Discussion: PR for US Team/ONA

I dont' know who said it, or where I read it....but someone suggested a PR Director for the US Team.....I think this is a wonderful idea. If someone was designated (on the US Team or not) to write up some small articles or interviews about the US Team, it would be a fantastic and easy way to get information out there. The PR could call up a person a month and write up a short interview about them, about what sort of training they're doing (not everyone uses/reads attackpoint), about what they're doing when they're not orienteering...
I was just thinking that interviews are much easier to give and write up than regular articles, especially when several people all did the same things, like WOC or JWOC.

The proposal for the PR director will be considered at the Team meeting. There is already at least one candidate for the position.

More to the point, it's been over a week and there does not seem to be any obvious url to find the results from Pawtuckaway Attackpoint Cup. other than several individual postings. Also the same can be said about the WOC/JWOC results. If the team wants support, these events' results must be much easier to get to than going through obscure foreign web sites. A PR director could start with the teams' experiences this summer and at the 2 Cup events to date. There is much interest in the team, but difficulty in finding what is going on.

Results have been posted on the event website:
http://www.attackpoint.org/cup
since the day after. Sorry for not drawing more attention to that earlier.

This thing called Google is a wonderful obscure site! By going there and typing in "WOC 2003 results", one is sent to the WOC web site, which happens to be in English, albeit certainly foreign. There are results there in both text and PDF. Another course for text results is the IOF World Ranking page (click on "Event Diary").

Google is a wonderful invention! Type in "Pawtuckaway Attackpoint Cup" and if you feel lucky, two button clicks get you there.

Hmmm, I think that the "Vlad for PR Director" campaign may have just had its Donna Rice / Monkey Business moment (just an obscure joke of course, though those very search engines can explain it as necessary).

But honestly, while I agree that I've personally never had any problem finding such results (and enjoy the real-time updates that those sites often provide), this isn't the first time I've heard this comment, so perhaps the PR person (if one is indeed named) should do something to make it easier for people.

I have to second Dan's observations.

I've always thought the function of a PR director is to take the mundane, the common, the banal and make it seem better, even extraordinary. Numbers, times, statistics don't breath and they hardly scream excitement.

But, with a little spin, a little finesse, virtually the most obtuse individuals can be made plausible. Examples abound in D.C.

Anyway, a positive approach and restating the obvious even more obviously could work wonders.

Say you like, for example, soccer, and you've got a favorite team, and there is a critical game tonight but it's not on any of the channels, even cable. Do you (1) blame the team for not having the resources to buy TV time, and go to bed; or (2) tune into an internet livecast? It depends on how much you care.

If people are blaming the team for lack of info that is in reality easily available, maybe it's not really their favorite team. That was my point. One may invest a lot into the team's PR, but people aren't going to like the team if what they really like is a different sport. Fans are usually won with the game, not with a barrage of PR.

And with this point clearly I shouldn't be running for anything like PR director, and I never intended to.

Not to belabor a point. But, to continue with this example…

How does a person acquire a “favorite” team? I submit that primary modes may include 1) this person is part of a captive audience, i.e., geographical specificity or 2) a team demonstrates a superlative record 3) exhibits notable individual performances 4) features notable personalities. I believe that, to the degree that features 2-4 exist, public acceptance and enthusiasm could be augmented through good PR. This would be more important if these qualities weren’t immediately evident to the average person.

But, I think a different analogy of individual athletes sheds some light on a different facet of this particular situation (although is admittedly, not perfect). The Williams sisters are great tennis players. They have colorful personalities. Their games are overpowering. As athletes in the public eye (with the eyes of a public that appreciates and understands tennis) they must from time to time, speak to the press, fans, etc… Their record in this regard is spotted. Now, their father – not officially a “PR” director nor strictly an official spokesperson, often speaks about their tennis, other players, the public, etc… I wonder whether his comments have helped or hurt the Williamses. I personally feel the public – certainly internationally and to an extent domestically – isn’t as enthusiastic about the Williamses as their notoriety, personalities, and performances would warrant.

Of course, there are many other factors at work here, but the point I wish to make is twofold. If certain conditions exist, goodwill towards a team or athlete can arise naturally. However, these conditions aren’t sufficient. A PR director will have a hard job, despite favorable conditions, if the athletes’ behaviors and utterances and those of the athletes’ associates aren’t aligned with the goal of fostering goodwill and generating beneficent feelings.

I think the idea of a Team PR person is a very good one. There are lots of people interested in Team activities and only rarely are Team activities presented to them.

One of the major goals for a Team PR person should be to bring US Team activities to the attention of people who would not go about finding out about team activities themselves. There are lots of people who will not go the google.com -> woc2003.ch route, who might click on a link from the us.orienteering.org website highlighting US performances, or read about WOC in ONA.

It should also be about putting US performances in perspective. For example, to tell these people that making the final and coming 44th is something to be happy about ... not leaving them to simply infer that the US sucks because nobody was in the top 10.

Many of these simple things (like adding links from the USOF web page at appropriate times, writing up simple summaries of US performances, whether at WOC, Trials, US Champs) don't happen unless someone is charged with making sure it happens.

I think that certainly what the team does not need is an anti-PR person--someone who berates the US orienteering membership at large for not caring enough. This hurts the team.

Just having someone write about the US team in ONA would be a plus. Training tips, international experiences, results, historical perspective, bios, etc. would all make interesting articles. Right now it seems the main writers for ONA are rogainers and adventure races. Anyone from the team can write this stuff by the way not just an official PR person.

For me, one of the most interesting ONA arcticles in the last couple of years was the recap of the 2002 Long O Champs held at the 1000 day. ONA published maps with route choices and a great commentary by those who ran blue. It was really interesting to read about what guys were thinking and about the choices they made. The fact that it was head-to-head added to the drama.

I think it would be great to have more maps with route choices and descriptions in ONA (people were just complementing O-Sport about this). Many of you upload maps with route choices to your web pages and descriptions appear here on attackpoint. But a more regular feature such as this in ONA I think would be read enthusiastically. Maybe US O team members could volunteer to do this for major A meets with the "chore" rotating between members.