After Nearly a Billion Dollar Renovation, Why Move the World's Most Famous Arena?

Full disclosure: I was once named the Twitter Follower of the Week by MSG:)

If you missed the news yesterday, the New York City Council put the future of Madison Square Garden in question, when it approved a special operating permit for the arena for only 10 years. The permit's short time span is designed to push MSG to relocate and give its underground neighbor, Penn Station, room to expand. But while a renovated Penn Station would be great for commuters, MSG has almost completed a nearly one billion dollar, three-year renovation that has made the arena more beautiful than ever.

So how should MSG respond to the disappointing news? Should they criticize the City Council's decision and keep it in the public eye? Or should they ignore the story and let it die down?

MSG officials seemed to have chosen the latter, saying only that they are looking forward to the completion of the Garden's renovation. From a PR perspective, that was the right decision. Right now, there is no expansion plan for Penn Station. Who knows what such a plan would look like and how much it would affect taxpayers? Also, at least two of the city's mayoral candidates are backing MSG in this potential fight, according to The New York Times. The political landscape could change dramatically in 10 years.

At the same time, if MSG does have to move, focusing on growth now will only help. After all, a modern arena with sold-out crowds and die-hard fans will be worth a lot more than a building whose owners are fighting to keep alive. The best decision is to keep doing what they're doing and let the fight come to them. 

Inventing Company Names

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting story about the challenges of naming startups when the availability of domain names drops everyday. Many entrepreneurs, searching for short URLs, have used their to imagination to invent their company names, such as Kaggle, Mibblio, and Zaarly.

The creative names are part of the mentality of today's entrepreneurs, who are breaking all the rules as they follow their dreams. In a sense, that's what the startup is all about: creating not just a business but a home that expresses who you are. Entrepreneurs today want casual offices with ping-pong tables and free food and drinks. They want employees to love what they do, and share in the company's success. Most of all, they don't want to be bound by the established norms. They are ready to be part of a new world, where anyone with a dream, a strong work ethic, and access to cheap programmers overseas, can become a successful CEO.

So to all those doubters, beware: my company, www.dhfmanfrauec.ly is launching soon.  
 

How Does Bankruptcy Become a Compelling Story? People, People, People

Depression Bread Line (1999) by George Segal (For more on Segal, click here)

The royal baby, and for that matter, Kim and Kanye's newborn, seem to be getting more coverage in the media than Detroit declaring bankruptcy. It's not because Americans don't care about Detroit, a city that has been in decline for decades. Or that the public knows that the bankruptcy is a political issue that has upset city employees and is being challenged in court. (For more on this, read the excellent story by John Cassidy on The New Yorker website.) But the real reason is clear and simple: we relate more to people than to complex ideas. While many in Detroit would be affected by this bankruptcy, we don't know them. The idea of a city going bankrupt is just too big to process, and hard to believe and understand. But everyone can relate to mothers and babies, and I think most Americans have heard of Kate and Kim.

So how can the media increase the relevance of Detroit's bankruptcy? The old-fashioned way: just keep talking to people, digging for the most compelling stories that illustrate the impact of the bankruptcy. Perhaps focus on one or two Detroit families and create something akin to a reality series that traces their past, present, and future in the Motor City. Or maybe, find one business, big or small, that is emblematic of the decline, and create a series based on its experiences. There are many ways to humanize the story of Detroit, but at the heart of all them is its people.

Ecstatic? Thrilled? How To Tell the Media You're Happy, When Others Are Still Suffering

Zimmerman attorney Mark O'Mara reacts to verdict. (Source: mediaite.com/cnn.com)

While people debate whether justice was carried out in the George Zimmerman trial, I am still trying to get my head around the reaction of his lawyer, Mark O'Mara, to the verdict. I am not talking about his claim that that the media did a poor job covering the case. Most PR professionals know you should never criticize the media unless they made a serious error which you need to correct. (At best, blasting reporters will damage your relationship with them in the future; at worst, it will cause them to investigate how you do your job.)

But the issue that bothered me was how O'Mara said he was "ecstatic" with the verdict. He didn't look ecstatic, and it doesn't seem like the appropriate emotion to express. After all, at the end of the day, his client did kill Trayvon Martin. What would have been a better word to use? Reporters and publicists often face this question as they try to describe a reaction to controversial news that involved another's suffering. Thrilled? No, that is way to happy, and sometimes can sound sarcastic. Pleased? That is always a safe bet, but doesn't express much emotion. Maybe saying he had mixed emotions? Something like: "We are pleased that our client was acquitted, but we also know that this decision may hurt many who loved or identified with Trayvon Martin. We just ask that we leave George Zimmerman alone as he tries to move on as best he can, and as a country, work together to heal our wounds and help prevent future tragedies."

What do you think about that kind of response? Ecstatic? Thrilled? Disappointed? Please share your thoughts.

Three Questions to Improve Post-Game Interviews

Most of the time, there is nothing more boring than a post-game interview with an athlete. How do you feel about the victory? What was your key to winning? What was going through your mind when you were on the brink of defeat? Of those, the last question is probably the most interesting. But the answers are usually just cliches: "I just dug deep and took it one play at a time." "I just gave it 110 percent." "We left it all on the field." And the list goes on...just check out the Sports Cliche List.

So what's the solution? Do your homework before the interview and ask specific questions that might teach us something about the player as a person and an athlete. For instance:

1. It was obvious that your quickness has increased and become a much more prevalent part of your game. How did you do it? A new diet? A new workout? 
2. At one point you looked like you were going to lose the game. How did you mentally keep yourself in the game when you were feeling down? Do you think of family or happy places? Do you tell yourself it's only a game?  
3. Your victory has no doubt inspired many kids who want to achieve like you. What advice would you give kids who want to be an athlete like you? Spend more time in the gym? Play a lot of different sports or just focus on one?

What do you think? What questions would you ask?

How are PR Consultants Perceived?

When I was a reporter at a daily newspaper, people who worked in PR were called "flacks," and those journalists who left to work in public relations were "going to the dark side." This was understandable. People in PR are often trying to shield their clients from the press, and instead of helping journalists, are giving them flak. (To learn more about the origin of flack and flak, check out this post from The Word Detective.)

I always thought the problem was just about common courtesy and about the way people in PR treat journalists. But there is also the issue of how people in PR treat potential clients. What are clients paying for? And what are the results? A restaurant owner wrote an interesting post about his experience with PR firms, and a follow-up piece about the benefits of social media. I think it sounds a little extreme, and there is a benefit to public relations when it's done right. But what do you think?