Turning the corner?
| publication date : | 2009-08-27 | |
| author : | Janice Spark | |
A few short weeks ago it looked like Pieter de Villiers' butchering in the media could threaten his tenure as Springbok coach, and the health and sustainability of his team. This weekend, however, the Springboks head to Perth being hailed as potentially one of the greatest sides ever. Technically that shouldn't be a surprise, considering the personnel in the Bok line up. Truly surprising, however, is the sudden lack of focus on De Villiers – a man who very recently looked destined to be a living media sacrifice.
So what has changed since the infamous biting and ballet press conferences?
Well, in a nutshell, SA rugby and their coach have gone back to the time honoured brand management and communication basics – and have enjoyed immediate rewards.
Communication: your brand depends on it
Regardless of what your plan is, and regardless of the power and talents of your team, if you can't communicate effectively with your stakeholders and the public you're going to end up in trouble.
De Villiers' inability to communicate is already the stuff of legend. His overt fondness for wandering metaphors, the fact that English is his second language and, perhaps most importantly, his (sometimes admirable) desire to tell the truth rather than offer the media predictable sound-bites created a lethal communication cocktail. As the world rugby press have made abundantly clear in recent months, what De Villiers says and how he says it put the Springbok brand at ongoing reputation risk.
In one of a blizzard of post-Lions articles on the subject, John Cardinelli's www.keo.co.za piece summed the Bok's current communication plight up neatly:
“After a year in the job, De Villiers should have learned to curb a penchant for the colourful and strive for clarity. His advisers should have pointed out where he is letting the team and the country down. Some have allegedly tried, but nobody has been strong enough to keep him in line. Nobody has explained how his verbal ejaculations tarnish the name of South African rugby.”
The De Villiers media training issue kept on recurring in the media. Has he received it? Hasn't he? If not, why not? Is there any chance of getting just the tiniest bit of Obama communication magic into the man?
Ultimately, the proof is in the press conference, and in recent weeks there have been signs that SA Rugby has finally managed to improve the skills of its leader. The most obvious evidence is that De Villiers has started leaving the metaphors where they belong – in the pub.
His sound bites are clearer and much more to the point, leaving little room for journalists to interpret and / or mock. Well over a year after taking over as coach, De Villiers has eventually moved the spotlight onto the players – where it belongs. The Springbok brand has benefited enormously, finally receiving media attention for its playing style rather than its press conference verbiage.
Where possible, communicate in a positive context
“However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results” - Winston Churchill
De Villiers' recent outburst about how black players aren't given the same chances as white players reveals a classic brand manager's case study in how not to communicate a strategy in the media.
What he was saying had a particular ring of truth about it, and was clearly in line with his transformation intentions and his desire to be an honest coach. But, he picked the wrong time to communicate his strategy – and the context was all wrong as well. Rickie January was woefully out of form at the time, and so De Villiers' statement of support for him back-fired horribly. Shortly after the whole issue the scrum-half was temporarily dropped from the squad.
A key component of the art of brand and organisational strategy is learning when your strategy will be relevant to the situation at hand and when and how to communicate it most effectively. This is something major commercial brand managers understand almost instinctively. Many fast food brands, for example, have strictly segmented their approach to communications and have distinct teams in place to communicate with each particular target audience and media segment. In the communications game, time, place and context are everything.
If he had taken his cue from the global brand leaders, De Villiers would have been far more pragmatic in communicating his transformation strategy from the word go. He would, in other words, have assessed the form of the player concerned before pulling the communication trigger. In the process he would have saved his organisation a lot of bother, and would have made sure his strategy had a better chance of success. As it turned out, he simply wasted his transformation bullets, and was forced to start again. On his second lap expect him to wait for more strategically relevant times (such as strong performances from black players, and especially new black players) before pushing his wider plan in the media and with the public.
Speak to your stakeholders
SA Rugby could have learned a lot from Vodacom's Player 23 advertising campaign. The campaign, which ranged from extensive mass media to viral and experiential elements at games and supporter's villages, tapped very successfully into South Africa's long held passion for everything and anything to do with rugby. Player 23 focused on the relationships fans have with the game and their love for the entire event - especially the players.
As if in direction opposition to this stakeholder-centric approach, SA Rugby's inability to communicate effectively since De Villiers arrived displaced the natural focus point of the Springbok brand. Spear-headed by De Villiers, SA Rugby's leadership quite literally took the spotlight away from rugby's true stakeholders, the fans.
In the age of demanding consumers, user generated content and experiential marketing, the Springbok's leaders would do well to consider how to keep themselves permanently in the background, and how to hand more of the spotlight over the fans and their players, just as Vodacom has done.
The recently strategically silent De Villiers has proved a great place to start. Those following blogs like www.keo.co.za and other rugby media in recent weeks will have noticed a refreshing absence of the coach. Indeed, when he is present in the media it’s only within the context of the normal team decisions and debates... the things fans really want to talk about.
Admit your failures: it's easier that way
Pick 'n Pay's reaction to the food poisoning crisis that emerged in its stores a couple of years ago has quickly become a South African study in crisis management best practice. The brand immediately went onto the front foot with its customers, informing them of the issues at play and keeping them up to date at every step of its management of the crisis. The result for Pick 'n Pay was that it emerged from what could have been a disastrous period with its foot traffic and brand loyalty un-touched.
The growth of communication as a veritable technology supported lifestyle in recent times has seen a sharp decrease in the distance consumers perceive between themselves and major brands. Consequently, consumers and stakeholders (rugby fans, in other words) are looking far higher degrees of honesty from brands with respect to everything. Just have a look at a consumer activist web site like www.hellopeter.co.za and you get a snap shot view of the modern consumer: demanding, and willing to hold a brand to account. Indeed, the front page of the web site can do interesting things to Joe Public's perception of brands: those with the smiley faces next to them seem to belong on 'the good side', while the list of brands who refuse to communicate, well, they can quickly come off as a crew of the usual suspects.
SA Rugby seems to get stuck in the denial camp for long periods of time. Denial was a major feature of many previous rugby eras, most notably the dark Rudolph Straulie days. Recently, even with the sports minister issuing threatening statements about the coach's communication skills, SA rugby's decision makers appeared to be focused, above all else, on avoiding the impression that they may have made a mistake, or that things were less than perfect behind closed doors. The point they missed in the midst of the crisis (and that Pick n Pay clearly really understands) is that customers, clients and stakeholders value honesty and integrity far more than a 'we never mess up' perception of a brand.
Even given that De Villiers communication weaknesses seem to be have addressed, SA Rugby's powers that be missed an easy opportunity to be straight with their stakeholders and to grow long term loyalty. “We see it, and we're working on it” would have been the perfect response to the outcry over De Villiers' failings. As it turned out, rugby fans are still waiting with nervously baited breathe for another metaphorical shock every time De Villiers' speaks – a consequence of SA Rugby's lack of upfront honesty as much as anything else.
