Post-flag plummet was always possible

[bulldogtragic]

My question is what you think we could do differently?

Hire better communications staff. Team's performance rise and fall. My problem with our communications/media department who give up owns goals far too often. As posted above, we've got some good news stories which are starved of oxygen because I think we are inept in this regard. This article to me is another example, which as I've said, is a reflection on who gave Turtle the talking points.

In a past life I was a media manager for a while, have a limited media interest now. I know how the game is played with editors/producers and especially journos, how your meant to play the game and what good and bad performance is. Things in this area are worse than our on field performance to be honest. We sent out our most credible face to the media, and more importantly our members, and inextricably left him wide open thinking his credibility could cover the poor messaging. The media will have all filed this, and the likes of Barrett will weaponise it when it will hurt us the most. It was a poor idea backed up with poor talking points from people charged with this responsibility which has done nothing for the club or Turtle.

So I would've done things differently over the past year in getting ahead of Stringer & Alberti (particularly bad), explained Danny's move to a different club role more effectively, executed the draft video to what it could've been (which was potentially good) and in trying to get ahead of a possibly bad back half of the year I would've fine tuned the comm's strategy to the enth degree, worked out the talking points to a more palatable or easily digestible level and then, and only then sent Turtle out. What I'd do differently in the future, is I'd get new people. Own goals are the ones that hurt the most, and easily avoidable.

[bornadog]

So I would've done things differently over the past year in getting ahead of Stringer & Alberti (particularly bad), explained Danny's move to a different club role more effectively, executed the draft video to what it could've been (which was potentially good) and in trying to get ahead of a possibly bad back half of the year I would've fine tuned the comm's strategy to the enth degree, worked out the talking points to a more palatable or easily digestible level and then, and only then sent Turtle out. What I'd do differently in the future, is I'd get new people. Own goals are the ones that hurt the most, and easily avoidable.

I have been reading all the posts and just shaking my head. Those issues above that you have outlined are really minor and forgetable and give very little reason to bag the club.

[bulldogtragic]

I have been reading all the posts and just shaking my head. Those issues above that you have outlined are really minor and forgetable and give very little reason to bag the club.

I respectfully disagree. What they are are a pattern of incompetence. If it's mentionable, it's manageable. Some need to be managed out. It should be an easy fix, with fast return on investment. Why wouldn't we want to have a far better media presence?

I'll have to go over my posts, I didn't realise I was bagging the club.

[bornadog]

I respectfully disagree. What they are are a pattern of incompetence. If it's mentionable, it's manageable. Some need to be managed out. It should be an easy fix, with fast return on investment. Why wouldn't we want to have a far better media presence?

I'll have to go over my posts, I didn't realise I was bagging the club.

Ok, I will take each of your concerns:

1. Stringer - you know he had to go, what else do you think we could have said and done?

2. Alberti - Club made a statement on why she wasn't allowed through the Players and officials gate- what else do you want done here?

3. Banner man - That was explained in an address to members? I don't like the decision, but we were told by the club what they were doing in future. Not the end of the world, its just a banner.

4. Bagging the club - I was generalising.

[bulldogtragic]

Ok, I will take each of your concerns:

1. Stringer - you know he had to go, what else do you think we could have said and done?

2. Alberti - Club made a statement on why she wasn't allowed through the Players and officials gate- what else do you want done here?

3. Banner man - That was explained in an address to members? I don't like the decision, but we were told by the club what they were doing in future. Not the end of the world, its just a banner.

4. Bagging the club - I was generalising.

1. Stringer had to go. 100%. Announcing it the way did lacked any sophistication. We should have had a war counsel on the topic and used strategic messaging to try, at least, to position negotiations a bit better. It would also have allowed the club to manage membership expectations or improve the messaging to us as to the reasoning (to the extent we wanted some details, but not all out). Would it have made a difference to the trade, trade period, circus around him, members etc? I don't know, but I think it could've been better than it was.

2. Alberti - A statement was not enough. We should've been way ahead of this, assuming we wanted this to a be a red line issue that we couldn't live with. Whether you think the own goal was ours, or hers for us, it was an own goal that should've either been resolved quietly or more active in the media. This was a debacle. A story is just the finished product, the point of having comm's people is to not have a grenade blow up in your lap. A statement or talking head is only a small piece of the process.

3. Danny - Again, we could've been a fair bit more engaged in the strategic comm's on this for it to land a bit better.

4. Thanks. So you're just bagging me? It's ok, I'm just generalising your point 4

5. The draft day video last year. Again, something that was a good idea but the messaging was so bad it left me and many on here feeling like it was a propaganda video. That should've and could've been a lay up, but the tone and messaging was way off

6. We don't seem to have a good relationship with the footy media as a generalisation. You'd like to think we are capable of doing more or doing better.

7. The article of this thread is just another example. I've said my piece already on it. But it's a pattern of competence to me.

8. If people who love having a Wallis at the club, or the legion of kids who love Dahl, let's hope our messaging is better or it will be brutal if either decide to look for opportunities at another club.

Simply, I just think we can and should do better. We're doing so very well financially that we can afford new or more staff to help us achieve our ends. Because if they're doing their jobs well, media is better, selling memberships may increase, members are happier etc.

[Sedat]

Those issues above that you have outlined are really minor and forgetable and give very little reason to bag the club.

Are you happy with the performance of our communications dept that these 'minor' issues have been given significant negative media air time while the fantastic good news stories have not generated any publicity whatsoever? I'm not.

[bornadog]

Are you happy with the performance of our communications dept that these 'minor' issues have been given significant negative media air time while the fantastic good news stories have not generated any publicity whatsoever? I'm not.

Not at all, I don't believe anything written in newspapers/Media and only half of what people tell me. Media these days look for the most minor thing and report negatively about it.

[bulldogtragic]

Not at all, I don't believe anything written in newspapers/Media and only half of what people tell me. Media these days look for the most minor thing and report negatively about it.

True. I don't read his column, but the weaponising of it will it be something like:

IF, Chris Grant believes the dogs would fall off after the 2016 flag - THEN, (insert reason to slag off Bevo)

He gets a three for one. Slams Bevo, slams Dogs & slams our most credible ambassador (this part sucks especially). That's not great considering most people read and believe newspapers, opinion columns like his and apparently like Bruce, BT, Ling, Basil etc. (or else how else would they be the free to air commentators!?!?!). It's easy to dismiss it as media BS, but it's not helpful for the club. We need Essendon to be caught doping again to get under the cover of a bigger story.

[bornadog]

True. I don't read his column, but the weaponising of it will it be something like:

IF, Chris Grant believes the dogs would fall off after the 2016 flag - THEN, (insert reason to slag off Bevo)

He gets a three for one. Slams Bevo, slams Dogs & slams our most credible ambassador (this part sucks especially). That's not great considering most people read and believe newspapers, opinion columns like his and apparently like Bruce, BT, Ling, Basil etc. (or else how else would they be the free to air commentators!?!?!). It's easy to dismiss it as media BS, but it's not helpful for the club. We need Essendon to be caught doping again to get under the cover of a bigger story.

No one cares about us. If you listen to SEN, or watch any of the footy shows, they rarely talk about us. They don't even know who Toby Mclean is and only found out about Macrae a few weeks ago when he racked up 40 plus two weeks in a row. Guys like Barrett are trying their guts out to find dirt, but there isn't anything. Chris was probably quoted out of context, who knows what he said and what question he as answering. I just don't believe anything the media write.

There are a couple of comments, particularly on the first page of this thread, are just made with emotion after losing yesterday, instead of with some thought. That is what pisses me off.

[Grantysghost]

Hire better communications staff. Team's performance rise and fall. My problem with our communications/media department who give up owns goals far too often. As posted above, we've got some good news stories which are starved of oxygen because I think we are inept in this regard. This article to me is another example, which as I've said, is a reflection on who gave Turtle the talking points.

In a past life I was a media manager for a while, have a limited media interest now. I know how the game is played with editors/producers and especially journos, how your meant to play the game and what good and bad performance is. Things in this area are worse than our on field performance to be honest. We sent out our most credible face to the media, and more importantly our members, and inextricably left him wide open thinking his credibility could cover the poor messaging. The media will have all filed this, and the likes of Barrett will weaponise it when it will hurt us the most. It was a poor idea backed up with poor talking points from people charged with this responsibility which has done nothing for the club or Turtle.

So I would've done things differently over the past year in getting ahead of Stringer & Alberti (particularly bad), explained Danny's move to a different club role more effectively, executed the draft video to what it could've been (which was potentially good) and in trying to get ahead of a possibly bad back half of the year I would've fine tuned the comm's strategy to the enth degree, worked out the talking points to a more palatable or easily digestible level and then, and only then sent Turtle out. What I'd do differently in the future, is I'd get new people. Own goals are the ones that hurt the most, and easily avoidable.

Makes a lot of sense, as others have said in isolation they're not too bad but collectively I see there is room for improvement and your points are valid. I think Adrian Ceddia is head of comms currently, I don't know alot about him.