A hotbed of corruption at FIFA; J K Rowling; Guy Claxton; Three checklists for speakers; It’s Gary from The Guardian - have you got a minute?’ What’s your take?; An interview with Jo Howson; Music from Mick Wilson.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
FIFA - a reputation in ruins?
Of course, Sepp Blatter, the dear leader, has distanced himself from the latest, and all previous, corruption allegations. I'm not suggesting for a moment that he is criminally liable, but he has been on the scene of the crime for a very long time. He's presided over the debacle, and has therefore at the very least been incompetent and negligent. It's time for him to retire.
However, he has been Machiavellian in his use of FIFA's largesse to the smaller nations, realising that The Cook Islands (population 24,000) has the same number of votes as the USA, and is much easier to get onside with grants for football development. He's not only given money, but also power to many countries who adore him for it.
The departure of Mr Blatter would deal with one major complaint, at least from Europe and North America. But the problem runs much deeper. Untangling the FIFA web of payments, favours, and even bribes will take months or years. I wonder if FIFA can ever be made fit for purpose?
The real question though, is how much does it matter to the sponsors? They hold the key. If global corporations decide that their reputations are being damaged by association with FIFA, they will move their funding elsewhere. That's a big "if" too. The World Cup, for all its problems, is still a huge global event, and most people are more interested in the tournament itself rather than how it came to be held in an unexpected venue. Only if FIFA implodes will change occur.
My guess is that Mr Blatter, even if re-elected, won't see out his term. He may resign, or be forced out. In the longer term though, I suspect the task of cleaning out the filth from the Augean Stables at FIFA is something that even Hercules couldn't accomplish overnight.
Photo credit: Creative Commons
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Liz Truss - not the best Tory supporter
Liz Truss was wheeled out to represent the government on BBC's Radio4 Today programme, in the important back-of-the-news 8.10am slot. Alas, she turned out to be evasive, unhelpful and somewhat taken aback by the fact that she was being asked questions about the Queen's Speech, the contents of which had already been widely briefed to journalists.
When asked about the repeal of the European Human Rights Act, that is known to have been delayed for a year or so, she said: “What I’m saying is that we can’t talk about the entire contents of the Queens Speech the morning before it’s given…. I’m not speculating about it one way or the other; what I’m saying is it’s a clear manifesto commitment from the Conservative party.”
What an utterly pointless answer. I'm sure Ms Truss was doing her best, but it was a complete shambles. She only gave a firm answer to one question - she will be supporting the reintroduction of fox-hunting. That's all we learned from the entire interview, and it wasn't even news, since she's said it before.
Most surprisingly, she said several times "We don't actually know the contents of the Queen's Speech". Really? She's a Government minister. Is she not in the loop? It also sounded as though she was reading a script, which should have been easy to conceal since she wasn't live in the BBC Studio, but down the line in Westminster.
Ms Truss was either completely evasive or very badly briefed. Either way it's a very poor piece of spin.
Of course, she's hardly had a glittering career in oratory, as Have I Got News For You pointed out:
So at least she's doing something for the satire industry, not to mention having a name that's handy for a punning headline. Not all bad then...
When asked about the repeal of the European Human Rights Act, that is known to have been delayed for a year or so, she said: “What I’m saying is that we can’t talk about the entire contents of the Queens Speech the morning before it’s given…. I’m not speculating about it one way or the other; what I’m saying is it’s a clear manifesto commitment from the Conservative party.”
What an utterly pointless answer. I'm sure Ms Truss was doing her best, but it was a complete shambles. She only gave a firm answer to one question - she will be supporting the reintroduction of fox-hunting. That's all we learned from the entire interview, and it wasn't even news, since she's said it before.
Most surprisingly, she said several times "We don't actually know the contents of the Queen's Speech". Really? She's a Government minister. Is she not in the loop? It also sounded as though she was reading a script, which should have been easy to conceal since she wasn't live in the BBC Studio, but down the line in Westminster.
Ms Truss was either completely evasive or very badly briefed. Either way it's a very poor piece of spin.
Of course, she's hardly had a glittering career in oratory, as Have I Got News For You pointed out:
So at least she's doing something for the satire industry, not to mention having a name that's handy for a punning headline. Not all bad then...
Thursday, May 21, 2015
The Media Coach 22nd May 2015
Unlimited riches, or not; Up Periscope; Black Sabbath; Aidy Ward; Picking the Best Target; Waving the flag; 10 questions to ask a social media expert; An interview with Max Dubiel of Black Sheep Coffee; Music from Kate McRae
Monday, May 18, 2015
Thomas Cook - how to ruin a reputation in three easy steps
If you were in the business of providing people with great experiences, you'd probably work pretty hard to make sure expectations were exceeded. If things went wrong, you'd probably do everything in your power to look after your customers, wouldn't you? Well, you're not Thomas Cook. The holiday company is turning into a case study of how to damage a corporate reputation.
Back in 2006, a family bought a holiday in Corfu, through Thomas Cook. It ended in tragedy, with two small children dead and their parents critically ill, caused by carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty boiler. The hotel was found to be responsible, and four people were convicted of offences. No-one from Thomas Cook was found to be liable. That's the legal position. However, there's another very important issue - Thomas Cook's reputation. Here are three massive mistakes made by the company.
1) No apology
A statement from Thomas Cook says that an apology was sent to the parents a few days ago. That's a few days ago, over eight years after the tragedy. However, the parents claim not to have received the recent apology, even though Thomas Cook gave copies to reporters.
2) No empathy
The silence from Thomas Cook, and the refusal of their representatives to answer questions in court creates an image of a company that doesn't care about their customers. It's likely that their lawyers advised them not to say anything that might incriminate them, so they said nothing at all.
3) No restorative action
Last week, it was revealed that Thomas Cook had received £3.5Million in compensation from the hotel - ten times what the parents received. The payment was in part for buying consultancy to limit the damage to their reputation - a huge irony. It would have been easy for them to hand that money to the parents, or to a charity of their choice. Nothing can compensate for the death of a child, but keeping a large payment which dwarfs the amount received by parents is simply crass.
The rules of the game are really simple:
Back in 2006, a family bought a holiday in Corfu, through Thomas Cook. It ended in tragedy, with two small children dead and their parents critically ill, caused by carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty boiler. The hotel was found to be responsible, and four people were convicted of offences. No-one from Thomas Cook was found to be liable. That's the legal position. However, there's another very important issue - Thomas Cook's reputation. Here are three massive mistakes made by the company.
1) No apology
A statement from Thomas Cook says that an apology was sent to the parents a few days ago. That's a few days ago, over eight years after the tragedy. However, the parents claim not to have received the recent apology, even though Thomas Cook gave copies to reporters.
2) No empathy
The silence from Thomas Cook, and the refusal of their representatives to answer questions in court creates an image of a company that doesn't care about their customers. It's likely that their lawyers advised them not to say anything that might incriminate them, so they said nothing at all.
3) No restorative action
Last week, it was revealed that Thomas Cook had received £3.5Million in compensation from the hotel - ten times what the parents received. The payment was in part for buying consultancy to limit the damage to their reputation - a huge irony. It would have been easy for them to hand that money to the parents, or to a charity of their choice. Nothing can compensate for the death of a child, but keeping a large payment which dwarfs the amount received by parents is simply crass.
The rules of the game are really simple:
- Express sorrow and empathy early (that doesn't mean it's your fault)
- People take the highest priority - go and talk to them
- Communicate often
- Take control and act appropriately
- Provide help and assistance
- Perform an act of goodwill
Thursday, May 14, 2015
The Media Coach 15th May 2015
This week; A bad prediction; Speakers do more; Harry Shearer; Fox News; Mike and the Mechanics; Just Say No; Spotting the Trends; An interview with Simon Hills; Music from Mick Terry
Friday, May 08, 2015
The Media Coach 8th May 2015
It’s Election Time; Errol Brown; O2 communicate badly; How to negotiate successfully; Time is money; Seven ways to lose Facebook friends; An interview with Michael Lee; Music from Wyclef Jean
Monday, May 04, 2015
7 ways to lose Facebook friends
1. Tagging in unrelated images. I'm sure you've been a victim of this one. You see a notification that you've been tagged in a post, and when you take a look it's an image with a motivational cliche or an advert for an event.
2. An invitation to play an online game. If you're the type that enjoys Candy Crush, the chances are you are already playing it. Constant requests to join people you don't know playing a game you don't care for are pointless.
3. A personal attack. However strongly you feel about an issue, there's no point being rude to someone who disagrees (even if they started it). Just walk away, in a virtual manner.
4. One-track posts. Posting on one theme all the time, such as motivational quotes, is dull in the extreme.
5. Telling people what to do. Advice is fine, since people can choose to take it or ignore it. Instruction is quite different. Telling someone that they simply must take the course of action you suggest is arrogant and rude.
6. Sending personal messages to strangers. There's an etiquette here. If you haven't had any connection with someone, don't send them a PM.
7. Adding people to groups. This is incredibly rude. Adding people to your group without asking first is like online kidnapping. Don't do it.
So there you go. On the other hand, if you are polite, helpful and respectful of the views of others, you'll have plenty of friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)