How have the Leafs made out this off-season?

[BlueWhiteBlood]

Hate that guy.

As do I. But hey, if you get the job, I'll help you sabotage the set.

 

[Champ Kind]

I guess to some people it's obnoxious, to others it's not, the same as I'm sure some posters on this site come across as obnoxious to some and not to others.

Fair enough, I suppose a dogged obligation to defend the team in spite of the facts would strike some posters as pretty relatable.

Nik, in fairness, there's a difference between an executive of an organization and posters who love the team.  I'd say the President of a company has an obligation to defend the organization regardless of whether logic or reason would suggest otherwise.  See BP oil spill disaster.  Not saying it's right, but defense of organizational reputation is central to that position.

 

[Rebel_1812]

I guess to some people it's obnoxious, to others it's not, the same as I'm sure some posters on this site come across as obnoxious to some and not to others.

Fair enough, I suppose a dogged obligation to defend the team in spite of the facts would strike some posters as pretty relatable.

Nik, in fairness, there's a difference between an executive of an organization and posters who love the team.  I'd say the President of a company has an obligation to defend the organization regardless of whether logic or reason would suggest otherwise.  See BP oil spill disaster.  Not saying it's right, but defense of organizational reputation is central to that position.

I agree you should never go  against the family

 

[Kin]

Nik, in fairness, there's a difference between an executive of an organization and posters who love the team.  I'd say the President of a company has an obligation to defend the organization regardless of whether logic or reason would suggest otherwise.  See BP oil spill disaster.  Not saying it's right, but defense of organizational is central to that position.

Well, alright, but let's think about that analogy. If the Maple Leafs can be likened to a Petroleum company in the midst of one of the worst disasters in the last century, and it's a little sad how easily they can, then you're right that that they have a responsibility to address how they are perceived. That's pretty central to public and media relations which, for a brief while, was my field of employ.

What I would say to you is that if you do so in a way that runs into the teeth of the facts my experiences would say that you aren't really defending the organization but instead deepening the problem.

To further your analogy, let's say that during the spill the New York Times had published a piece where they had polled the state of Louisiana and found that, in the opinions of those polled, BP had been doing a terrible job of fixing the damage they caused and that, if given the choice, they'd round up every single BP executive and have them dunked in a river.

If you had asked someone at BP about that hypothetical poll my professional advice would not be to respond by saying that the New York Times is stupid and doesn't know anything about the Ocean. No matter if you think that's true, the story is about your public perception.  If the story is that you have a lousy public perception then the best "defense" is to talk about how you're trying to address that. You don't need to admit it, even if it's staggeringly obvious, because you can say "Look at all the ways in which we are fixing the damage" and air a couple of commercials where your President is scrubbing oil off of seagulls if you like.

One of the categories in ESPN's survey, one that ranked as second in importance only to the wins/affordability ratio they cooked up, was Fan Relations which in their words was defined as "Openness and consideration toward fans by players, coaches and management". The Leafs ranked 119th out of 122 in this category and it's not hard to see why if the response to the news that Leafs fans feel this way is "ESPN doesn't know anything about Hockey or Canada". Leaving aside that it's not true, both of ESPN's lead hockey guys are guys who wrote about the game for Canadian papers and Lebrun in particular is one of the best in my opinion, it doesn't really show a ton of consideration for the problems the fans have with the team, does it?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Good post, but comparing ESPN to the New York Times was a 'jump the shark' moment, maybe the National Enquirer would have worked better.

 

[Kin]

Good post, but comparing ESPN to the New York Times was a 'jump the shark' moment, maybe the National Enquirer would have worked better.

It's a fair point. To be clear I'm not a huge fan of ESPN and in particular I'd agree that they are often lacking in rigorous journalistic standards(although the NYT can be too).

What I think is a bit funny is that to me, as someone who not only read that oral history of ESPN but also who reads sites like Deadspin and Awful Announcing who specialize in highlighting ESPN's follies, ESPN's biggest failures are often related to the fact that they're covering sports that they have the rights to broadcast and so seem overly interested in promoting them and avoiding criticism. Because they don't broadcast the NHL, I've often thought that their hockey coverage is free from a lot of that nonsense and that, for them, it's pretty good work.

 

[Champ Kind]

Nik, in fairness, there's a difference between an executive of an organization and posters who love the team.  I'd say the President of a company has an obligation to defend the organization regardless of whether logic or reason would suggest otherwise.  See BP oil spill disaster.  Not saying it's right, but defense of organizational is central to that position.

Well, alright, but let's think about that analogy. If the Maple Leafs can be likened to a Petroleum company in the midst of one of the worst disasters in the last century, and it's a little sad how easily they can, then you're right that that they have a responsibility to address how they are perceived. That's pretty central to public and media relations which, for a brief while, was my field of employ.

What I would say to you is that if you do so in a way that runs into the teeth of the facts my experiences would say that you aren't really defending the organization but instead deepening the problem.

To further your analogy, let's say that during the spill the New York Times had published a piece where they had polled the state of Louisiana and found that, in the opinions of those polled, BP had been doing a terrible job of fixing the damage they caused and that, if given the choice, they'd round up every single BP executive and have them dunked in a river.

If you had asked someone at BP about that hypothetical poll my professional advice would not be to respond by saying that the New York Times is stupid and doesn't know anything about the Ocean. No matter if you think that's true, the story is about your public perception.  If the story is that you have a lousy public perception then the best "defense" is to talk about how you're trying to address that. You don't need to admit it, even if it's staggeringly obvious, because you can say "Look at all the ways in which we are fixing the damage" and air a couple of commercials where your President is scrubbing oil off of seagulls if you like.

One of the categories in ESPN's survey, one that ranked as second in importance only to the wins/affordability ratio they cooked up, was Fan Relations which in their words was defined as "Openness and consideration toward fans by players, coaches and management". The Leafs ranked 119th out of 122 in this category and it's not hard to see why if the response to the news that Leafs fans feel this way is "ESPN doesn't know anything about Hockey or Canada". Leaving aside that it's not true, both of ESPN's lead hockey guys are guys who wrote about the game for Canadian papers and Lebrun in particular is one of the best in my opinion, it doesn't really show a ton of consideration for the problems the fans have with the team, does it?

Look, a response as well thought out and precise as this is tough to argue.  My basic point was, however, that I think it's natural for an executive of an organization to defend it from criticism.  Required, in fact.  Burke does it in an over the top manner, but I wouldn't expect him to be as impartial as an outsiode observer would be. 

I agree with what you said, and it compounds a problem to deny the obvious.  So while my analogy was likely less than ideal when the layers of the onion are peeled away, I think my fundamental observation of stating that executives will tow the company line holds.

 

[caver]

Champ, I am glad you qualified your "comparison". And likening a sports team's losing record to "one of the worst disasters in the last century" is ridiculous. I hope the season is not delayed too long so that stories like the ESPN ratings or Mike Brown's beard are not news, real hockey will be.

 

[Kin]

So while my analogy was likely less than ideal when the layers of the onion are peeled away, I think my fundamental observation of stating that executives will tow the company line holds.

Well, I liked the analogy but to be clear I agree 100% that an executive staying on message is expected and that defending the organization from criticism shouldn't strike anyone as a surprise.

But to re-iterate this criticism came from Maple Leafs fans. People who are, in theory, the clients or customers. So while a response is still expected it can't be dismissive if you want to address or correct the issues raised.

As maybe a more direct comparison I'd compare it to when the Blue Jays ownership/management gets asked about spending money. They defend the team, they make their case but they acknowledge that the perception is out there and how they want to address it.

 

[Bullfrog]

And likening a sports team's losing record to "one of the worst disasters in the last century" is ridiculous.

Which is probably why no one has done so. The comparison (I'm talking about Nik's) was about how an executive might have handled a particular criticism. In this light I thought the analogy was excellent.

I don't have a problem with Burke defending his team even when the criticism is well earned. But at least do it intelligently. Saying that ESPN doesn't know anything about hockey and Canada is just ignorant.

 

[Kin]

And likening a sports team's losing record to "one of the worst disasters in the last century" is ridiculous.

Indeed it is. So much so that I'd hope that my "it's a little sad how easily they can" would be seen as somewhat tongue in cheek. For clarity's sake, I do not believe the Toronto Maple Leafs are exactly the same as British Petroleum.

 

[hockeyfan1]

I don't have a problem with Burke defending his team even when the criticism is well earned. But at least do it intelligently. Saying that ESPN doesn't know anything about hockey and Canada is just ignorant.

Perhaps Burke is fed up and frustrated at the criticism leveled at the Leafs from every corner, so to speak.  While defending the organization is understandable, his statement about ESPN was not particularly well-intentioned, especially when the evidence (of the Leafs woes) still presents itself.