A Truly Bad (new biz) Pitch

We all know flacks get hammered for poor pitches, but I recently received one from an agency that could use some work. By way of background, I am a corporate flack with no agency. I am responsible for all of our media coverage. This person at the agency knows this. This is and excerpt of the email pitch I received:

Dear [Flack4Food],

I've noticed that [your company] has not received a lot of traction in the business press. I would like to talk to you about ways that my agency may be able to help.

First, I will argue with him on the business press front. No need to go into details, but let's just say the company has come a long way over the past year or so.

The main point, however, is that when pitching a corporate flack, don't insult him by implying that his/her team is somehow not getting the job done. You should use the same approach I use during media training. No matter how horrific the subject is, I usually say something like, "That was really good. Now let's talk about ways we can make it even better."

A better way for this guy to word the above email would have been:

Dear [Flack4Food], I've noticed that you've received some excellent coverage lately that is impressive for a one-man shop. Have you consider how engaging an outside agency could help you get even greater results? I have a few ideas I would like to discuss with you.

Much better. He flatters me and proposes that he can help me do my job even better. It sometimes can be difficult, but unless you are pitching a brand new VP of marketing, be careful not to fall into the (easy) trap of trashing their past work as a way of building yourself up.

A Day at the Park

Update-After two more games here, I am feeling better about the stadium. However, those damn parking garages have inspired me to nickname it "Butter Face Park." The $5 day of game tickets are great. The seats are in the nose bleeds, but there are plenty of excellent SRO spots (I like right below the press box).

It is tough to review baseball stadiums. There are so many historical and personal biases, that it is almost impossible not to make comparisons. There will never be another Fenway or Wrigley, where it can feel like you are watching a Little League game-and I have to admit that, although a die-hard sox fan, some of my best game memories are seeing the Sox play at Yankee stadium.

For me, the really difficult thing about reviewing Nationals Park, however, is that there is one aspect that is just so unconscionably bad, and I mean string up the architects, owners, and the (non-existant) D.C zoning commission from the left field foul pole for selling the city a bill of goods bad, that it is hard to see the good things about this stadium—and there is a lot here to like. So for this reason, I’ve broken my review into two sections. The stadium as it fits in the city and the inside the gates experience.

The really, really bad

Hey gang, let’s build a ball park in a location with lots of faux industrial backdrops (ala Baltimore), great water views (ala San Diego and San Francisco) and sightlines to the Capitol dome and Washington Monument (ala no where else on Earth) and then, LET’S NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY IT.

Check out this photo overlooking the main entrance from the upper decks.

Doesn’t that look nice? The people streaming in past the brick buildings with the dome in the background? Unfortunately, the photo is just an example of my lame Photoshop skills. This is how it really looks.

Hmm…not quite the same is it. This is how WashPo described the future stadium in 2006:

The ballpark, scheduled to open in March 2008, will offer views of the river on one side and of the U.S. Capitol dome on the other.

Yeah, right. Oh, and that building blocking the view was built by the team owners. They knew about it when they first presented the plans for the stadium touting the great views. Of course, WashPo never took them to task for this.

Actually, you can see the river and the dome from a couple of very limited sight lines in the upper decks, however, when sitting in 90% of the stadium, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that connects you with the city or makes it unique in any way.

After walking around the stadium for a few minutes I came to the realization that this was a cookie cutter design. It was probably on file with the architects, ready to be taken out and dusted off for use in whatever city was to build a ballpark next. Any real views are purely accidental. Shame, shame, shame. Stupid, stupid, missed opportunity that the city is now stuck with.

I won’t go into the views of the stadium itself from the outside. Fact is, you can’t see it very well thanks to two giant parking garages blocking it from view at the main entrance (WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?). There is a nice entrance on the river side with a grand staircase leading you in, but few people will ever walk around there.

The Stadium Experience

Okay, I got that off my chest. Now on to the good. First, this thing is huge. I mean really, really huge. Don’t know if that is a good thing or bad, but I envision the Nats having trouble filling all those seats as the season wears on.

As poor as the sight lines are looking out to the city, they are great for seeing the game. Whether you are at waiting in line for food or just strolling about, you are always close to the action. This is a good trend that should be continued with future stadium designs.

Along the same lines, the best thing about this stadium, in my mind are the open viewing areas in centerfield. The Red Loft bar is great. We spent some time staying dry there during the rain delay and it was a lot of fun. Just get your beer from the friendly bartender, claim a spot at the rail and chat with the fellow fans. The ticked price started to feel more like a cover charge.

They also have a standing room place next to the bar where mom and dad can watch the game while the kids spend their hard earned money in the batting cages near bye. (although part of me thinks that if the ungrateful rug rats don't want to watch the game, then leave them at home. You can see these SRO spots in the pic below..right behind Spencer Tracy

Lots of good food choices, and Old Bay at the condiment stand. It is nice to see Five Guys and Ben’s Chili Bowl there for a little local flavor.

The scoreboard is awesome. The largest in the league and hi-def. I want one for my house.

A couple of things that they may want to work on. First, as you can see from this picture. There was a good crowd there that day.

However, look at the seats behind home plate. Virtually empty season ticket seats. On TV, it gives the impression that the stadium is empty. They should do something like opening them up after the 4^th inning or so.

There is also an issue that can be correct by the Nats marketing department. I like the Nats logo and, until last season the color scheme was red and white. However, they have succomed to the DC design mandate that everything has to be red, white, and blue, and loaded with stars and stripes. At times I felt like I was on the set of Fox News. Come on guys, show some originality not EVERTHING in DC has to be draped in the flag. It diminishes the local presence of the team.

Okay, this has gone on longer than I wanted. The bottom line? If you can get over the cookie cutter design, and total disregard for its environs, the new stadium has a lot to offer.

Why We Lurk

One of the most common complaints I hear from reporters about flacks is our usual insistence of joining our spokespeople on interviews, whether in person or on the phone. I can understand why reporters don’t like this. After all, if everything goes as it should, the flack will just sit there and do nothing. On the phone, it has to feel a little creepy knowing that there is a third person on the line, monitoring everything that you say.

If more reporters understood why we sit in on interviews, they may come to see it as a value add. Below is my my short-list of “reasons we lurk.”

• To keep the spokesperson from getting fired, the SEC from filing action, and to not lose any business. In all honestly about 95% of the interviews I’ve staffed would have gone fine without me present. But the ramifications of the 5% that go wrong can be disastrous. With the exception of the top levels of executive team, it is usually not the interviewee’s job to know ALL the details on what we can, and can’t say publicly. It is, however, my job. Reporters, please understand that a bit of information given by a well intentioned mid-level employee could put him in hot water with the company or even cost him his job (I’ve seen it happen), it could impact the company’s stock (I’ve seen it happen), or result in losing a million dollars in business (I’ve seen it happen). We want to help you with your story, but part of my job is not put an interviewee in a situation that is going to turn out bad for him.

• To act as an information resource for the spokesperson. Typically the reporter talks to an expert on a specific topic. My job is to be a generalist. If a reporter is talking to an engineer about a specific project and asks a question about revenue numbers, etc.-the engineer may not know the answer, but I do.

• To defend the reporter. I am willing to bet that most reporters don’t know how often we defend them to our execs to try to keep the relationship on solid ground. When an exec does an interview unstaffed and is not happy with the resulting article, the first thing he says is “he took me out of context,” or “he totally did a hatchet job on me.” In cases when an exec says this following an interview I staffed, about 90% of the time my response has been something like “You know Bob, it is tough to think of a “good context” for a statement like ‘We’re not in this business to make money.’ (true story).
  

• To play the heavy. People don’t like to say no. In general they want to be helpful. I’ve experienced reporters playing off this trait by trying to wheedle information out of a subject after he has declined. If the subject starts to waffle, I usually step in. I’d rather the reporter think I was a dick than the interviewee.

• For follow up. Often something comes up that requires some follow up. Confirming some number, or forwarding some additional information. In these cases, it is best to hear the request first hand so there is no confusion about what the reporter wants.

• To provide feedback. Good spokespeople are always looking to improve. Did they speak too fast? Were they not answering the reporter’s questions directly enough? All this is part of the debrief flacks typically do after interviews. The result (ideally) is a spokesperson who can act as a better resource for the reporter in the future.