Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand

[billyiddo]

@DubaiSpur You can't appease these types though, good PR or otherwise, if they don't get what they want they complain

 

[DubaiSpur]

I absolutely believe communication is not one of our club’s strongest points and is certainly something that they could improve on.
But in this instance they had to react super fast to yesterday’s news being leaked ahead of their own official statement being issued. Maybe it wasn’t perfect but I think it’s understandable given the circumstances.

I did mention some things they could and should have done in *advance* of the official statement - improving that by downplaying the whole NFL *rse-licking in the initial statement was only one of my suggestions.

This club is a multi-million pound organization, basic outreach shouldn't be this much of an issue for us.

Twitter outrage has been mainly about paying for a ST for NWHL and then having to attend Wembley. Well the club have dealt with that by offering refunds rather than (or as an alternative to) credits.
We are still getting our new stadium. It’s not as if that’s been pulled from under us. I wouldn’t even have been able to go to the Liverpool game, the delay has worked in my favour,yet I still feel very really disappointed at the delay. But it’s only temporary.
So why all the anger, @DubaiSpur ?

What anger? My initial post had two lines about how the club had screwed up with its comms, and about ten explaining why the delay was inevitable anyway and that there are reasons for it.
The rest is just in response to other people taking issue with those two lines.

@DubaiSpur You can't appease these types though, good PR or otherwise, if they don't get what they want they complain

Welcome to the future. Whether we like it or not, this is the way it will be.

 

[Kandi1977]

Forget your feed (good deal of self-selection bias, I'm sure you'd agree), look at the feed under the actual announcement.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1029076637629997057

That's a big red flag that something went badly wrong in terms of PR, *even accounting for* the transitory nature of Twitter.

And many of those angry at the tweet have season tickets, and go to games, just like your mates.

Damage control was the order of the day on that front, not sticking it out believing that nothing's wrong. And I'm still not sure the club's handling it at all well, even with the subsequent update (delayed by a full day) that finally focused on the fans more than the damn NFL.

Edit: look at the reaction to the update - again, from those demanding refunds.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1029319767667236864

Communications fudge up, all-round.

I bet 95% of those commenting there are not regular fans, and probably half of them have never been to WHL. It's totally irrelevant! Your reaction is so knee jerk that it's hilarious.

 

[mephitis]

"This will work in the same way as Ticket Exchange refunds from last year"

What was that then?

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I did mention some things they could and should have done in *advance* of the official statement - improving that by downplaying the whole NFL *rse-licking in the initial statement was only one of my suggestions.

This club is a multi-million pound organization, basic outreach shouldn't be this much of an issue for us.



What anger? My initial post had two lines about how the club had screwed up with its comms, and about ten explaining why the delay was inevitable anyway and that there are reasons for it.
The rest is just in response to other people taking issue with those two lines.



Welcome to the future. Whether we like it or not, this is the way it will be.

The club has to do what is best for the club, not is what the fans *think* is the best for them. I think someone mentioned this earlier in the thread or maybe on another subject, but there is a bit of Henry Ford about this. If the customer was always right, he’d still be selling them horses.

As @billyiddo says, the people you have outlined would have complained regardless. Using Twitter reactionary nonsense to back yourself up has to be quite a scandalous point to make when trying to have a reasoned debate, but even if we take it seriously, it is absolutely true that those people - Spurs Twitter generally - would have complained. There is no use pandering to them.

I don’t mind that we waited to release a statement, to make sure that we have all the facts, and that all of our partners (NFL, Wembley, even the PL) are all still aligned for what we are about to say. It is professional. We don’t say much, but when we do say something, it is well considered and generally does the job. I view West Ham’s comms strategy and an embarrassment to them, it’s the opposite end of the spectrum to us. They provide constant updates, they talk about club business, how much money they want to spend, which particular players they want to sign, how they are going to be the most amazing club in the world, and it doesn’t get them anywhere. They do it all to get the short term pop of approval from the reactionary segment of their support, and it doesn’t help them. Spurs think things through, they have all their ducks in a row and then they make their moves. It might risk some short term ire from people that would have complained anyway, but long term, we look like a professional, well run club whose word counts for something. It is a mark of good strategy and of people in control.

It doesn’t really look like the statement yesterday was necessarily for ‘the fans’ exclusively. It obviously was, but the fact that the NFL was in it was very obviously a considered decision. And it wasn’t us ‘apologising to the NFL before the fans’, it was the NFL also reaffirming their commitment and enthusiasm to the project too. Why did we want that in the statement? Maybe there are serious discussions happening with potential naming rights partners that want to ensure they’ll also have good reach into a US audience? Maybe it was about sending a message that Tottenham will still be the UK home of NFL in the face of competition from Wembley and Khan’s bid and so they wanted to make it clear that this delay doesn’t make any of our key strategic partners uncertain in any way. If you really knew about PR, you would surely consider these aspects. Surely consider that the reason the NFL is in there is very obviously for a broader reason. I’m sure Levy and Cullen weren’t high fiving each other saying ‘the Tottenham fans will be relieved to know the NFL is on board still!!!’ but that obviously wasn’t what it was about.

As I said, their job is to not placate the whiners of Twitter. Their job is to deliver this project in the optimal way, and that means keeping all of these high level partnerships sweet so that long term, this works out in the best way. That ultimately benefits the whiners even if they don’t know it yet. Even on ticket refunds, they clearly hadn’t had time to think through and decide on what they actually wanted to do, so they announced it today. All very fair and reasonable. You will get cash back if you want it. But Cullen’s point and the ticket office’s point is the right one: the ticket is for the match, not the stadium. The matches are their product, they deserve to reaffirm the terms attached to them. They aren’t a charity. We don’t know that they weren’t very apologetic with a million sorrys on the phone, because maybe there were. But I quite honestly don’t know what those sorrys would have done. And it certainly wouldn’t have been best practice to say ‘I’ll see what I can do’. Good long term PR is our word meaning something. That it does is something I’m delighted about.

 

[DubaiSpur]

I bet 95% of those commenting there are not regular fans, and probably half of them have never been to WHL. It's totally irrelevant! Your reaction is so knee jerk that it's hilarious.

Sigh.

They have season tickets. They say as much.

The club has to do what is best for the club, not is what the fans *think* is the best for them. I think someone mentioned this earlier in the thread or maybe on another subject, but there is a bit of Henry Ford about this. If the customer was always right, he’d still be selling them horses.

As @billyiddo says, the people you have outlined would have complained regardless. Using Twitter reactionary nonsense to back yourself up has to be quite a scandalous point to make when trying to have a reasoned debate, but even if we take it seriously, it is absolutely true that those people - Spurs Twitter generally - would have complained. There is no use pandering to them.

It makes sense 'pandering' to them, because they both influence and will ultimately form your future demographic. As I said, wanting the club to ignore that demographic seems to assume that we will be immune to what has happened to other clubs in our position in the digital age - which is significantly contrary to the trends of customer-company relationships across nearly every major industry.

What their tendencies are is irrelevant - they paid for their tickets, they are loud, and they will be the influencers that will define your brand going forward. Managing these folks is part and parcel of every social media strategy these days.

I don’t mind that we waited to release a statement, to make sure that we have all the facts, and that all of our partners (NFL, Wembley, even the PL) are all still aligned for what we are about to say. It is professional. We don’t say much, but when we do say something, it is well considered and generally does the job. I view West Ham’s comms strategy and an embarrassment to them, it’s the opposite end of the spectrum to us. They provide constant updates, they talk about club business, how much money they want to spend, which particular players they want to sign, how they are going to be the most amazing club in the world, and it doesn’t get them anywhere. They do it all to get the short term pop of approval from the reactionary segment of their support, and it doesn’t help them. Spurs think things through, they have all their ducks in a row and then they make their moves. It might risk some short term ire from people that would have complained anyway, but long term, we look like a professional, well run club whose word counts for something. It is a mark of good strategy and of people in control.

We don't say much. We're in agreement there. As for West Ham's comms strategy, I couldn't care less about how much they want to spend, who they want to sign or anything they do - it is completely irrelevant to the basic transaction we're discussing in our context, where supporters who have bought tickets to watch football matches expect that the club keeps them aware of their ability to provide the product they paid money for. Bringing West Ham into this seems, if you'll forgive me saying, completely inane and irrelevant to the point at hand.

It doesn’t really look like the statement yesterday was necessarily for ‘the fans’ exclusively. It obviously was, but the fact that the NFL was in it was very obviously a considered decision. And it wasn’t us ‘apologising to the NFL before the fans’, it was the NFL also reaffirming their commitment and enthusiasm to the project too. Why did we want that in the statement? Maybe there are serious discussions happening with potential naming rights partners that want to ensure they’ll also have good reach into a US audience? Maybe it was about sending a message that Tottenham will still be the UK home of NFL in the face of competition from Wembley and Khan’s bid and so they wanted to make it clear that this delay doesn’t make any of our key strategic partners uncertain in any way. If you really knew about PR, you would surely consider these aspects. Surely consider that the reason the NFL is in there is very obviously for a broader reason. I’m sure Levy and Cullen weren’t high fiving each other saying ‘the Tottenham fans will be relieved to know the NFL is on board still!!!’ but that obviously wasn’t what it was about.

There's PR, and there's managing strategic relationships. One happens behind closed doors, one is focused on the folks who don't have access to those closed-doors discussions. There are usually separate strategies for both, separate units for both, and separate objectives for both.

And If the club's public outreach is being used to reassure internal strategic partners, there's an issue that extends *far* beyond our comms issues. I don't think that's the case, thankfully - which is why that NFL statement seemed utterly extraneous to me. The two can be used concurrently, but the main aim of PR is to reassure those not privy to internal discussions - which isn't the case here.

As I said, their job is to not placate the whiners of Twitter. Their job is to deliver this project in the optimal way, and that means keeping all of these high level partnerships sweet so that long term, this works out in the best way. That ultimately benefits the whiners even if they don’t know it yet. Even on ticket refunds, they clearly hadn’t had time to think through and decide on what they actually wanted to do, so they announced it today. All very fair and reasonable. You will get cash back if you want it. But Cullen’s point and the ticket office’s point is the right one: the ticket is for the match, not the stadium. The matches are their product, they deserve to reaffirm the terms attached to them. They aren’t a charity. We don’t know that they weren’t very apologetic with a million sorrys on the phone, because maybe there were. But I quite honestly don’t know what those sorrys would have done. And it certainly wouldn’t have been best practice to say ‘I’ll see what I can do’. Good long term PR is our word meaning something. That it does is something I’m delighted about.

Sigh. Okay, this is a tangent, but here goes. Their job is precisely to placate the folks who paid for a ticket and want answers as to what they can expect from that ticket. The club isn't a charity, I agree - it has clearly indicated that it wants to be seen as a pure, amoral business. And, by selling tickets using interactive maps of the new stadium and prominently featuring it in all the marketing about the campaign so far, it has made a commitment to what the product it provides will look like.

Listen, I don't want to be legalistic about it. But if you want to be entirely legalistic about it with the 'they aren't a charity' argument, false advertising is a matter for consumer protection law - the Office of Fair Trading has intervened on issues relating to season tickets before, and if football fans really saw their clubs as the businesses they so dearly want to be considered as, then the OFT (now the Competition and Markets Authority) would be called in by supporters a lot more frequently than it already is, spurious clauses disclaiming liability notwithstanding. After all, the Consumer Rights Act has a section specifically dedicated to unfair terms, which this could conceivably fall under.

If the club wants to use the 'we're a business, we can do what we please' argument, then the customers have quite a few tools to enforce compliance on their part. After all, a cold, amoral business and a cold, amoral consumer have no mutual attachment.

As for good PR, being responsive about tickets *is* good PR, when done right. Apologizing *is* good PR, when done right (i.e, publicly). There are endless examples of both in marketing literature. And saying 'I'll see what I can do' is what the club *did* when they talked about updating fans with new ticket details shortly. What *would* have been right to do is to mention the possibility of this occurring as the situation was developing, and mention that it is being worked on to minimize inconvenience on the part of the fans who would have to change their arrangements in the case of this occurring.


Christ, this isn't even that big a deal, or that big of a statement to make - is this really the hill that everyone wants to die on? That the club are so utterly, incomparably perfect that they cannot make a single mistake, even in the face of masses of angry fans who have *paid* for their tickets?

Christ, this club makes mistakes sometimes. This shouldn't be controversial, or worth three pages of me responding to everyone who believes otherwise.

 

[thfcsteff]

Also, it's worth noting that, in the end, the Twitter crowd will increasingly be the crowd at games going forward. Just the way demographics and the societal shift will work.

If I'm right, this forum and most other anonymous forums for Spurs-related stuff tend to swing towards an older demographic, which tends to be more forgiving of club foibles and more accepting of their role as silent onlookers of whatever it is the club does.

In the future, our crowd will likely be a lot more like Arsenal's, and a lot more online - which means the fanbase will come to resemble Twitter more than here. It's just utterly inevitable, however horrifying that prospect may be.

So, funnily enough, the Twitter crowd will be the crowd the club has to pander to in the future - not the folks here. So bear in mind that while you think the club might have done nothing wrong, your opinion as a consumer is of...decreasing significance compared to the loudmouths on Twitter.

Just from a PR and business perspective, of course.

Where I think Dubai has a valid point is in PR generally. There are things DC said on the US tour that were poor IMO (that whole “riots as part of the opening ceremony” bit was terrible!)...they seem to lack an intuitive sense of what can happen in these situations. Either that or someone is not listening.

They got stitched up, no two ways about it, but they should be a little smarter about all aspects of PR. Even the small stuff; my mate quite rightly pointed out that when he read the announcement on the site, there was a pop-up window to buy the kit! Simple stuff really, that is not going to help overall perceptions, however unfair those might be. Even the kit guff - come on, someone should’ve turned to Nike and told them that was NOT going to pass the test!

I think there needs to be an overhaul in their PR shape and philosophies.

I also think that if need be, they should just try and delay a season if there is even the slightest doubt for late Oct...

I AM relaxed about it all and do still have sympathy as it was a grand vision, albeit on a near - ludicrous time frame...



Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[DubaiSpur]

Where I think Dubai has a valid point is in PR generally. There are things DC said on the US tour that were poor IMO (that whole “riots as part of the opening ceremony” bit was terrible!)...they seem to lack an intuitive sense of what can happen in these situations. Either that or someone is not listening.

They got stitched up, no two ways about it, but they should be a little smarter about all aspects of PR. Even the small stuff; my mate quite rightly pointed out that when he read the announcement on the site, there was a pop-up window to buy the kit! Simple stuff really, that is not going to help overall perceptions, however unfair those might be. Even the kit guff - come on, someone should’ve turned to Nike and told them that was NOT going to pass the test!

I think there needs to be an overhaul in their PR shape and philosophies.

I also think that if need be, they should just try and delay a season if there is even the slightest doubt for late Oct...

I AM relaxed about it all and do still have sympathy as it was a grand vision, albeit on a near - ludicrous time frame...



Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

It is a grand, ambitious vision. Delays are unavoidable, and should be instantly forgiven - *especially* in this case, given that what is delaying the opening is a concern about safety.

We could delay it to 2020, and I wouldn't care if there are still safety concerns - since the club's overarching responsibility is to make sure everyone gets in and out of the ground safe and secure. All the rest pales into insignificance. The club is *right* to delay it. We have to suck it up, support the club and move on - as I mentioned at the start.

But it could have been handled a lot better on the comms side, is all. Is that really so hard to believe for so many people?

 

[thfcsteff]

Did she say that you buy a ticket for the match, not the stadium? If so, that is a really, really silly thing to say at this time. Is it accurate? 100%. But when you’ve spent a whole lot of time and money going on specifically about the stadium, you roll your sleeves up, get in the trenches and empathize! That response (if it happened?) is almost aspergers-like, and simply not smart. I think the NFL thing is a major issue; to already perhaps be in a “chance saloon” situation with them is not good. I am not necessarily talking about the delay, more the inability to handle it publicly. Stitch up for sure BUT the NFL will be upset about it as their brand gets compromised in their eyes.

Sadly this is going to be a pricey mistake all round, and I’d guess it will end up costing tens of millions what with Wembley rentals and whatnot.

Lets hope we can have a period of consolidation at least...


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[mephitis]

Right, we've gone far enough on this path that my biggest fan here has now logged on to have his say, so I'll say one more thing about this.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the 'fair and balanced' people think, if it's even accurate. The club wants to be a 400% business - businesses don't depend on the views of 'fair and balanced' people, but on whatever it is the critical mass of people think about their product at any given time.

Consequently, PR is about making sure that said critical mass of people think positively of you and your brand.

In the future, Twitter folk will be our demographic, much like they are already Arsenal's demographic. Ergo, they will be the critical mass that needs appeasing, not the older, more 'fair and balanced' folk here and elsewhere.

Thus, the club needs to keep them onside, and it has failed to do so if that reaction is any indicator. Thus, I suggested that it had fudged up, comms wise - although it could (and should) do nothing about the delays, it could definitely have been handled a lot better.

That's all - I'm not coming at it from some moral abstract about what our fanbase 'should be' (fair and balanced or otherwise), but what it will be, and thus what the club has to deal with. Not what it would *like* to deal with.

And, as I mentioned in my initial post, there's nothing that can be done about the delay itself. Suck it up, cut the club some slack and move on when it comes to that - I'm in full agreement on that point. But the rest of it could definitely have been handled better.

Sigh.

They have season tickets. They say as much.



It makes sense 'pandering' to them, because they both influence and will ultimately form your future demographic. As I said, wanting the club to ignore that demographic seems to assume that we will be immune to what has happened to other clubs in our position in the digital age - which is significantly contrary to the trends of customer-company relationships across nearly every major industry.

What their tendencies are is irrelevant - they paid for their tickets, they are loud, and they will be the influencers that will define your brand going forward. Managing these folks is part and parcel of every social media strategy these days.



We don't say much. We're in agreement there. As for West Ham's comms strategy, I couldn't care less about how much they want to spend, who they want to sign or anything they do - it is completely irrelevant to the basic transaction we're discussing in our context, where supporters who have bought tickets to watch football matches expect that the club keeps them aware of their ability to provide the product they paid money for. Bringing West Ham into this seems, if you'll forgive me saying, completely inane and irrelevant to the point at hand.



There's PR, and there's managing strategic relationships. One happens behind closed doors, one is focused on the folks who don't have access to those closed-doors discussions. There are usually separate strategies for both, separate units for both, and separate objectives for both.

And If the club's public outreach is being used to reassure internal strategic partners, there's an issue that extends *far* beyond our comms issues. I don't think that's the case, thankfully - which is why that NFL statement seemed utterly extraneous to me. The two can be used concurrently, but the main aim of PR is to reassure those not privy to internal discussions - which isn't the case here.



Sigh. Okay, this is a tangent, but here goes. Their job is precisely to placate the folks who paid for a ticket and want answers as to what they can expect from that ticket. The club isn't a charity, I agree - it has clearly indicated that it wants to be seen as a pure, amoral business. And, by selling tickets using interactive maps of the new stadium and prominently featuring it in all the marketing about the campaign so far, it has made a commitment to what the product it provides will look like.

Listen, I don't want to be legalistic about it. But if you want to be entirely legalistic about it with the 'they aren't a charity' argument, false advertising is a matter for consumer protection law - the Office of Fair Trading has intervened on issues relating to season tickets before, and if football fans really saw their clubs as the businesses they so dearly want to be considered as, then the OFT (now the Competition and Markets Authority) would be called in by supporters a lot more frequently than it already is, spurious clauses disclaiming liability notwithstanding. After all, the Consumer Rights Act has a section specifically dedicated to unfair terms, which this could conceivably fall under.

If the club wants to use the 'we're a business, we can do what we please' argument, then the customers have quite a few tools to enforce compliance on their part. After all, a cold, amoral business and a cold, amoral consumer have no mutual attachment.

As for good PR, being responsive about tickets *is* good PR, when done right. Apologizing *is* good PR, when done right (i.e, publicly). There are endless examples of both in marketing literature. And saying 'I'll see what I can do' is what the club *did* when they talked about updating fans with new ticket details shortly. What *would* have been right to do is to mention the possibility of this occurring as the situation was developing, and mention that it is being worked on to minimize inconvenience on the part of the fans who would have to change their arrangements in the case of this occurring.


Christ, this isn't even that big a deal, or that big of a statement to make - is this really the hill that everyone wants to die on? That the club are so utterly, incomparably perfect that they cannot make a single mistake, even in the face of masses of angry fans who have *paid* for their tickets?

Christ, this club makes mistakes sometimes. This shouldn't be controversial, or worth three pages of me responding to everyone who believes otherwise.

Yawn! Yawn! Fvcking Yawn! (OK I didn't read the second quoted post but would hazard a guess my reaction would be the same).

Three issues*:

1) "Right, we've gone far enough on this path.....so I'll say one more thing about this". - You then fail to shut the fvck up!
2) "In the future, Twitter folk will be our demographic...... Ergo, they will be the critical mass that needs appeasing, not the older, more 'fair and balanced' folk here and elsewhere." - Donald Trump posts on Twitter FFS !?!?!
3) I have been pleasantly surprised by the generally low key news coverage of the announcement and lack of interest from rival supporters. Not exactly the "PR Disaster" described.

*OH, AND FINALLY, LEARN THE FVCKING CORRECT USE OF THE *ASTERISK*.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Sigh.

They have season tickets. They say as much.



It makes sense 'pandering' to them, because they both influence and will ultimately form your future demographic. As I said, wanting the club to ignore that demographic seems to assume that we will be immune to what has happened to other clubs in our position in the digital age - which is significantly contrary to the trends of customer-company relationships across nearly every major industry.

What their tendencies are is irrelevant - they paid for their tickets, they are loud, and they will be the influencers that will define your brand going forward. Managing these folks is part and parcel of every social media strategy these days.



We don't say much. We're in agreement there. As for West Ham's comms strategy, I couldn't care less about how much they want to spend, who they want to sign or anything they do - it is completely irrelevant to the basic transaction we're discussing in our context, where supporters who have bought tickets to watch football matches expect that the club keeps them aware of their ability to provide the product they paid money for. Bringing West Ham into this seems, if you'll forgive me saying, completely inane and irrelevant to the point at hand.



There's PR, and there's managing strategic relationships. One happens behind closed doors, one is focused on the folks who don't have access to those closed-doors discussions. There are usually separate strategies for both, separate units for both, and separate objectives for both.

And If the club's public outreach is being used to reassure internal strategic partners, there's an issue that extends *far* beyond our comms issues. I don't think that's the case, thankfully - which is why that NFL statement seemed utterly extraneous to me. The two can be used concurrently, but the main aim of PR is to reassure those not privy to internal discussions - which isn't the case here.



Sigh. Okay, this is a tangent, but here goes. Their job is precisely to placate the folks who paid for a ticket and want answers as to what they can expect from that ticket. The club isn't a charity, I agree - it has clearly indicated that it wants to be seen as a pure, amoral business. And, by selling tickets using interactive maps of the new stadium and prominently featuring it in all the marketing about the campaign so far, it has made a commitment to what the product it provides will look like.

Listen, I don't want to be legalistic about it. But if you want to be entirely legalistic about it with the 'they aren't a charity' argument, false advertising is a matter for consumer protection law - the Office of Fair Trading has intervened on issues relating to season tickets before, and if football fans really saw their clubs as the businesses they so dearly want to be considered as, then the OFT (now the Competition and Markets Authority) would be called in by supporters a lot more frequently than it already is, spurious clauses disclaiming liability notwithstanding. After all, the Consumer Rights Act has a section specifically dedicated to unfair terms, which this could conceivably fall under.

If the club wants to use the 'we're a business, we can do what we please' argument, then the customers have quite a few tools to enforce compliance on their part. After all, a cold, amoral business and a cold, amoral consumer have no mutual attachment.

As for good PR, being responsive about tickets *is* good PR, when done right. Apologizing *is* good PR, when done right (i.e, publicly). There are endless examples of both in marketing literature. And saying 'I'll see what I can do' is what the club *did* when they talked about updating fans with new ticket details shortly. What *would* have been right to do is to mention the possibility of this occurring as the situation was developing, and mention that it is being worked on to minimize inconvenience on the part of the fans who would have to change their arrangements in the case of this occurring.


Christ, this isn't even that big a deal, or that big of a statement to make - is this really the hill that everyone wants to die on? That the club are so utterly, incomparably perfect that they cannot make a single mistake, even in the face of masses of angry fans who have *paid* for their tickets?

Christ, this club makes mistakes sometimes. This shouldn't be controversial, or worth three pages of me responding to everyone who believes otherwise.

Ok, I don’t want to say they never make mistakes. But it is a matter of trust and aboit thinkng of the bigger picture. To you, the ‘NFL apology’ was a heinous act, I’m merely saying there was probably a very good reason it was included. If you don’t want to engage with that point, fine.

West Ham was brought in to show an example of a comms strategy based around constant updates and trying to pander to the whiners. It does them no good, and it’s harder to take them seriously compared to us. I think it’s a fair point to make.

Maybe the PR was used to present a positive spin to a potential naming rights partner seeking a US audience that wouldn’t be privy to all internal discussions, and who may needed to have been convinced of the NFL’s commitment. I offered two examples there as to why it would have been included, there could have been many more. Again, if you don’t want to engage or acknowledge it as a fair point of discussion, fine.

Consumer protection law? Come on man. They have tried to complete an incredibly complex project, in an incredibly tight time frame, and to do that all so we don’t have to spend an entire second season away from our home. They have been forthright about the fact there will/may be delays, and in the space of a day have released all of the info on how fans can get refunded if they so wish. They were put into a position of having to rush a statement because someone leaked it. They also have to pay a fee to Wembley, so the integrity of the terms and conditions is such that they promise a venue for us to support our team, wherever they may be. Particularly when they have already said, this is a complex project and there may be delays. ‘Mentioning the possibility of occurring as the situation is happenjng’...we’re talking leak, rushed statement without knowing exactly what they want to do, and then detailed answer the next day. What is your problem exactly?

I still don’t understand why you are convinced the club should be placating the whiners on Twitter. If they produce a winning football team, people will find something to moan about. If they lose, loads of people will moan. If they do a great thing - building a fudging stadium on our old site in one year so that we don’t have to spend more than a season away from home, people will moan at the first chance they get. There is no benefit to constantly trying to placate these people with happy clappy statements. They have been clear on ticket refunds today. They were rushed into responding to a leak yesterday. They clearly like to know all of the facts before rushing statements. And they clearly
believe that long term, their word needs to mean something so that when they say something, it matters. The whiners will complain about anything. When people actually stopped coming to games (like Arsenal’s fans did last season when they realised there was no way out from endless Wenger) that is when the club should act. When attendances fall, when something tangible happens, they will respond. When someone sends a moaning tweet, they should not be responding to those people. If they keep producing a successful team pushing its limits, people will be broadly happy. That is their job.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Yawn! Yawn! Fvcking Yawn! (OK I didn't read the second quoted post but would hazard a guess my reaction would be the same).

Three issues*:

1) "Right, we've gone far enough on this path.....so I'll say one more thing about this". - You then fail to shut the fvck up!
2) "In the future, Twitter folk will be our demographic...... Ergo, they will be the critical mass that needs appeasing, not the older, more 'fair and balanced' folk here and elsewhere." - Donald Trump posts on Twitter FFS !?!?!
3) I have been pleasantly surprised by the generally low key news coverage of the announcement and general lack of interest from rival supporters. Not exactly the "PR Disaster" described.

*OH, AND FINALLY, LEARN THE FVCKING CORRECT USE OF THE *ASTERISK*.

*F*ck off* if you don't want to read/can't read, then - I suspect you'll understand that, even if the asterisks annoy you.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Ok, I don’t want to say they never make mistakes. But it is a matter of trust and aboit thinkng of the bigger picture. To you, the ‘NFL apology’ was a heinous act, I’m merely saying there was probably a very good reason it was included. If you don’t want to engage with that point, fine.

I did engage with that point - I pointed out why it was out of place. Could have been a second statement by itself - would have been the better strategy, and it's not exactly rocket science.

As for the club and making mistakes, you do actually do that, because even here, when evidence is plentiful that there has been a comms misstep somewhere, you're defending it and turning an anthill into a hill to die on.

Remember, I didn't start this whole discussion. Other folks did, because they took exception to the horrendous possibility that the club had made a serious misstep with the comms around the whole thing. Look back to my initial comment, and tell me it started this in any way.

West Ham was brought in to show an example of a comms strategy based around constant updates and trying to pander to the whiners. It does them no good, and it’s harder to take them seriously compared to us. I think it’s a fair point to make.

Constant updates on *what*? That's where you're conflating the issues. They update their fans on which washed-up ex-Yugoslav winger they think will make them champions, so obviously the lesson to learn is to never respond to people on Twitter, even those loudly damaging your brand by demanding answers about the tickets you're selling?

The former is a football-specific issue, and specific to the Dildo brothers and that laughing stock they oversee. The latter is just a consumer-company concern, that is the basis of why companies even have Twitter accounts.

Consumer protection law? Come on man. They have tried to complete an incredibly complex project, in an incredibly tight time frame, and to do that all so we don’t have to spend an entire second season away from our home. They have been forthright about the fact there will/may be delays, and in the space of a day have released all of the info on how fans can get refunded if they so wish. They were put into a position of having to rush a statement because someone leaked it. They also have to pay a fee to Wembley, so the integrity of the terms and conditions is such that they promise a venue for us to support our team, wherever they may be. Particularly when they have already said, this is a complex project and there may be delays. ‘Mentioning the possibility of occurring as the situation is happenjng’...we’re talking leak, rushed statement without knowing exactly what they want to do, and then detailed answer the next day. What is your problem exactly?

You were the one who started that tangent when you said that Donna Cullen and the ticketing team were right when they bluntly told fans that the buy tickets to a match, not to a venue - and that the club isn't a charity.

A football club is a football club - it is not a pure business. If it tries to act like one, then the supporters are justified in seeing themselves as mere consumers. And, in which case, consumer protection law will be immediately and remorselessly pulled into cases like this, since there's a lot things clubs do to their loyal, inelastic consumer base that would be illegal for other businesses to do under the Consumer Rights Act. As has already proven to be the case when the OFT has been called into season ticket cases in the past.

I fully acknowledge the difficulties involved with this project - I keep on mentioning this, and I fully support their decision to delay. And, after a delay, they have tried to make up for their initial radio silence and the statement above. But the fact that they have made mistakes in their comms strategies throughout this is the one that you seem to refuse to acknowledge.

As for 'mentioning the possibility of occurring as the situation is happening', this is *standard practice* - if you're worried about a delay and it seems increasingly likely prior to being confirmed, you don't spring it on your audience at the last minute. You prepare the ground by acclimatizing them to the possibility of it occurring beforehand - and you *plan* for possible ticketing issues in that eventuality, and train your ticketing team accordingly. If the club was seeing the 'bigger picture', they should have done that.

Again, they are mistakes. Small ones, but they have happened. Dying on this hill shouldn't be your objective on this issue - not given your logical argumentation so far.

I still don’t understand why you are convinced the club should be placating the whiners on Twitter. If they produce a winning football team, people will find something to moan about. If they lose, loads of people will moan. If they do a great thing - building a fudging stadium on our old site in one year so that we don’t have to spend more than a season away from home, people will moan at the first chance they get. There is no benefit to constantly trying to placate these people with happy clappy statements. They have been clear on ticket refunds today. They were rushed into responding to a leak yesterday. They clearly like to know all of the facts before rushing statements. And they clearly
believe that long term, their word needs to mean something so that when they say something, it matters. The whiners will complain about anything. When people actually stopped coming to games (like Arsenal’s fans did last season when they realised there was no way out from endless Wenger) that is when the club should act. When attendances fall, when something tangible happens, they will respond. When someone sends a moaning tweet, they should not be responding to those people. If they keep producing a successful team pushing its limits, people will be broadly happy. That is their job.

The club's job is to stop situations developing *before* they get to stadiums being empty. If it reaches that point, they have failed in their jobs.

How do you think the 'Wenger Out' phalanx ended up emptying the Emirates? Through hand signals? Word of mouth?

No, it started on Twitter and on social media - a movement that ended up emptying the stadium and forcing Wenger's departure.

Smart clubs, smart companies, smart brands - they preempt this by engaging with those moaners on Twitter, and by keeping them safely moaning about extraneous things and away from the core product (where their moaning could actually generate public blowback against the brand in question). It's PR 101 in the modern social media age.

You have to engage with them, since they will end up being your audience in the future. That's my point - it's elementary PR.

That's all. The rest of my posts here are all in response to five to ten folks (and one evidently illiterate macaron upset about asterisks) all taking turns to be outrageously offended at the possibility that the club might have made a mistake about something.

Jesus Christ.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Did she say that you buy a ticket for the match, not the stadium? If so, that is a really, really silly thing to say at this time. Is it accurate? 400%. But when you’ve spent a whole lot of time and money going on specifically about the stadium, you roll your sleeves up, get in the trenches and empathize! That response (if it happened?) is almost aspergers-like, and simply not smart. I think the NFL thing is a major issue; to already perhaps be in a “chance saloon” situation with them is not good. I am not necessarily talking about the delay, more the inability to handle it publicly. Stitch up for sure BUT the NFL will be upset about it as their brand gets compromised in their eyes.

Sadly this is going to be a pricey mistake all round, and I’d guess it will end up costing tens of millions what with Wembley rentals and whatnot.

Lets hope we can have a period of consolidation at least...


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

She responded to a fan that had guessed her email saying ‘Dan, the match is still happening same day same time so that should still work? D’

I mean...who knows how many of those she had received from entitled whiners. And I’m sure she regrets bothering to respond now, but the nice thing about her is that she has often taken the time to respond to fans when she would quite clearly have better things to do.

I think there’s this thing where the fans feel like they love the club, they spend this money, and deserve a handout sometimes. I say this because the guy that put the email up on Twitter said he expected a couple of free tickets to another game or a free stadium tour in her reply. Like...WTF. That is what I mean by entitled. He said he was flying in from abroad. Fine. But he decided to take the risk, he knew that the test events hadn’t been completed yet, he knew there could be further delays. The club’s responsibility is to put a venue on for the team to perform, they have to pay a fee for Wembley, and this whole thing is an albeit manageable set back that they could have done without. They are already going to great lengths to ensure we don’t have to spend any more time at Wembley than we need to, but still fans want a handout?

Imagine if the game was rescheduled. Imagine if you couldn’t actually go and see Kane and Eriksen do their thing. Imagine if the whole centre piece of your trip was ruined. Yes. It’s frustrating. Frustrating for us all. Frustrating for them. But what exactly is supposed to be done here that wasn’t done? Moddy coddling a bunch of grown men that can’t see what’s already being done for them because something isn’t happening to which they knew would be a risk anyway?

I get it, I’m sure she regrets sending that email. It was definitely flippant, and the abuse she’s now suffering on Twitter is not great. In fact a lot of it is vile. It’s an easy own goal in this age of screenshottable images and social media, but given that it’s such an easy own goal I’m not sure she cares. The club have a fair point in saying that the game is going ahead, they have a good contingency, and are probably as annoyed as any of us. Yes, sad for people coming from abroad. But then, there’s also been a bunch of people moaning that Wembley is difficult to get to vs Tottenham? I mean come the fudge on. Suck it up. Bigger picture.

Edit - worth editing this given my mini change of heart on the post below. When I say I’m not sure Cullen cares, I still believe that. But I can now appreciate why her background may lead her into thinking fans don’t really matter at the end of the day as it’s all about corporate comms, but I can also see that maybe she doesn’t appreciate the veracity to which movements can spin up and take off in this day and age.

Still have no time for whiners myself, though I can now see why the club can be a bit more empathetic in their comms!

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I did engage with that point - I pointed out why it was out of place. Could have been a second statement by itself - would have been the better strategy, and it's not exactly rocket science.

As for the club and making mistakes, you do actually do that, because even here, when evidence is plentiful that there has been a comms misstep somewhere, you're defending it and turning an anthill into a hill to die on.

Remember, I didn't start this whole discussion. Other folks did, because they took exception to the horrendous possibility that the club had made a serious misstep with the comms around the whole thing. Look back to my initial comment, and tell me it started this in any way.



Constant updates on *what*? That's where you're conflating the issues. They update their fans on which washed-up ex-Yugoslav winger they think will make them champions, so obviously the lesson to learn is to never respond to people on Twitter, even those loudly damaging your brand by demanding answers about the tickets you're selling?

The former is a football-specific issue, and specific to the Dildo brothers and that laughing stock they oversee. The latter is just a consumer-company concern, that is the basis of why companies even have Twitter accounts.



You were the one who started that tangent when you said that Donna Cullen and the ticketing team were right when they bluntly told fans that the buy tickets to a match, not to a venue - and that the club isn't a charity.

A football club is a football club - it is not a pure business. If it tries to act like one, then the supporters are justified in seeing themselves as mere consumers. And, in which case, consumer protection law will be immediately and remorselessly pulled into cases like this, since there's a lot things clubs do to their loyal, inelastic consumer base that would be illegal for other businesses to do under the Consumer Rights Act. As has already proven to be the case when the OFT has been called into season ticket cases in the past.

I fully acknowledge the difficulties involved with this project - I keep on mentioning this, and I fully support their decision to delay. And, after a delay, they have tried to make up for their initial radio silence and the statement above. But the fact that they have made mistakes in their comms strategies throughout this is the one that you seem to refuse to acknowledge.

As for 'mentioning the possibility of occurring as the situation is happening', this is *standard practice* - if you're worried about a delay and it seems increasingly likely prior to being confirmed, you don't spring it on your audience at the last minute. You prepare the ground by acclimatizing them to the possibility of it occurring beforehand - and you *plan* for possible ticketing issues in that eventuality, and train your ticketing team accordingly. If the club was seeing the 'bigger picture', they should have done that.

Again, they are mistakes. Small ones, but they have happened. Dying on this hill shouldn't be your objective on this issue - not given your logical argumentation so far.



The club's job is to stop situations developing *before* they get to stadiums being empty. If it reaches that point, they have failed in their jobs.

How do you think the 'Wenger Out' rude boys ended up emptying the Emirates? Through hand signals? Word of mouth?

No, it started on Twitter and on social media - a movement that ended up emptying the stadium and forcing Wenger's departure.

Smart clubs, smart companies, smart brands - they preempt this by engaging with those moaners on Twitter, and by keeping them safely moaning about extraneous things and away from the core product (where their moaning could actually generate public blowback against the brand in question). It's PR 101 in the modern social media age.

You have to engage with them, since they will end up being your audience in the future. That's my point - it's elementary PR.

That's all. The rest of my posts here are all in response to five to ten folks (and one evidently illiterate macaron) all taking turns to be outrageously offended at the possibility that the club might have made a mistake about something.

Jesus Christ.

I’m not actually a PR expert, but am I fair in assuming that if you release two statements, one after the other, you’re diluting the message, or risking one getting covered more than the other? Or risking certain media mentioning both, but emphasising one, and not the other? So if there was an objective to say, prove to a sponsor that the NFL were still in, or to show to NFL partners that Tottenham had their brick together and could handle this big project and they hadn’t shat the bed, if it was an objective, then you want to make sure that the message is heard, right? I would say that is good, corporate PR strategy.

I’m sure they make mistakes every single day. Some decisions will be proven to be mistakes with time. Some will show immediately. But it is a matter of trust, and trying to understand the decisions through their lens. Because sometimes they may have had an objective that you didn’t consider. And therefore it may have been a very good decision to try and achieve it.

But you know what, I will give you something. I think we are very good at corporate comms, and that probably comes from Levy and Cullen’s background, which has specifically been more financial comms, running privitisation campaigns for big utilities. So the PR that has come from us has always spoken very well to other corporates. I think in that sense, it’s smart, it’s strategic, it does all the right things in that partners, supplies, customers, and every other institution that is in somehow linked to us probably love working with us. They think we are credible and that our word means something, and that is very important.

BUT, and this is something I have just come around to having read your post and considered my own view, and Cullen’s background, is that there is probably something to be said for modern, consumer facing PR that is able to adapt to this social media heavy world, where it is so easy to engage with a brand, but so easy to talk about a brand yourself and influence others. You’re point about Arsenal’s fans driving that campaign and helping that take shape quicker than it would have happened in the old world is a good one and something I didn’t consider.

So I agree with you on that point. Having thought about it, they could have done better on this. They are very good at corporate comms and less good on modern consumer comms. I get the impression that they’ve always thought that it isn’t something they were good at and so haven’t even tried to do, for fear of doing it badly. So our output has always been very professional, very well written, very considered and very credible, covering all the angles. I would maintain that people moaning on Twitter are going to moan regardless, but it is when a significant number of people can make reasoned arguments as to why something should be different that the club should listen. Not to say they should give in, but I can see why some degree of understanding would have maybe been the order of the day, but I can also see why the club wanted to make the point that contingencies were in place and they’d done all they could.

But I guess that’s the difference. There is the social media bantz, and at the other end you have the corporate comms. And there’s probably a layer in the middle there somewhere where this stuff can be handled slightly better. I guess in corporate comms, it’s important to not show weakness, because everything is an establishment of value, everything is ultimately a negotiation in a potential transaction, and you have to show you’ve covered all the angles. Consumers just want to feel like they have been heard though. It’s a really interesting question of how to implement that into our current strategy - because I still maintain I like our professional and considered approach - and when the club speaks I certainly listen. I’d also hate for us to turn into a West Ham or any other club that tries to overly placate and make promises they can’t deliver on. But adding a dash of empathy into our output I can see not being the worst thing. It frankly doesn’t bother me, but I can see why it can be important to placate the masses, and not let things spin out of control due to needless flippancy. Certainly there’s no need to make things worse.

So yes- I still maintain the NFL mention was in there for a good reason, but I can see where you’re coming from one the consumer side

 

[BrainOfLevy]

And I would also say, I still don’t think any sort of consumer protection law is going to put the club at risk or anything, for the same reason that they are always good at covering all the angles. To me that just isn’t a consideration here.

 

[DubaiSpur]

I’m not actually a PR expert, but am I fair in assuming that if you release two statements, one after the other, you’re diluting the message, or risking one getting covered more than the other? Or risking certain media mentioning both, but emphasising one, and not the other? So if there was an objective to say, prove to a sponsor that the NFL were still in, or to show to NFL partners that Tottenham had their brick together and could handle this big project and they hadn’t shat the bed, if it was an objective, then you want to make sure that the message is heard, right? I would say that is good, corporate PR strategy.

I’m sure they make mistakes every single day. Some decisions will be proven to be mistakes with time. Some will show immediately. But it is a matter of trust, and trying to understand the decisions through their lens. Because sometimes they may have had an objective that you didn’t consider. And therefore it may have been a very good decision to try and achieve it.

But you know what, I will give you something. I think we are very good at corporate comms, and that probably comes from Levy and Cullen’s background, which has specifically been more financial comms, running privitisation campaigns for big utilities. So the PR that has come from us has always spoken very well to other corporates. I think in that sense, it’s smart, it’s strategic, it does all the right things in that partners, supplies, customers, and every other institution that is in somehow linked to us probably love working with us. They think we are credible and that our word means something, and that is very important.

BUT, and this is something I have just come around to having read your post and considered my own view, and Cullen’s background, is that there is probably something to be said for modern, consumer facing PR that is able to adapt to this social media heavy world, where it is so easy to engage with a brand, but so easy to talk about a brand yourself and influence others. You’re point about Arsenal’s fans driving that campaign and helping that take shape quicker than it would have happened in the old world is a good one and something I didn’t consider.

So I agree with you on that point. Having thought about it, they could have done better on this. They are very good at corporate comms and less good on modern consumer comms. I get the impression that they’ve always thought that it isn’t something they were good at and so haven’t even tried to do, for fear of doing it badly. So our output has always been very professional, very well written, very considered and very credible, covering all the angles. I would maintain that people moaning on Twitter are going to moan regardless, but it is when a significant number of people can make reasoned arguments as to why something should be different that the club should listen. Not to say they should give in, but I can see why some degree of understanding would have maybe been the order of the day, but I can also see why the club wanted to make the point that contingencies were in place and they’d done all they could.

But I guess that’s the difference. There is the social media bantz, and at the other end you have the corporate comms. And there’s probably a layer in the middle there somewhere where this stuff can be handled slightly better. I guess in corporate comms, it’s important to not show weakness, because everything is an establishment of value, everything is ultimately a negotiation in a potential transaction, and you have to show you’ve covered all the angles. Consumers just want to feel like they have been heard though. It’s a really interesting question of how to implement that into our current strategy - because I still maintain I like our professional and considered approach - and when the club speaks I certainly listen. I’d also hate for us to turn into a West Ham or any other club that tries to overly placate and make promises they can’t deliver on. But adding a dash of empathy into our output I can see not being the worst thing. It frankly doesn’t bother me, but I can see why it can be important to placate the masses, and not let things spin out of control due to needless flippancy. Certainly there’s no need to make things worse.

So yes- I still maintain the NFL mention was in there for a good reason, but I can see where you’re coming from one the consumer side

Sigh.

Very fair.

And, on my part, I will admit that what little experience I have has been in public-facing PR and digital engagement strategies. Which is where I'm coming from with my perspective - I'm not as familiar with corporate engagement, and I'm certainly not an expert on either (I don't even work in that field now - and thank GHod for that ).

I can concede that it could well be that the club sought to reassure NFL-related organizations....and perhaps that was a worthwhile endeavour.

But I, in turn, maintain that the club needs to understand audience management and social media dynamics today. They're the future, whether we like it or not.

And I would also say, I still don’t think any sort of consumer protection law is going to put the club at risk or anything, for the same reason that they are always good at covering all the angles. To me that just isn’t a consideration here.

You would think so given the legal teams clubs have, but it isn't always the case. United were done over a season ticket issue in 2008 or 2009, I believe.

Hell, looking into it, *we* were done by the Office of Fair Trading back in 2008 for an issue related to ticket refunds in the event of postponed matches, which is *very* similar to our current predicament in terms of murky liability.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/dec/05/tottenham-hotspur-ticket-refunds-oft

I quote -

"Mike Haley, director of consumer protection at the OFT, said Spurs had reacted responsibly to its approach by changing its terms and conditions to ensure they provided for full refunds in the case of rearranged matches. "When a consumer enters a contract to buy a ticket to a performance or match there is a clear date, location and time, and there may be any number of valid reasons why ticket-holders cannot attend on a rescheduled date.""

Either way, best not to test it again, and I'm glad the club is preemptively offering refunds (not credits - cash refunds) to avoid it.

 

[greatwhitenorf]

Having not read Word One of the massively overwrought dialogue of the past pages since my last relaxed, composed contribution, let me say this about that building delay issue.

It isn't worth giving the first flying phucque about the hows, whys and wherefores of what is causing delays in the completion of the stadium's construction or how it might be affecting a few distressed and delicate supporters.

All that matters is that the delay is happening and nothing is going to change that.

Spurs will carry on (my wayward son) and eventually rock up on the new pitch at MegaLane. I'll be equally delighted to cheer for them next week and the weeks beyond, wherever and whenever they happen to play.

In the meanstwhile, we would all do well to stuff a large, sweat-stained sock into the maw of blamecasting and get on with enjoying the Premier League season.

 

[the goat]

Its important that the club are open about what's wrong, why its gone wrong , how long they have know etc
not for us, or those with tickets, but for others they hope will have events at the stadium (NFL, Pop/rock shows, boxing etc) these folks need to be sure the club can run the event, the club need the extra money these events would bring in,

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Its important that the club are open about what's wrong, why its gone wrong , how long they have know etc
not for us, or those with tickets, but for others they hope will have events at the stadium (NFL, Pop/rock shows, boxing etc) these folks need to be sure the club can run the event, the club need the extra money these events would bring in,

I wouldnt have thiught anyone hiring the ground would care what went wrong.. as lomg as the ground is safe and signed off

This “rooster up” is nothing to do with spurs other than the comms. And that wasnt managed as well as it could have been due to a leak it seeems

Even if the club knew earlier but actually issuing details of the test game soublily they have shown the League they intended to play only one game away. Things haven’t gone to plan and the club have a short term fix for it.

The onky issue now is how the City game is managed as we can’t use Wembley