Rangers’ PR problems – Boycotts and Bloggers

[Frankie 8,136]

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/157-rangers-pr-problems-boycotts-and-bloggers

 

Another weekend, another statement from the club complaining about newspaper A and blogger B. This time it’s the Daily Record in the firing line – as well as some mischief-making Celtic supporter websites and a PR guru the club have used for longer than some owners have been in charge. Fair enough, the club is entitled to have a moan and the statement seems strong and has validity. However, where does all this stuff really get us?

 

Boycott the Daily Record? Sure, done it years ago – not necessarily because I think the Record is anti-Rangers per se but simply because newspapers are old-hat and their content usually at least 12 hours out of date. Of course the Record have had plenty examples of good, old ‘Rangers hating’ but any more than any other media source; I’m not so sure. After all, picking between the Daily Record and The Sun is like choosing between Jo Brand and Ann Widdecombe for a new life-partner. I’ll pass thanks…

 

Use the club’s website for content? Definitely, visit it several times a day and it’s a much improved resource in recent times. However, it clearly won’t cover every subject and, even if it did, would it offer a balanced analysis of every issue? I doubt it so it’s inevitable such information vacuums are filled by alternatives – be them pro-Rangers or not. It’s up to the club to challenge these when and where appropriate.

 

Ignore ‘malicious and wildly inaccurate’ coverage elsewhere? Absolutely, the day I accept a Celtic blogger’s attempts to derail our club, is a long way away. However, if their content is so dangerous and inaccurate, the club’s lawyers’ should be doing more than monitoring such stuff. How about taking them to court and/or being cleverer in how you deal with them? After all, I don’t see much evidence of these people back-tracking in their claims? In fact, they seem to be becoming bolder and multiplying. Not to mention their content often used by the mainstream media.

 

Jack Irvine does not speak for Rangers? Great, this chancer’s impact on Rangers – both financially and logistically over the last five years has been the epitome of a conflict of interest. From working with Sir David Murray; to Craig Whyte; to Charles Green; to, erm, current director and investors James and Sandy Easdale, MediaHouse will know more than most about almost every single subject related to the club in the modern era. Does this mean making a public enemy of him is a good idea though? We better hope the non-disclosure agreements are well written and secure. Well, more guarded than the plethora of official club emails and documents that seem to be released on a daily basis on social media anyway. You know the Twitter account that the club’s lawyers continue to ‘monitor’…

 

I think all the above shows us just how much of a mess the club’s PR operations are in. Doesn’t matter if its new directors using recently sacked contractors and banned media organisations or regular boardroom leaks (sometimes even to the Record), we seem completely incapable of getting our house in order in that regard. Is this the fault of ‘Director of Communications’ Jim Traynor? Not necessarily but it’s interesting that his strong website words have not always resulted in strong action. Again, that doesn’t mean he’s to blame but he’s the obvious target for many bears, even if the recently appointed Keith Bishop Associates are responsible for the club’s PR work nowadays.

 

With that in mind, it’s fair to question Rangers in how they intend to deal with the various PR issues we clearly have. The club says it can’t lend Celtic fan blogs ‘credence’ or ‘react’ to every single story. Fair enough, that would require a lot of resources. Despite that, in recent months, Rangers has banned BBC Scotland, removed Radio Clyde as a media partner and taken legal action against the Daily Record and one anonymous blogger. Is (or should) there be discussions for addressing mainstream media coverage or should they be banned indefinitely? How does the club separate action against organisations such as the BBC from individuals like Graham Spiers (who has arguably been the worst offender historically) and anonymous blogs? We can’t ban or sue everyone so with the situation arguably getting worse, it’s up to the club to show the supporters what solutions they’re considering.

 

Generally speaking this isn’t an easy conundrum to solve though. The media is and always will be a constant that the club (and fans) will have to interact with. They cause mischief, they print spin and all too often lack the balance Rangers fans would like to see on many important subjects. All that is a given from every source so the club often just has to suck it up. Unfortunately, while I’d consider statements on our website as occasionally helpful, the lack of action – or perhaps more accurately – the lack of genuine results in addressing the most malicious stuff just makes every new statement appear like impotent sabre-rattling.

 

Like everything else at Rangers, our strategy seems inconsistent and poorly carried out yet we pay a small fortune for these services. At some point, those responsible have to start delivering real results or ‘the truth’ Saturday’s statement highlights will just become another casualty of a war that is tearing our club apart.

[Frankie 8,136]

Just had this retweeted by bloody Spiers.

 

Having to cut all the comments from Celtic fans now.

[blueflag 378]

I liked the article thanks for sharing

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Don't buy the Record, don't buy the Sun, don't buy the Times (not many do) don't watch the BBC; maybe Rangers fans shouldn't buy any papers or watch any TV at all , except of course, Rangers TV.

 

It's always been my opinion that if you play good football and stick the ball in the back of the opposition pokie more often than they put it in yours you will silence the opposition and get all the positive publicity you need at the same time as considerably reducing the negative stuff. Of course in the case of Rangers, there will always be some kind of agenda somewhere, it's called selling newspapers.

 

I do realise that in today's world of tweeters, bloggers and facebookers? one can't just say that today's news is tomorrow's chip paper but I think similar rules might apply. Today's blog is tomorrow's....... (answers in cyberspace only).

 

There is a very real drama being played out at our Club right now and events of the last 3 years have led to a healthy scepticism on the part of fans about what they read and hear about it and as Frankie says the Club themselves aren't necessarily the font of all truth and wisdom on their own affairs; but most fans don't really care who owns the Club or, I'll venture, what journalists right about us, what they care about is winning games, progressing through the leagues and getting back we we belong on the football stage.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

it is also worth noting traynors job is to get people to go to the rangers website for news. a boycott of the record can't harm that.

[Stimpy 0]

Good article Frankie.

 

I think it's fair to say that many journos love a good old Rangers bashing piece, each for their own reasons: Celtic fans, non-Rangers fans or generally misinformed. Often the articles have been heavily tilted towards biased and on occasion prejudice. However, the club has to stop giving MSM the chance to sink the boot in. The actions of past and present incumbents have given the media plenty to write about. That said the approach and style of writing is utterly appalling at times.

 

TBH, I fancy it'll be another few years before it calms down whilst boardroom battles ensue and investors looking to maximize their buck hang around.

[Zappa 0]

Just had this retweeted by bloody Spiers.

 

Having to cut all the comments from Celtic fans now.

 

Always knew he was your pal Frankie! The golfing connection was a dead giveaway!

[foggy dewhurst 0]

I :(just buy the record for the horoscope