Free agency period is like Christmas for sports fans, and what a summer this has been. From LeBron James’s Decision to Brett Favre and his Indecision to Ilya “17 is my lucky number” Kovulchuk, July 1st marked the beginning of a season with more drama than the season finale of Grey’s Anatomy. Yet while my eyes were wet as Derek Sheppard miraculously sprung back to life, after the ongoing sagas in the world of sports, I was left thinking, “Wow, these guys really need a PR lesson.”

Good PR can simply mean employing a little humility — a trait sorely missing from the Twitter-frenzy that was basketball free agency. With LeBron and Chris, it was a matter of pure excess made worse by the power of social media. Had the duo quietly gone about their business and signed with Miami in a humbler and less explosive fashion, they likely would have avoided being ripped to shreds by the media and wouldn’t have put their otherwise relatively clean reputations at risk.

Like with most things, less is more, and Tweeting your every move or announcing your Decision in a State of the Union-esque televised address will not only make the people of Cleveland pretty angry, but will also hurt your personal brand long-term — a fact that can lead to serious ramifications in terms of endorsements and sponsorship deals.

I’m not saying that Lebron James is going to lose his Nike contract tomorrow, but your public image continues to be important even after you’re 25 and in the prime of your career — much like a company’s relationships with the media and other stakeholders are still important after the campaign is over or a crisis has been dealt with. Likewise, whether you retire with the Packers, the Jets or the Vikings, your legend status is going to be a lot higher than if no one can keep track whether you’re retired or not—consistency leads to credibility, and again, to better relationships in the long term.

In other news, Tomas Kaberle wasn’t traded. His dad thinks he’d like to be traded, but he wasn’t traded and he’s ok with that—or at least he’s not saying otherwise. While the Toronto media played guessing games for months, Kaberle mostly kept quiet on the issue and likely will continue to do so. Even under the glare of all of Leafs Nation, Tomas Kaberle hasn’t added fuel to the fire, and throughout the summer soap opera, has amazingly managed to keep it about the hockey.

The bottom line? Be consistent, stay on message, and try not to step on any toes. Oh, and don’t Tweet about what you ate for breakfast.

The group spoke candidly about their jobs, how PR practitioners can best pitch them, and their views on social media.

“Understand our environment,” stressed Connolly. “Give me groundbreaking research with data and examples,” said Ip. Rau wants “people to illustrate stories, data, and ‘dish.’ ” (gossip).

Nothing new there. Nonetheless, it’s always good to hear journalists reaffirm the basics to remind us that we actually need something new or unique to successfully pitch them.

But what did strike me as interesting was their views on social media. While all acknowledged that social media is useful in some situations, none of them said it was an effective way to reach them or for finding ideas or sources for stories. Granted, a couple of the panelists referred to themselves as “dinosaurs.” While I don’t know their exact ages, I think it’s safe to say that all of these “dinosaurs” were in their thirties and forties, not their seventies or eighties.

Greg Ip acknowledged that some of his more valuable relationships were people he met over the course of his career – through PR people!

Jordan Rau talked about the information overload that takes place nowadays, noting that his inbox fills up quicker now than when he was a reporter for the Los Angeles Times — and he attributes that to all the different ways we have of communicating with one another. His solution, he said, has been to basically disconnect from Facebook and Twitter. “I wasn’t absorbing anything.”

It would be interesting to host the same panel discussion with journalists in their twenties. Would they have the same viewpoint about social media?

As a PR practitioner, my key take-away from this workshop was that, yes, it really is about the basics. In this case, knowing your audience, which is what we continually preach to our clients.

I think everyone would agree, including the panelists, that how we communicate with each other is changing radically. Whether Facebook and Twitter will be around in the future, that’s hard to say. But social media is another tool in our toolbox. It is up to us as PR professionals to know when to pull out those tools and use them – and to counsel our clients appropriately.

I won’t be signing up for ShopKick any time soon, but personally, I’m okay with most of this stuff. I don’t post anything online I wouldn’t want my mother to see, and if I can get a free trip or a new toaster, I’m happy to let Air Miles and its sponsors track my spending habits. In fact, many argue that data collection and analytics help retailers select the right product mix for the most frequent customers (and, of course, make money). [Disclosure: Air Miles is an Environics client.]

While the organizations that want to sell us stuff happily go about their ways collecting information about us, they would be wise to remember that some of us are keeping tabs on them, too. Just this week Loblaw found itself in a bit of hot water when a customer in Halifax complained after discovering rows of imported produce from the US and Ontario in an Atlantic Superstore below signs proudly reading “Grown Close to Home” adorned with the “Atlantic Grown” logo. Now, I don’t think for a minute that there was anything nefarious afoot — it was likely an innocent mistake by a rookie stock boy — and Loblaw did the right thing by promptly apologizing. But it’s a reminder that the customer is watching.

I realize I’m linking the idea of marketers collecting and evaluating data on consumers with the notion that consumers collect and evaluate data (or claims) espoused by marketers, which isn’t a perfect comparison. But the point is, both parties are keeping an eye on the other.

Eagle-eyed consumers aren’t likely to stop their sleuthing, and it would be interesting to know to what extent customer complaints about misleading claims are increasing in lockstep with the number of lofty claims made by advertisers. (Anyone looking for a PhD thesis?) It’s also a reminder that while marketers typically covet attention, they need to be careful what they wish for if they aren’t as virtuous as they claim.

Just as there are great examples of companies genuinely doing the right thing and tastefully promoting it, there are myriad examples of companies that are trying to pull a fast one and getting caught.

Note to marketers: customers may not have the same fancy analytics tools as you, but they’re watching your every move.

He did the right thing to confront the issue. It’s questionable, though, that citing competitors by name made sense. It’s a reasonable strategy to spread – or not own – the bad news, but that should only occur in a general way – that is, not calling out the competitors by name.

When you’re #1 – real or perceived – you should carry yourself as such. That means not comparing your product or company with the competition. That’s what the competition wants, and, following the Jobs news conference, that’s what they got and that’s what has now become the story. Apple’s competitors are now part of a dialogue with the perceived leader. Their products are being compared directly with Apple’s, even if it’s under possibly negative scrutiny.

Jobs acknowledging the problem was good; but his added frustration that the issue “has been blown so out of proportion that it’s incredible” was another communications misstep. Acknowledge the problem, fix the problem, move on.

Carrying yourself like a leader means not inviting comparisons. That means excluding the competition from the conversation, or at least not inviting – never mind guaranteeing – their inclusion.

Whether or not Apple is in fact #1 is not the point. Also-rans welcome comparisons with leaders; leaders should strive to stand apart.

As noted by others, Gaga (born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta on March 28, 1986) has taken the showmanship and outrageousness of Madonna to a new level. I suppose every generation needs a new way to exhibit their rebellion. Gaga is a great vehicle for associating with rebellion – plenty of use of the F-word, more crotch rubbing than in the zoo’s Orangutan exhibit and most of the show is performed in black underwear. The staging is worthy of the best Broadway play and the dancers are superb. The costumes are amazing. Oh, she also has some pants that blast sparks out of the crotch.

Speaking of flames and smoke, during one break, there are several minutes of images projected on a giant screen of Gaga smoking. Just smoking a cigarette. More rebellion and too bad for public health education.

Jesus and Christianity are good whipping boys for the rebellious types. Gaga assumes a provocative position and calls out to God above in one set. “I am dying of glamour,” she says. A statue of the Virgin Mary turns into a burning torch later. “My religion is you little monsters,” she adds. I wonder if Islam or other religions will ever be such an easy target for singers proving their rebellion.

Speaking of Virgin, there is plenty of endorsement for Virgin Mobile. The company name appears on stage. She calls a member of the audience with her cell phone and invites the person down to better seats. Virgin gives $20,000 per show to a charity supported by Gaga. Their club members get preferred access to Gaga concerts. According to a news release Virgin Mobile Canada’s mission is to connect, entertain and reward like nobody else. I have never seen such a prominent corporate display in a concert. I am sure the sponsorship deal comes at a price and delivers lots of those young people.

Late in the show, Gaga thanks her fans and declares she is the “luckiest bitch in the world.” I suspect her next income tax filing will demonstrate she is quite fortunate. Despite the cheering Gaga audience, I did notice there were more people at the Taylor Swift concert.

I guess I am not good at keeping my poker face.

Today a crisis can look at lot different. It’s as innocuous as a comment on the corporate Facebook page complaining about a product. It’s as fleeting as an irate customer tweeting their frustration.

These are like matches being lit in a field of hay. They may burn out. Or they could start a small smoulder. Which could lead to a larger burn and before you know it . . . something anyone would recognize as a crisis.

These matches are being lit all the time. Most of them burn out without consequence. But some don’t. How do you tell the difference?

The reality is you can’t afford to ignore any of them. You need ongoing processes to spot these little flames. You need a new relationship between Corporate Communications and Customer Service to ensure unhappy individuals are being engaged – and their hot anger extinguished – rapidly. You need clear internal accountability to ensure you don’t trip over the fire hose; in other words, don’t duplicate or contradict actions of other departments and functions. You need to track whether a small fire is spreading and you need finely tuned judgment to determine how to intervene. You don’t roll in a fire truck to extinguish a candle. But you don’t wait until the drapes catch fire before you call 911.

It means creating a new capability: micro-crisis management. That is, the orientation, skills and processes to move quickly and engage on what seems a minor matter based on its potential to burn out of your control. It means applying the attitude and techniques of traditional crisis management – fast engagement, focus, transparent communications, demonstrable action, etc. – to what senior management might consider unimportant, inconsequential matters.

It’s a change in attitude, a change in strategy and a change in tactics. But the better you micro-crisis manage, the less you will have to macro-crisis manage.

I will admit that before being invited to the event hosted by our client AIR MILES — the charity’s first and leading corporate donor — I had never heard of motionball and, frankly, hadn’t given the Special Olympics much thought either. But I will now.

Over the course of the day, I met a number of Special Olympians who were helping and challenging tournament participants to various feats of athleticism. (My foursome resorted to bribing the athletes with donations to the Special Olympics to survive.) At the dinner later, there was a cheque presentation (more than $60,000) and an inspiring video about the motionball organization. But that’s not what moved me to want to know more, and do more. It was stories.

Specifically, the stories I heard from one of my golfing partners, an executive at AIR MILES who oversees the company’s philanthropic activities. Over the course of the day, he spoke passionately about the struggles encountered by those with intellectual disabilities, and how the Special Olympics movement brings confidence, friendship, independence and pride to these same people. He talked about the bonds he has formed with some of the athletes that were there that day and their families, and the positive changes he has witnessed in them since they became Special Olympians. It was incredibly powerful. Which brings me to PR.

Stripped down to its base, great PR is about saying things that gets people do what you want them to do. The art, of course, is not just what you say, but how you say it. Last week’s experience reminded me that now — especially now — a good story gets the job done every time.

Images of Hayward at a yacht race off the coast of England were greeted with howls of abuse and protest from the White House right down to the proprietor of a tattoo shop in Larose, Louisiana, who was quoted as saying: “Man, that ain’t right. None of us can even go out fishing, and he’s at the yacht races.”

Hayward has already had a rough run. It’s debatable whether any chief executive, no matter how skilled, could’ve come through these first few months of the crisis intact. But as a recent column in The Globe and Mail noted, Hayward’s foreign-ness, accent, demeanour and unscripted comments haven’t helped BP’s cause with American public opinion. Because in the eyes of the public, Tony Hayward is BP, and vice-versa.

These days scrutiny is 24/7 and senior executives cannot expect to separate their personal activities from their professional role. Optics are everything. If Hayward was going to spend the day off, better to be spotted taking his kids to a museum or mowing his lawn (as long as said lawn was not part of a multi-acre country estate). Down-to-earth, inoffensive, earnest activities that reinforce his modesty and human-ness.  

But he chose to watch his yacht compete in a race. Pretty much the worst possible choice from an optics perspective. The only unpretentious aspect of the story was that his yacht’s name is “Bob.”

Given the power of story, it’s not surprising that this week Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission is opening up the history books and, for the first time, allowing First Nations peoples who were tormented in the residential school system the opportunity to tell their story publicly. Moreover, participation isn’t limited solely to individuals who were enrolled in the system – children of former students as well as any Canadian who feels impacted by this black mark on our history are invited to register and share their tale.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Canada’s Residential School history, it’s not something to brag about as a nation. It was a disgrace, an education system whose objective was to assimilate First Nations children into white society. In total, about 150,000 First Nations, Inuit and Métis children were forced to attend the government and church-sponsored residential school programs, forbidden from speaking their native languages and many were physically and sexually abused. The first school opened in 1861 and the majority of the schools closed in the 1960s (although one remained operational until 1996 in Saskatchewan). If it’s any indication as to how they were treated, individuals who graduated from this system are referred to as “survivors.”

As a human being, I find these stories disturbing. As a former history student, I think that gathering these stories is essential to understanding our country and our past. As a communicator, I feel that these stories will help bind us together so that, hopefully, nothing of this nature can happen again in Canada.

It is common to say that history has a habit of repeating itself. I truly believe that strong communications and avid story sharing can help change that. We all can.

I’m a firm believer that public relations should start with effective internal communications. All too often “communications” focus strictly on external audiences, neglecting to engage those on the inside. The messages within internal and external environments often can be at odds and, occasionally, that conflict creates a communications challenge. It certainly doesn’t benefit the extrenal program.

In reality, an internal communications program is often a marketing orphan. An organization will concentrate much, if not all, of its efforts portraying its brand as one thing, while the internal reality is quite different. And if there is an internal communications program, it’s frequently placed with an employee whose main job is something completely different. He or she often does not have the communications skills – not to mention the time – to make employee communications shine, and frequently is not engaged in the over-arching communications plan.

Compounding the matter can be a leadership team that is out of touch with the real world of employees. The leaders might think, or convince themselves, that everything’s is hunky-dory with staff, so why bother with an internal communications program? You bite into the shiny red apple, only to find the fruit is rotten.

An excellent communications agency brings third-party objectivity to an organization. It’s a fundamental value. And the objective perspective is just as valuable when applied to internal communications. A good agency can recognize and solve challenges within a client’s walls with eyes unclouded by wishful thinking, without being oblivious to problems unnoticed by employees who live and breathe their internal culture every day.

Communications programs that strive to reach outside audiences should be sure to consider internal stakeholders. Employees ideally should understand, embrace, embody and practice everything being preached about their organization.

After all, the “public” of public relations encompasses employees with a vested interest in what their company stands for and says.