer control the way they are portrayed in the media to the extent that they used to be. They are still able to generate their own publicity, and in some cases they can do it more speedily and effectively than in the past. But they can’t stop others generating publicity for them, some of it positive and some of it negative. There’s also no 48 hour window of positive or adverse publicity that has to be ridden out (Walsh 2007); the nature of the Internet ensures that adverse publicity campaigns can be waged forever.

Background

Professional sporting organizations seem to be particularly concerned with how to best deal with the evolving media landscape. This is because the identity and image of the sporting codes and competitions that they administer are so important to them, to retain existing fans and attract new ones, amongst other reasons. This is because while they might see sport as a business, followers of professional sporting codes sometimes see it as something much more; a cultural phenomenon, a social institution, a religion.

Other writers within the field of cultural studies and sport have put forward differing reasons as to why society has this particular attachment to sport. In particular, as Cashman (2002) argues, this is facilitated by sport’s ability to tap into two distinct but related sentiments; nationalism and parochialism. Cashman (2002) argues that professional sport in Australia is particularly wrapped up in this nationalistic sentiment, with much of what is distinct about the nation defined by its sporting abilities, mythologies and stars.

In a similar vein, Jarvie (2006) points out that sport is an international phenomenon. It contributes to the economy, it is part of the cultural and social fabric of different localities, it has transformative potential in some of the poorest areas of the world, and is regularly associated with social problems and issues such as crime, health, violence, social division, labour migration, economic and social regeneration and poverty.

So sport has become a social beacon, and needs to always be striving to find the moral high ground when it comes to social issues, in order to maintain its standing within the community. When a sporting person, club or body fails to do so, then a higher sporting organisation must act quickly and decisively to ensure that the inappropriate behaviour is made an example of. Recently an English rugby union club, Harlequins, faced the banning of its coach and a senior player, as well as a 500,000 pound fine from the Rugby Football Union for cheating in a match by having a player fake a blood injury (Kennedy 2009). This is one example of the way professional sporting organisations react when their social standing is brought into question.

The reasons for image management in sport

Maintaining this social standing, or image, is as much about remaining relevant and aspirational to the people as it is about professional sporting organisations protecting their financial interests. In particular it is about protecting their financial interests that come from broadcasting rights. Sports historians almost universally agree that the corporate media supported many sporting competitions in their infancy and saw them grow into the enterprises that they are today, which they are still supporting. Yet part of what attracted the media one hundred years ago and what still attracts it now is the unique relationship that people have with their sporting teams, which is one that the mainstream media can tap into and exploit.

As historians have identified, the origins of the relationship between the corporate media and sporting organisations lie in the fact that as sporting teams began to travel to play matches, the people who followed them wanted to hear about their progress. Therefore based on this growing interest, the media identified an opportunity to sell more newspapers. As media technology has evolved, there have been opportunities for the corporate media to profit from sporting content on other mediums as well.

In order to keep up this interest from the corporate media, professional sporting organisations have become increasingly preoccupied with their image. This is because there is recognition that image has the power to influence all those involved with a sporting organisation; in particular the corporate media and sponsors, but also fans (Ferrand & Pages 1999).Exerting this influence leads to increased ticket sales, more viewers on television, more merchandise purchased, and more sponsors with larger sponsorship budgets (Ferrand & Pages 1999).

As a result, some sporting organisations like the International Olympic Committee run branding campaigns that emphasise their core values (Ferrand & Pages 1999). With such a strong emphasis on image, professional sporting organisations have to be seen to be acting decisively when any party associated with them steps out of line. The corporate media’s self-interest in professional sport has ensured that when incidents like this do occur, the sporting organisation is presented in the best light possible light or the incident is quickly ‘buried’ in the news agenda (Jarvie 2006). It’s because of actions like this that the relationship between professional sporting organisations and the corporate media receives criticism from independent media and academics alike (Jarvie 2006). Yet it is this role that the corporate media is willing to play that to a large degree enables professional sporting organisations to manage the image they present publicly.

Professional sporting organisations interest in preserving their image and the associated benefits that it brings has meant that they have been incredibly reticent towards social media. Where history suggests that they eagerly allowed their competitions to become part of innovative (at the time at least) new mediums such as radio, television and subscription television, they haven’t looked for any innovative approach to Web 2.0.

An introduction to Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is essentially a re-thinking of what sort of things can be done on the World Wide Web, and how they can be achieved. It seeks to emphasise things like information sharing and collaboration. Essentially a Web 2.0 site allows it users to interact with other members of the website, or to change the content on the site. Examples of this include social networking sites like Facebook, video sharing like Youtube, wikis, blogs, mashups and folsonomies.

These types of sites are in contrast to non-interactive websites where users are not provided with any form of interactivity, and are consequently limited to the passive viewing of information that is provided to them. Websites built in this manner are considered to be ‘Web 1.0’ which is a style that is more in keeping with the way corporate media operates. As the World Wide Web has evolved, it is a style that no longer fits with the medium. A succession of technology platforms have changed peoples’ perceptions of what they can do on the World Wide Web. This change in perception started with Geocities, which offered people free personal web hosting, and finished with blogging platforms, which make it simple for anyone with limited technical competencies to start a website within minutes. This realisation of what the World Wide Web is really useful for as a communication platform – self expression to a mass audience, has meant that people increasingly expect to have the opportunity to contribute to every website that they visit.

Current features of the websites of two professional sporting organisations

The websites of two major Australian sporting organisations find themselves largely trapped in the era of ‘Web 1.0’, with a distinct lack of innovation towards new media. They were examined, and both offered very few opportunities for supporters to give feedback. The Cricket Australia website had a section called ‘Your Say’ that gave people an opportunity to provide their feedback on specific issues chosen by the organisation. The website also linked off to a separate site called MyCricket that provided information about club cricket around Australia. It could only be accessed properly if you were a registered member of a club and had obtained a password for the site from them. It didn’t offer any interactivity for users of the site. The Australian Football League did not offer any interactivity on its own website. It did link to a companion website called ‘Footyweb’ that was a hybrid consisting of a news and information portal and a social networking site. Registered users could sign up, make friends with others and add their favourite team’s information on the site’s home page. These teams were all at a grassroots level, and although the site also let the elite-level AFL teams be added, the information for these teams was blank.

From this cursory website analysis it would seem that these two professional sporting organisations are reluctant to give fans the opportunity to interact with content on their sites. The Cricket Australia approach demonstrates that the organisation does not want to provide fans with an open forum for discussion of Australian cricket on their site and would rather limit it to specific and non-controversial issues. This appears to be a new media strategy towards image management by Cricket Australia. They must feel that giving people free reign to post comments on their sites might expose them to criticism which might influence other parties’ judgement of their organisation, particularly sponsors and broadcasting partners.

The only problem with this approach is that eventually it will cost them. A lack of interactivity on their own sites means that people might turn to other, unofficial websites that offer news and information about the sport with possibilities for interaction as well. As society heads towards the age when people spend more time on the Internet than watching television or engaging with other mediums, they are likely to favour other sites that offer them better user experiences and greater interactivity. The popularity of Facebook (Facebook n.d.) and Twitter (Kazeniac 2009) have demonstrated that people enjoy interactive and real-time websites and so if major professional sporting organisations are unable to offer this then they may find themselves locked off from their fans. This is in the sense that these unofficial sites won’t be selling AFL merchandise and memberships, for example.

The question is whether greater exposure to social media by professional sporting organisations is going to affect the image that they publicly present and the opportunities they have to promote their brand. All the evidence so far suggests that it won’t, except perhaps that a new attitude is required to enjoy the same level of cooperation with social media as professional sporting organisations have had with the corporate media.

Image management in the face of a social media incident

Certainly the worst crisis caused by social media to befall a professional sporting organisation this year has been the video made by players of the North Melbourne Football Club. The video featured a plastic chicken who was named Boris in the video engaging in sexual activity with various objects, including a frozen chicken (Lane 2009a). Boris also wears a condom on his head in the video. The video was uploaded to Youtube and therefore received a lot of attention on the site. The corporate media got hold of the story and used it as an example of the sexism that exists in football.

North Melbourne and AFL officials were extremely quick to criticise the players involved and apologise for the incident. This consequently conformed with the current modus operandi for image management by professional sporting organisations. At the time AFL corporate affairs spokesman Brian Walsh described it as ‘infantile and inappropriate’ (Lane 2009a) The chief executive officer of North Melbourne Football Club, Eugene Arocca promised to "get to the bottom of one, why it was done, two, why it was disseminated, and three, what appropriate counselling and or action I need to take as the CEO” (Lane 2009b).

Reactions to the incident by people on social networking sites was muted. An analysis of posts on Twitter containing the words ‘North Melbourne’ found that the occasional person was disgusted by it. However numerous people were bemused by it writing statements like ‘never thought i’d have a genuine excuse to search for chicken sex video’. Others accepted it as part of the culture of football, and seemed thoroughly bored by the attention it was getting.

Ultimately, there was no mass outrage at the incident, at least not on Twitter anyway. No one expressed an opinion that they were going to stop following North Melbourne or stop attending AFL matches. It’s difficult to know with this incident whether there is just a general perception that professional athletes occasionally engage in stupid stunts, and this was mostly seen as a prank that backfired; whether it is generally accepted that mysoginism exists in male sport; or whether the response by the AFL and the North Melbourne was so swift and severe that there was no room for criticism.

Judging by some of the responses that were encountered on Twitter it is more likely that the two former reasons have a lot to do with the public’s reaction to this on Twitter. Perhaps it’s the case that the public forgives them of their misdemeanours because of their athletic abilities. So where does this unwanted exposure to social media leave the AFL? It either proves that their current image management strategies work so well that any criticism that arose from the incident quickly dissipated, or it proves that the image they try to represent to the public is at odds with the public’s own image of the AFL.

Some current uses of social media by sporting organisations and clubs

Some sporting clubs are beginning to use social media to promote themselves and by doing this they have not exposed themselves to any stinging criticism that might damage their standing in the eyes of fans, sponsors or the corporate media. In the Australian Football League, there are at least seven clubs that regularly use Twitter. They offer a range of services to their ‘followers’. These include links to news items on their websites, information about ‘real world’ happenings at the clubs, and most provide score updates when the team is playing. Clubs will also answer questions from their followers.

Cricket Australia also uses social media to promote themselves. Despite, as mentioned above, having very limited interactivity for fans on their official website, they have created a fan page on Facebook that posts important announcements, links to blogs written by some of the players, and updates on the progress of matches as well. This gives fans of Cricket Australia the opportunity to comment on these posts through Facebook and engage in dialogue with each other. Cricket Australia sometimes joins in on these discussions. Sometimes people taking part in the discussions can be critical of the actions of Cricket Australia or The Australian Cricket team, and this appears to be acceptable. It’s possible that because the discussion is hosted on Facebook and not on Cricket Australia’s own website, they are more willing to let fans have free reign over the nature of the discussion. Because their own website remains clean of any controversy or criticism, they are easily able to maintain their public image.

Professional sporting organisations and Web 2.0 in the future

Some of the philosophies of Web 2.0 as brainstormed by Tim O’Reilly and Dale Dougherty include ‘participation, not publishing’, ‘trusting your users’, and ‘radical trust’ with Wikipedia as a flagbearer for this last philosophy (O'Reilly 2005). Translated into the real world, these philosophies have encouraged organisations to be more open and transparent through use of the Internet.

Leading the push in this direction have been governments. As an example, Data.gov is an Open Government Initiative of United States President Barack Obama's administration. The site will enable the public to participate in government by providing downloadable datasets to build applications, conduct analyses and perform research (Data.gov n.d.).

Data.gov is part of a wider movement called 'open data' which is being explored by various (mainly government) organisations around the world. In Great Britain, the 'Power of Information Taskforce' has outlined its vision for public sector reform. Of particular note is their vision for open information, whereby 'to have an effective voice, people need to be able to understand what is going on in their public services'. Also of interest is their vision for open discussion that seeks to promote greater engagement with the public through more interactive online consultation and collaboration (Power of Information Task Force n.d.). A similar move is underway in Australia with the Government 2.0 taskforce that is concerned with encouraging online engagement with the aim of 'drawing in the information, knowledge, perspectives and even, where possible, the active collaboration of anyone wishing to contribute to public life' (Government 2.0 Taskforce n.d.).

While it is more important for governments to encourage participation and transparency than it is for professional sporting organisations, it has to be said that people are gradually coming to expect this from all organisations. The ‘vibe’ on social networking platforms like Twitter and Facebook is that organisations are more respected if they are seen to act transparently, take feedback from their constituents and respond to it. So examples of professional sporting organisations exerting tight control over the dissemination of content related to that activities is likely to be regarded with suspicion by people who are becoming accustomed to the ways of Web 2.0.

So efforts by professional sporting organisations like the International Olympic Committee and the United States Tennis Association are probably not doing anything for the image of these organisations in the new media landscape. The International Olympic Committee decided to let athletes blog at the last Olympics but severely limit what they could include. The athletes weren’t allowed to talk about the performances and they weren’t allowed to include any of their own media (Associated Press 2008). The United States Tennis Association permitted players to ‘tweet’ at the U.S. Open but reminded athletes not to post inside information that might break the Tennis Anti-Corruption Program Rules (Associated Press 2009). Tournament spokesman Chris Widmaier said it was about ‘ensuring the integrity of the game’ (Associated Press 2009).

Conclusion

Ultimately, as the media landscape continues to shift and change, professional sporting organisations will have to balance the integrity of the game against the necessity of being a good citizen of Web 2.0. It probably won’t be easy but it comes back to the philosophy that Tim O’Reilly and David Dougherty put forward – trusting your users.

It’s already been demonstrated by professional sporting organisations that using social networking platforms like Twitter and Facebook to give fans a forum for discussion and exchange of information is appreciated by fans, and is beneficial to them. Opening up their official websites to interaction from fans is the next logical step in this progress.

It’s fair to say that the regard that sport is held in, and the important role that it plays in all societies makes this transition harder to achieve. Even so, it seems as though the tight control over information and media that is customary of professional sporting organisations is going to look increasingly out of place. Even long established organisations like General Motors are changing their ways. It’s new chief executive wants the company to be more ‘open and transparent’. In implementing this, it recently cancelled production of a Buick SUV after negative responses to it on Twitter and in the blogosphere (Merx & Green 2009).

It’s difficult to envisage what sort of issues a professional sporting organisation might respond to discussion of on a social networking forum. However it’s possible that just by making information more freely available and trusting their fans to interact on their sites they might actually go a long way to improving their public image. This could actually lead to more interest from sponsors and broadcasting partners. Time will tell what will happen.

Bibliografía/Referencias

• Associated Press, 2009. Andy Roddick Slams US Open's 'Lame' Twitter Rules. The Age. Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/roddick-slams-us-opens-lame-twitter-rules-20090831-f4ew.html [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• Associated Press, 2008. Athletes allowed to blog from Beijing, with restrictions - Olympics - ESPN. ESPN Olympic Sports. Available at: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=3247221 [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• CASHMAN, R., 2002. Sport in the national imagination: Australian sport in the federation decades, Sydney: Walla Walla Press.

• Data.gov, Data.gov - About. Data.gov. Available at: http://www.data.gov/about [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• Facebook , Facebook | Statistics. Facebook. Available at: http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• FERRAND, A. & PAGES, M., 1999. Image management in sport organisations: the creation of value. European Journal of Marketing, 33(3/4), 387–402.

• Government 2.0 Taskforce, About | Government 2.0 Taskforce. Government 2.0 Taskforce. Available at: http://gov2.net.au/about/ [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• JARVIE, G., 2006. Sport Culture and Society, Routledge.

• KAZENIAC, A., 2009. Social Networks: Facebook Takes Over Top Spot, Twitter Climbs. Compete. Available at: http://blog.compete.com/2009/02/09/facebook-myspace-twitter-social-network/ [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• KENNEDY, S., 2009. ABC Sport - 'Bloodgate' leaves UK rugby in tatters. ABC Grandstand Sport. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/31/2671277.htm [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• LANE, S., 2009a. North in damage control after player posts misogynistic chicken video online. Real Footy. Available at: http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/general/north-in-damage-control/2009/04/07/1238869972286.html [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• LANE, S., 2009b. Roos pull 'sick' video off the net - RFNews - theage.com.au. Real Footy. Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/roos-pull-sick-video-off-the-net/2009/04/07/1238869972137.html [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• MERX, K. & GREEN, J., 2009. GM Cancels ‘Hideous’ Buick SUV After Would-Be Customers Twitter - Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg.com. Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7YkUJP_iGwM [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• O'REILLY, T., 2005. What Is Web 2.0 - O'Reilly Media. O'Reilly. Available at: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• Power of Information Task Force, About the Taskforce « Power of Information Task Force. Power of Information Task Force. Available at: http://powerofinformation.wordpress.com/about/ [Accessed September 15, 2009].

• WALSH, B., 2007. Clear blogging: how people blogging are changing the world and how you can join them, Apress.

Reconocimiento (CC-by 3.0 o cualquier otra posterior)