#pr week

Is a podcast any different to any other media opportunity?

Perhaps some organisations see podcasts as a form of amateur, on-demand radio, a nice-to-do rather than a valuable option for media exposure. They couldn’t be more wrong.

Perhaps that was the case for Intuit CEO Sasan Goodarzi, who took part on the Decoder podcast recently.

Mr Goodarzi spoke about his success with the Intuit software giant, which owns Mailchimp amongst other platforms, but as the conversation moved onto wider topics, he clearly became uncomfortable.

There are issues regarding tax reform in the United States and a refund that Intuit made to low-income Americans who paid for Intuit services when they could have filed their returns for free.

Company spokespeople need to be prepared for questions that relate to their wider experiences and knowledge, above and beyond the focus that they anticipated for an interview in the first place.

Knowing how to navigate these hurdles, through robust preparation and the ability to adapt to an interviewer’s angle, is fundamental for anyone taking part in any interview, pitch or presentation.

It’s the failure of spokespeople and their teams not to anticipate the possibility of wider contextual questioning and any self-respecting interviewer is well within their rights to broach difficult topics.

Intuit then made the situation worse by asking for that segment of the podcast to be deleted and accusing the host of being “inappropriate” and “disappointing.

We commented in PR Week about this incident and said: “Having robust answers to other potential talking points is fundamental, as is the competence to handle difficult questions you may not want to answer,” he says.

“To ask for content approval or editorial control for anything other than a factual error speaks of a significant lack of understanding about editorial integrity and undermines the credibility of the speaker and the organisation that they represent.”

There are more than 546 million podcast listeners worldwide and almost half the US population listen to a podcast at least once a month.

In 2024, worldwide podcast ad spending is estimated to hit $4.02 billion, underlining the value brands achieve when associating with shows and platforms.

Ultimately, a podcast is a media opportunity just like any other. Spokespeople should treat them that way and see them as an opportunity to speak to target audiences.

To read our comments and those of others in the PR Week (£) article, please click HERE

Japanese tennis star Naomi Osaka may have faulted with her candid initial comms about not wanting to take part in interviews at Roland Garros this week, but the return of serve by the sport's authorities lacked empathy over an issue that deserves greater attention.

When Naomi Osaka made her first statement announcing her decision not to speak to the media during the French Open, it prompted outrage from journalists and others involved in sporting competition.

Her statement on social media, although citing mental health, was poorly worded and appeared to lack understanding of the pressure journalists are under.

Owned-media channels are controlled, by their very definition, by those they represent, and can often be banal and sterile in their content, or poorly written.

Press conferences, on the other hand, give journalists the opportunity to delve deeper into the story, beyond the scoring of points, of victory and defeat, and gain insights into the emotions, the drive and the level of performance elite athletes so often attain, and which set them apart from the rest of us.

Event organisers, broadcasters and sponsors – both of the events and of the players themselves – pay millions to be associated with the top players of the top sports, and tennis is no different.

The point has been made that many post-match press conferences are an exercise in going through the motions, but Osaka would have been better advised to have spoken directly with the authorities to explain her situation before the tournament began.

By relying on her own statement, she inadvertently cast aspersions on the WTA and the tennis family and her claims that it was “nothing personal” were less than convincing.

Why did her agent not make direct contact with the authorities instead of allowing her to simply make a statement on social media; to find a compromise that could have suited all parties?

To her credit, Osaka later admitted that her “timing was not ideal” and her “message could have been clearer”.

Reports later accused her of being a “princess”, “immature” and “precocious”, which will have done nothing to endear her to the fourth estate.

At that point, the French Tennis Federation (FFT) and tennis authorities, having seemingly made little effort to communicate with Osaka directly, announced that she had been fined and that she risked expulsion if she continued to ignore her media obligations.

The lack of empathy and compassion in their wording was stark, to say the least.

Osaka’s second statement, confirming her decision to withdraw from the French Open, changed the narrative entirely.

She explained in far greater detail how she had suffered with mental health issues since 2018 and that she now needed to take time away from the court and competitive tennis.

That she admitted making the decision unilaterally and felt the need to apologise to organisers for the unexpected announcement underlined her recognition that things could have been handled differently.

But she spoke of continued nerves, anxiety and introversion and added that “when the time is right I really want to work with the Tour to discuss ways we can make things better for the players, press and fans”.

That in itself shines a bright light on the pressure professional sports people are under, and while the rewards can be high for those at the top of their game, they are human too and suffer the same vulnerabilities as the rest of us.

How ironic that FFT President Gilles Moretton made a statement in French and English and himself walked off without answering further questions from the media.

His claims that player welfare remained a priority rang very hollow in light of the heavy-handed response to Osaka’s initial struggles when she first played in this year’s French Open.

Needless to say, the four Grand Slams later praised Osaka for sharing her challenges and vowed to improve conditions for players.

And, tellingly, Osaka’s sponsors – which include Nissin Foods, Nike, Nissan, TAG Heuer and Mastercard – all expressed their solidarity with Osaka, with the latter saying: “Naomi Osaka's decision reminds us all how important it is to prioritise personal health and wellbeing.”

That statement in itself showed how far the pendulum has swung and positioned Osaka firmly not as a “princess” but as a pioneer, brave enough to speak out on the challenges that face us all.

Leeds United Football Club's marketing team has had a tough 24 hours - the launch of a new badge was widely rubbished and the club has now promised to consult further. PR professionals are not impressed.

The club announced a new crest, that it said had been created following "six months of research" and consultation, across its digital channels around midday on Wednesday.

The reaction was overwhelmingly negative. Rival club Aston Villa, the English language Twitter feed of a Russian club, and plenty of other social media users rubbished the new emblem, with some making comic suggestions about its inspiration and origins, and a local MP wrote to the club to express his displeasure.

Just a few hours later the club told media that it accepted that it would have to go through further consultation before adopting the badge, a comment it has reiterated on its website this morning.

David Alexander, former football writer and founder of agency Calacus, said the club deserved a modicum of praise. "That they have announced that they would review the redesign after widespread negative responses is to their credit," he said.

Alexander, however, also cautioned against the dangers of consultation, saying: "We've seen with polls that resulted in Boaty McBoatface that these things are prone to abuse."

Editorial control should (almost always) reside with the journalist - that's the consensus of PR pros contacted by PRWeek, after the issue of copy approval came to the fore following a spat involving TV presenter Clare Balding.

Journalist Ginny Dougary claimed Balding had been given editorial control over an article she wrote for Saga Magazine and had been allowed to remove and rewrite sections of the interview.

Writing in The Guardian, Dougary said: "I experienced two firsts last week. One was that I asked for my byline to be removed from an interview I had written, which was a direct consequence of the other first: the subject of my interview being given, without my prior knowledge, copy control and – in a breathtaking liberty – removing sections of my interview and replacing them with her own, self-promoting, words."

Balding responded in a series of Tweets (below), saying: "Re the Saga saga, today has been an exercise in self-restraint. The editor has issued a statement clarifying that she asked for the changes and I did not have copy approval."

David Alexander, MD at Calacus PR and former sports journalist, said that early in his PR career he was once reprimanded for not demanding copy approval.

Alexander said: "I thought it strange that my boss would expect any journalist worth their salt to be open to copy approval or review and it’s never something I’ve demanded of a journalist, especially having worked on that side of the fence myself."

Alexander said the only time when copy approval was "a reasonable request" is if the article is in the first person.

He said: "Sometimes an over-zealous sub editor can edit what a client has written (or more likely we have written on their behalf) and changed the sense of something important. Or they have written it in the first person after interviewing a client, which provides even more opportunity for misinterpretation or a lack of understanding."

Maria Sharapova's drugs ban and her public reaction to the suspension do serious damage to her image and long-term prospects, PR professionals told PRWeek UK today - but another sponsorships expert still argues that the Russian's partner brands should not be too hasty to end their relationship with her.

Sharapova had announced in March that she had tested positive for a banned substance, meldonium, which she had been taking on advice from a doctor for several years, but which had since been put on the banned list. She was praised for the way she proactively controlled the message in her initial announcement – and her racquet supplier Head said she had been "courageous" when it announced its decision to continue working with her.

Yesterday, her two-year ban was announced by the International Tennis Federation (ITF) following a hearing last month. Sharapova shared her reaction on her Facebook page.

David Alexander, MD of Calacus PR and a former sports writer for various UK papers, points out that this statement does not mention her legal argument – revealed in the ITF judgement – that a ban would cause the former world number one "a very substantial loss of earnings and sponsorships, exclusion from the 2016 Olympics, and irreparable damage to her reputation".

"To think that loss of income would in any way be a mitigating factor for one of the most endorsed sportswomen in the world is beyond laughable and erodes much of the positive PR the March press conference provoked," he says.

He adds: "Given the polished nature of her initial press conference, the fact that Sharapova fails to address the fact that she concealed her use of the drug from most of her support team does not reflect well on her at all. Where in March she took full responsibility for her actions, the reality of another 18 months out of the game seems to have resulted in a defensive rather than acceptant response."

Two of Sharapova's highest profile sponsors – Head and Nike – have reaffirmed their intention to keep working with the Russian, while beauty brand Avon has decided to cut ties, although it said yesterday this was unrelated to her positive test.

Interest in American Football in the UK appears at an all-time high ahead of Sunday's Super Bowl 50, the final showdown of the NFL season pitching the Carolina Panthers against the Denver Broncos in Santa Clara, California.

According to data from social media metrics firm Brandwatch React, the UK is the country tweeting about #SB50 most after the US and its neighbour Canada.

The possibility of an NFL franchise coming to London has also been floated, with outgoing London mayor Boris Johnson saying in October that he hoped this could happen "in the next few years". In recent years, NFL has increasingly featured on the front page of the BBC website, including video packages and highlights, and in the sports pages of national newspapers.

Oliver Barr, a consultant at UK sports PR agency Calacus PR, said that the Wembley games and broadcast coverage had "undoubtedly spearheaded the growth in popularity of the NFL in the UK."

He added: "American culture is becoming ever stronger in the UK, with Halloween now taking US ‘trick or treat’ to epic proportions. And, in the same way, the razzamatazz of the Super Bowl has turned the entire affair into an excuse for a party."