Sky were interviewing on SMS land, but presumably have paid for the rights and have insurance in case someone is killed by a mike boom.
Where did I say you were one of them? It doesn't matter who is right, it matters how we are presented by the media. If we give them a hard time they are going to portray us in a more negative light.
May not like it, but does it matter from a financial and footballing point of view how we are portrayed by the press?
Yes I think it does matter, it's the same as for any other company, bad publicity is rarely good news. If you're a young kid deciding whether to support saints or united you're going to be more likely to choose saints if everyone speaks well of the club, and less likely if they have a reputation for being difficult. Equally if there's a player with a choice between coming to us and going to another club that has a better reputation, then we're disadvantaged again. More shirts will be sold if people are proud to wear them, and so on. Clearly the club believes it's important; why pay the money for a PR guru if it doesn't matter?
What rubbish. If a newspaper printed a story claiming you had raped a child or something would you accept that as good publicity? I think not.
Well if he didn't do it then he could sue for libel, force the paper to withdraw the story and get loads of money in damages. But yeah, there is such a thing as bad publicity. Not that it affects football clubs too much though.
Wow....... easy there buddy .......lets not take the whole thing out of prospective. What you suggest is not exactly in the same league as what the debate is about. From a personal point of view I do not go along with Cortese's view or instructions. It is well known in business circles that any publicity is good publicity it brings your name to the spotlight. Whether others would view this in a good light or a bad light is certainly a good debating point. The question I would raise is does any other club have similar rules. They too must be subject to the same health and safety rules and regulations. Also to add fuel to the fire........non of the other league clubs allow journalists past the gates I gather when there is journalistic interest in regards transfers or the like. We are one of the few that do not have a gated Office as far as I know. Finally I do not think that journalists are exactly every bodies cup of tea off late....especially after the Diana fiasco.....I really do not think anyone is going to think too harshly of Saints because we want to control what happens immediately outside our ground!
I agree that SFC would be better off having a decent relationship with the media, and as you say why employ PR people if you dont intend to. It does seem daft that Saints appear to have a constant battle with the media - they can certainly be a pest but they are not all wrong all the time. It is a good practice for any company to portray themselves in best possible light to the public - Saints are supposed to be in the entertainment industry after all. I agree with Beef that there were loads of media outside around SMS for the Everton game and they appeared to get their stories in any case.
It's an absurd example to counter an absurd claim. Whatever the truth of the matter, journalists are holding this up as an example of censorship. So people do think harshly of saints for this, and it's apparently another example of poor PR by the club isn't it?
The spill wasn't no ....but people will still remember BP you have to admit it put them in the spot light. Most will forget over time about the spill (Some won't I'll grant you) and BP will do something right and they will get the rewards then. Human nature I think they psychologists call it......... Not the kind they would have preferred no doubt..........
I agree that it is negative publicity.....which is not helping, especially after recent events. Negative upon negative does not help. The only people that is likely to think harshly of Saints is indeed the journalist themselves. Whoever tried to go down the avenue of censorship is talking out of their prospective backside in my view. They were not refused access to the people only where. The exception to that of course was the BBC and Sky team who did actually interview people on the premises my mate being one of them.....Shock horror when he told them that actually he was a pompey fan and that he was here as my guest....
Are you really saying that people will forget the spill but remember BP in a good light because of it? Trying to wrap my head around that one.
BP suffered financially as a result, and so did various affiliated corporations. There's no way to spin that and make it seem like good publicity. Their reputation in the US is ****ed.
The only example I can think of where the phrase has some truth to it is with amoral people whose entire career is based purely on fame for the sake of fame. Paris Hilton's sex tape may have painted her in a bad light, but she has no shame and so she doesn't really care. People were looking at her and she was getting money and that's all that matters to her. Similarly, Jade Goody's racism scandal. She was famous solely for being a twat and she profited from it.
Before the Everton game Radio Solent had done a few interviews, but were asked to stop by a Steward, presumably under orders? This is a shame because everyone of the ones interviewed before the embargo gave a positive attitude, so I guess this negative attitude will backfire on them yet again. Somehow we have to encourage the Club to lighten up, they must have realised how well we all reacted to what was a shocking event on the Friday before the game, I am hoping that they can find their way to put more trust in us, we have a few less than savoury people among us, as any team does, but the majority of Saints fans are fully behind the Club, no matter what the ups and downs.
wow hang on guys....I wasn't the inventor of the term any publicity is good publicity.........Not so much in British Business I'll grant you although the larger companies still would agree. In America in particular this is taught in business schools. It is argued that BP's reputation in America is up the creek. during the time of the spill I was over there on several occasions. During this period of time thousand would not call into a BP station. Their sales of petrol was down by up to 30% however...a little after this their was for a time a shortage of fuel not drastic but a shortage. BP recouped their downside and actually increased their sales by some good marketing and price reductions etc. Human necessity and the psychology of need I guess. Now they are trading as normally.......Now as to there drilling campaign in various area's We know the Us government have put a ban on BP from drilling at sea for a couple of years. However their other company, part of the BP group don't ask me the name because I don't know. Has just been granted a license to drill another sea site although I do not know where it is. I was only talking about this to my son over the weekend who lives over there. All I can say agree or disagree that is a business saying, in truth I am not so sure about small companies and how they would benefit.....but there you are.
What Saints fan rememered that until you just mentioned it ? And as for their US relationship , doubt they are to fussed , yes I know there is talk of MASSIVE oil reserves in te US , but BP has the name to go Globally and pretty much what they want IMHO .
