An Olympic Sized Communication Issue…

October 10, 2009 by Joe Favorito · 2 Comments 

The best organizations have well thought out and effective communications plans, often times built around the most simple of ideas. Knowing how to effectively communicate messages internally, building consensus amongst key leadership, speaking with one voice, knowing your constituents and addressing their needs, or at least acknowledging their needs, and then making sure that media are communicated to in an effective and consistent manner are all hallmarks of effective internal and external communications, whether you are a large public corporation or a small business or not-for- profit. That basic checklist makes all feel at least listened to and engaged, and makes those “on the inside” feel like they are part of the process. That checklist also helps in challenging times, and usually gives senior leadership a chance to see issues coming or find ways to address upcoming issues more effectively than when operations happen in a vacuum. With those thoughts in mind, it is very troubling to see the problems that the United States Olympic Committee has gone through recently, with many of the problems stemming from a lack of effective internal and external communication. This is not about Chicago 2016’s failed Olympic bid either. The 2016 group actually had a good communications plan to get their messaging out to the people and the media, and few ever questioned who the leadership was or what they were trying to accomplish. Bid head Pat Ryan was available and presented the best possible picture the group had for the Olympics. Why Chicago wasn’t selected is another issue that has less to do with how the message was communicated than what the message was. However the USOC problems, which have now led to the potential dismissal of senior leaders Larry Probst (who received a vote of confidence from the USOC board Friday) and Stephanie Streeter, seem to be more about communication in the decision making process than anything else. The Chicago Tribune’s Phil Hersh detailed the issues the USOC has dealt with in a piece this week. In the past, the USOC had effective communicators like Daryl Seibel and Mike Moran making sure that messages were conveyed and taking the temperature of those both internally and externally to make sure that leadership could help address and make informed decisions. However recently, many media have wriitten about the inaccessability of top leadership throughout a critical period, and the lack of communication to the USOC constituents, the National Governing Bodies which run the individual sports. This lack of effective internal and external communication has brought the USOC to where it is today…with an external perception of crisis and an internal perception of chaos and call for change. Now could all of this been avoided if there was more basic contact internally, and with a regular flow of media contact externally? Unsure, but one thing is for sure. When building consensus in times of crisis, the easiest way to do it is to make sure there is always a free flow of information up and down the chain of command all the time. Without that free flow, leadership can be viewed as being out of touch with the day to day, which leads to loss of confidence and can slow down the decision process. Also without free flow, senior leadership can often miss key messages or problems amongst the rank and file, and those little problems are often the ones which can end up causing major distractions and become large scale issues for leadership, especially in challenging times. So what will happen with the USOC going forward? An organization which such a wealth of experience and positives amongst its rank and file now has the opportunity to re-trench, re-position and re-define itself with new leadership at a time when people want to see its heros Olympic-sized again. With the right leadership, people who are effective internal and external communicators as well as smart businesspeople, the USOC could end up being in a better position for the new world of sports and entertainment than it has ever been before so long as leadership learns the lessons of its recent missteps and communicates them effectively.

Making Olympic Size Adjustments…Worth The Battle?

October 1, 2009 by Joe Favorito · Leave a Comment 

This Friday three cities will have spent millions of dollars in travel, staff and preparations for…nothing. On Friday, IOC President Jacques Rogge will announce which of the four cities for 2016, Tokyo, Rio Madrid and Chicago, will get the bid for the Summer Games, which will set off a feeding frenzy of activity, good will and brand building for the next seven years. But for the losers goes…well goes nothing really. True, the bid cities to this point have generated activity, buzz and good will, and maybe have sewn the seeds for future bids (Madrid and Rio have bid before and were able to resurrect many of their plans from 2012) but could the millions spent on prep be spent better elsewhere? The race for the Olympics and the exposure and potential dollars for a host city is still very very worthwhile. In many cases now the venues are built to be converted or used in perpetuity and those host city usually drives a great deal of revenue from the lead-in with other events, and lead-out afterwards. On the branding side, the Olympic limitations on sponsorships and “clean looks” slows potential for host cities, but the revenue brought in around the Games still is a huge plus…and in all likelihood the host Olympic Committee….the USOC in the US…stands to benefit from a boost in potential year-round partners, all good news for those who get the Games. The biggest issue again lies for the losers and the unchecked spending that goes into the prep work. With no limits set by the IOC, the bid cities run large off budgets, and the sense of impression and “one-upsmanship” even in the slowest of economies leads to mountains of wasted presentations, lavish spending and huge travel. Another example was this past summer, when seven sports, many with very meager budgets, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to vie for the chance at being two of seven sports for instatement to the 2016 Olympic programme. The two sports selected, rugby and golf, can easily justify their spend, while baseball probably spent the least, using its large platform to drive interest. But sports like softball and roller sports spent more than their entire yearly budget to stage events and produce useless, flashy videos all in the name of making an impression. Can the IOC set spending limits, like the NCAA has done for years with recruiting and media guides? Yes. Should the IOC require that for every dollar spent on presentation an equal dollar goes back into development? Why not. The Olympic brand remains the world’s premier sports brand, something that almost every athlete strives for. With the brand comes great responsibility, and limiting the spending on the recruitment process is something that should be implemented in these challenged times. Much like drug testing and rules set for entertaining officials, the IOC needs to set spending linits and guidelines for those trying to gain entrance to the program, be it city or sport. Otherwise, like a sport without testing left to police itself, even the best intentioned plans get lost in the competitive spirit, and with that loss comes the loss of valuable dollars which should go to the grassroots, not to extra videos. By following those rules, everyone wins.