[Cracked Sidewalks] Marquette's PR Nightmare

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

Marquette's PR Nightmare

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Alan Bykowski)

It seems like a lifetime ago, but I used to work in television news here in Milwaukee. I was a huge fan of Alderman Michael McGee, not because I agreed with him, but because every time he stepped in front of a microphone, he gave us a story. McGee was constantly making controversial, borderline racist, or simply stupid comments that made him a newsman's dream. Then he was arrested for racketeering and sent to prison, which was great for his constituents but disappointing for the media.

The reason I mention this is because over the past few months, Marquette's handling of the October sexual harassment/assault case has felt like this. Every time the University has proverbially gotten in front of a microphone, they've kept the story alive and ended up with more egg on their face. The admission of a history of law-breaking, the resignation of Cottingham being directly linked to the incident, and Buzz being put into an interview about the topic while being handcuffed as to what he could say.

At the same time, Marquette was being lambasted in the media by District Attorney John Chisholm, the Chicago Tribune, and Journal-Sentinel writer Michael Hunt. I don't intend this article to kick Marquette while they are down. The situation was handled poorly, I don't think even Marquette would deny that right now. But there are lessons to be learned here, both in terms of the past and the future.

Marquette's error was not getting out in front of the story. Here's how they could have better handled it:

• Come out with a statement in March when the story was first breaking online announcing that DPS made a thorough investigation but that it has now been forwarded to MPD and all future inquiries should go there.
• If the policy needed to be revised, so be it, but do it under the auspices of helping students rather than admitting a history of law-breaking, especially as it doesn't seem to be illegal to not report a crime you don't believe happened.
• Ask Cottingham to stay around until the end of the year so he can assist in the search for a replacement and to distance his departure from the incident.
• Don't have anyone speak on the incident if they aren't adding to the discussion.
• When criticism comes, weather the storm. Cottingham's resignation in light of the Tribune article and Buzz's interview right after the Hunt editorial only led to further criticism.

Going forward, two things have become evident. First, Marquette needs to improve their ability to manage crises. Whether they create an internal department to handle situations like this or hire an outside public relations firm, Marquette can't simply get by with good intentions because in the age of a 24/7 news cycle, their intentions will be twisted and interpreted in a way that makes for the best (read: worst) headline.

Second, Marquette needs to conduct a thorough nationwide search for Cottingham's replacement. With the media scrutiny major programs are under, negative publicity will come again. In addition, conference realignment, television contracts, and growth of the Marquette brand are all things that have to be considered in the coming years. The ideal candidate should have experience in PR, law, media, and sports. It won't be an easy process, and it shouldn't be a quick one. That doesn't mean the hire can't ultimately be someone with Marquette  ties, or even in-house, but the impression given has to be that there is  a new sheriff in town.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/07/marquettes-pr-nightmare.html

[4everwarriors]

Damn, I clicked on this hopin' to read about my good friend, Rican.

[brewcity77]

Damn, I clicked on this hopin' to read about my good friend, Rican.

+1

I didn't even think of that when writing the title.

[Benny B]

Two responses:

1) Without a doubt, the new AD has to be comfortable in front of the media.  Someone who hides behind PR guys or secretaries isn't going to cut it for an institution that is will be walking on eggshells in front of the media for the foreseeable future.

2) Is it commonplace for a university of MU's stature to have a separate PR department for the athletic program?  I'm not just talking a different PR team, but one that is completely autonomous from the University's PR dept.

In any event, it just doesn't seem like MU has it together when it comes to PR... I get the impression that everything's in disarray, i.e. a fractured hierarchy with no oversight and a bunch of people - who are better suited for marketing or media relations as opposed to crisis management/damage control - making critical decisions independently that don't reflect any input or direction from the rest of the team or University.

Or maybe the PR dept is well-organized, but the people just suck.  Who knows?

[Henry Sugar]

Thanks for writing this up, Alan.

[MUMBA]

Is Marquette's problem just a PR problem?

What circumstances are giving rise to these PR incidents?  Seems the real problem lies one level deeper, and the PR fiasco is a symptom of that problem.  A remedy for the PR mess is like trimming tree branches instead of striking at the root. 

Given the lack of info, I don't expect anybody on this board will be able to offer an informed guess as to what the deeper problem is or why our school, students, and atheletes have found themselves in these unfortunate circumstances 2x's.  Pin down that problem and propose a solution and there's no PR fires to put out (easier said than done).

[GGGG]

Given the lack of info, I don't expect anybody on this board will be able to offer an informed guess as to what the deeper problem is or why our school, students, and atheletes have found themselves in these unfortunate circumstances 2x's.  Pin down that problem and propose a solution and there's no PR fires to put out (easier said than done).

Well, MU's leadership has always been a little tone deaf and secretive. 

Nickname... relocation of Wisconsin Avenue... the lesbian dean candidate... this issue...  In many ways it mirrors the PR of the Catholic Church during the sex abuse scandal.  Their initial reaction is to be quiet and defensive.  They don't really seek out advice.  They don't float trail balloons. 

[LCDutchman]

Word to the wise, Buzz is the problem not the solution.

[79Warrior]

Well, MU's leadership has always been a little tone deaf and secretive. 

Nickname... relocation of Wisconsin Avenue... the lesbian dean candidate... this issue...  In many ways it mirrors the PR of the Catholic Church during the sex abuse scandal.  Their initial reaction is to be quiet and defensive.  They don't really seek out advice.  They don't float trail balloons. 
[/quote

Agree completely

[Pakuni]

Is Marquette's problem just a PR problem?

What circumstances are giving rise to these PR incidents?  Seems the real problem lies one level deeper, and the PR fiasco is a symptom of that problem.  A remedy for the PR mess is like trimming tree branches instead of striking at the root. 

Given the lack of info, I don't expect anybody on this board will be able to offer an informed guess as to what the deeper problem is or why our school, students, and atheletes have found themselves in these unfortunate circumstances 2x's.  Pin down that problem and propose a solution and there's no PR fires to put out (easier said than done).

There is no deeper problem. Or at least not one that Marquette is uniquely capable of addressing.
As long as you have young people of opposite sexes living together or in very close proximity - most of them away from home for the first time - you're going to see these "unfortunate circumstances." Particularly when you toss alcohol into the mix, which studies show plays a part in as many as 90 percent of all reported sex assaults on campuses. Not to be overly fatalistc, particularly about a terrible crime, but it seems the only way to truly avoid this on a college campus is not to have a college campus.
Marquette is far from alone in dealing with these issues and, as much as we all want to believe MU is a special place filled with only special people, realistically there's no reason to believe there's anything unique or unusual - good or bad - happening at Marquette the past nine months. All that's happened is that a couple of these cases a) involved athletes and b) were made public.

[Benny B]

There is no deeper problem. Or at least not one that Marquette is uniquely capable of addressing.
As long as you have young people of opposite sexes living together or in very close proximity - most of them away from home for the first time - you're going to see these "unfortunate circumstances." Particularly when you toss alcohol into the mix, which studies show plays a part in as many as 90 percent of all reported sex assaults on campuses. Not to be overly fatalistc, particularly about a terrible crime, but it seems the only way to truly avoid this on a college campus is not to have a college campus.
Marquette is far from alone in dealing with these issues and, as much as we all want to believe MU is a special place filled with only special people, realistically there's no reason to believe there's anything unique or unusual - good or bad - happening at Marquette the past nine months. All that's happened is that a couple of these cases a) involved athletes and b) were made public.

You can't get more informed than this.  Well said.

[Pakuni]

Word to the wise, Buzz is the problem not the solution.

I also blame Buzz Williams for a university policy enacted six years before he set foot on campus.

[TallTitan34]

For what it's worth, the vast majority of the PR hit is only in Wisconsin.  I realize it was in the Chicago Tribune but no one here even gave it a second thought it unless they are an alum or possibly a parent sending their child.

The rest of the country doesn't really care about Marquette news.  This isn't even a 1/1000 of the PR hit Notre Dame took in its case just because of the Notre Dame name.

[brewcity77]

There is no deeper problem. Or at least not one that Marquette is uniquely capable of addressing.
As long as you have young people of opposite sexes living together or in very close proximity - most of them away from home for the first time - you're going to see these "unfortunate circumstances." Particularly when you toss alcohol into the mix, which studies show plays a part in as many as 90 percent of all reported sex assaults on campuses. Not to be overly fatalistc, particularly about a terrible crime, but it seems the only way to truly avoid this on a college campus is not to have a college campus.
Marquette is far from alone in dealing with these issues and, as much as we all want to believe MU is a special place filled with only special people, realistically there's no reason to believe there's anything unique or unusual - good or bad - happening at Marquette the past nine months. All that's happened is that a couple of these cases a) involved athletes and b) were made public.

I agree with most of this. Problems are going to happen, Marquette just needs to improve how they manage those problems. I don't think anything that happened in this incident is likely any worse than anything going on elsewhere, but the way it was dealt with after the fact was.

[MUMBA]

There is no deeper problem....As long as you have young people of opposite sexes living together or in very close proximity - most of them away from home for the first time - you're going to see these "unfortunate circumstances."

I understand what you are saying, and the thought has occurred to me as well.  But I think the fact that so many of us quickly resign ourselves to this train of thought is promblematic in itself.  

Take the all-to-willing dismissiveness of some fans (self included) and stir it up with hero worship of maturing 19-20yo's, BMOC entitlement issues, binge drinking, big $'s, and lessons in relationship dynamics learned from reality TV and you have the makings of a problem.  I'm not saying this combo of factors is unique to Marquette or a simple black-and-white issue to isolate and solve.  But I don't think we should resign ourselves to "assault happens" so quickly.  

[NotAnAlum]

Word to the wise, Buzz is the problem not the solution.

I find it very hard to believe that Buzz is the cause of this.  It is just totally out of character based on his background, his family situation, his Christian commitment and everything he has done on campus up until now (giving his cell phone number out to any student) to then suddenly turn into Richard Nixon, leaning on people to cover stuff up, giving athletes free passes on moral issues.  I can see Buzz being a little naive and maybe speaking what he thinks is the truth when he should have been more politically correct but if you are saying he is running a dirty program to advance his agenda sorry you're going to have to show a lot more proof.  I think a few kids got out of line and the incidents happened to bunch up.  Probably there wasn't enough moral guidance from upper classmen on the team after Lazar left.   If so that is kind of a consequence the "missing recruiting class" when Crean left.(although based on what T Taylor did at Kansas maybe having him as an upper classman here might not have helped).   I'm prepared to withhold judgement for at least another year.  If the incidents keep on coming maybe you have to look at Buzz but if so I think it will be more about him not being prepared to handle this part of the head coaches job then some kind of calculated "Win at any cost" agenda.  

[brewcity77]

Well, I'm still wholly unconvinced "assault happened" in the first place. If the girl was really so upset, why did she wait 5 months to come forward? Why didn't she go to MPD when given the opportunity? Why did DPS find insufficient evidence to even think it was worth mentioning to MPD?

I know, devil's advocate position, but there sure are a lot of question marks as to whether this was as serious as the Mike Hunts of the world make it out to be.

[Pakuni]

I understand what you are saying, and the thought has occurred to me as well.  But I think the fact that so many of us quickly resign ourselves to this train of thought is promblematic in itself.  

Take the all-to-willing dismissiveness of some fans (self included) and stir it up with hero worship of maturing 19-20yo's, BMOC entitlement issues, binge drinking, big $'s, and lessons in relationship dynamics learned from reality TV and you have the makings of a problem.  I'm not saying this combo of factors is unique to Marquette or a simple black-and-white issue to isolate and solve.  But I don't think we should resign ourselves to "assault happens" so quickly.  

I intentionally avoided using the word "assault" or anything similar - choosing instead your "unfortunate circumstances" - because, as Brew points out, we have no idea whether any assault took place. What we do know tends to indicate it either didn't or at the very there's no strong indication that it did.
Regardless, as much as I hope MU does everything in its power to prevent any kind of crime on or around campus, I'm also enough of a realist to know that it's going to happen despite the university's best efforts.
Don't mistake that for acceptance and/or tolerance of bad acts. But Marquette - or any other school - lacks the wherewithal to govern the behavior of several thousand young adults.

[tower912]

Part of Marquette's issue is being hamstrung by rules.    DPS did an investigation.    They found violations worthy of sanctioning within the university system, but not that rose (in their opinion) to the level of crime.    Twice.   And twice the victim was made aware of the option of going to MPD directly and immediately.   Twice, they chose not to.    Once those decisions were made, within the rules as they were at the time, MU was out of options.      They cannot name names.    They cannot make known exculpatory information.       It spun out of control in how they handled changing their rules regarding reporting these incidents and in the timing of Cottingham leaving.   Don't we still have PR majors hanging around?    

[brewcity77]

What tower says really highlights the problems behind Buzz's ill-timed interview with Don Walker. He was put out there to speak for Marquette, but what could he say? He can't identify the individuals or even the sport they played. All he could do was condemn sexual assault, and saying you're against sexual assault, especially for a man in Buzz's place and possessed of his faith, is self-evident. So the JS blasted him again, even though there was nothing else he could say. Just a bad idea to allow those topics to be on the table.

[Benny B]

Well, I'm still wholly unconvinced "assault happened" in the first place. If the girl was really so upset, why did she wait 5 months to come forward? Why didn't she go to MPD when given the opportunity? Why did DPS find insufficient evidence to even think it was worth mentioning to MPD?

I know, devil's advocate position, but there sure are a lot of question marks as to whether this was as serious as the Mike Hunts of the world make it out to be.

I said it before, I'll say it again... 50% of sexual assault claims are complete b.s. & 50% of actual sexual assaults are never reported.

[Unless you live in Iran or Syria where all sexual assault claims are completely bogus and 0% of actual victims live to see the accused brought to justice.  <--- Not meant to be an optimistic perspective, but in the grand scheme, it's hard to argue against the concept that while not perfect, MU still remains at the opposite end of the spectrum from "evil."]

I'm all for going online & anonymously trashing someone or something that deserves it, but lest we forget that Marquette - on the whole - does do a lot of things "right," I think 'guilty until proven innocent' should be taken into account here, especially since we are, in fact, dealing with criminal allegations.  There's irony to be found in how the Journal-Sentinel will omit race/ethnicity of minority suspects from police APB's, but they won't hesitate to accuse the Marquette basketball team, the entirety which is made up of minorities, of criminal activity before the case even gets to trial.  But when you understand that the J-S is a business and controversy - real or fabricated - sells papers, such irony is not surprising (perhaps should be expected) considering that today's media is rife with hypocrisy.

Regardless, something needs to be set straight here: contrary to what some people believe, Marquette has not been "breaking the law" for the last ten years.. the policy simply hasn't been compliant.  "Non-compliance" is not synonymous with "illegal."  Granted, they usually go hand in hand, but in this case, as Brew pointed out, you can't be in violation of the law for not reporting a crime that you didn't believe occurred.  I'm sure that I'm non-compliant with the law because I've had a policy for ten years to bitch-slap (for no less than 15 seconds) aboriginal Canadians who piss me off... but I've never been pissed off by an aboriginal Canadian in the last ten years, so guess what --- I've never broken the law.

If there's any deeper issue to be found here, it's that there is no shortage of anti-Catholic and anti-private school bias in Wisconsin (not to mention that most residents are still afraid of minorities unless they play for the Packers).  Accordingly, Marquette is always going to be fighting an uphill battle, more so when a negative situation involves the basketball program.  Marquette's systemic fault here is that they simply do not do a good job of defending themselves - part of that by design, part of that probably just plain incompetence - which allows these accusations to become a media circus and tried court of public opinion.

Nonetheless, I do not for a moment believe that Marquette is doing anything sinister, and I don't believe anything is being covered-up.  Sure, there may be idiots somewhere in the ranks, but show me a university, business, government, etc. that has never hired (or elected) a f#$!-up, and I'll give you $1.00.

Could Marquette have done a better job in this fiasco?  Absolutely, but action should be judged based upon intent, not the public opinion of the result.  Unfortunately, the latter is all too common these days.

[HouWarrior]

You nailed the weak area of MU in the handling-PR crisis response. In other posts I reviewed the criminal and civil legal responses.

1-There appears to be no criminal cases==A

2-By volunteering to meet with DA, have procedures reviewed, and making a good minor reporting procedure tweak ,the school showed responsiveness, and cure...which goes a long way in their civil defense == B (the prior reporting flaw loses them a grade. here).

3-Early on I posted the suspicion the plaintiff would go media leaking, in prep for the civil suit, as its great for settlment leverage, and to taint your jury pool(--many of whom will recall hearing something on this). It happened...I'll wager at least one of the early reports will eventually be shown to be sourceable to a plaintiff, or her atty (much of the rest of the reporting is just follow the story--so, many subsequent stories may well be independent pile ons--plaintiffs plan/hope for the snowball, like the one here). So.....

even though MU handled 1 and 2 OK, and it should have fully expected 3, it seemed confused, and almost amatuerish in handling/coordinating their counter in the media. They didnt/dont even need a permanent PR staffer...either the school or its counsel shouldve engaged a media crisis consultant for a few hours ---yes there are many of them...(just google it-lol)...SEE:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-08-28-college-consultants_x.htm

..any experienced pro would have had them saying and doing the right things, at the right time, through the right sources (regret, concern, proactive review and cure, ongoing commitment to the safety and welfare of students, etc....weve all seen and heard it done).

I'm sorry but the MU handling of their side of the coin, in area 3 == D plus

....D plus!....For you Tommy Boy fans.....:

.."Sorry, Pardon Me. Can I just check this out? D-plus? Oh, my god. I passed! I passed! Oh, man! I got a D-Plus! I'm going to graduate!...
...and..
."Apparently they (MU)give a lot fewer D-pluses than D-minuses. ...It's not a grade they like to give out. I'll tell you that right now...."
-Tommy Boy


But seriously, ..Wouldnt our admin., at least bring in a Comm Dept person to help/advise on this?  Even I as a shmo idiot lawyer, have learned to adopt the original thread points, and we incorporate such, as part of an overall defense plan for clients.

It sure seems...More than a few share blame in the MU shortcomings in this area., 3.

[4everwarriors]

Well, I'm still wholly unconvinced "assault happened" in the first place. If the girl was really so upset, why did she wait 5 months to come forward? Why didn't she go to MPD when given the opportunity? Why did DPS find insufficient evidence to even think it was worth mentioning to MPD?

I know, devil's advocate position, but there sure are a lot of question marks as to whether this was as serious as the Mike Hunts of the world make it out to be.

Worldly Mike Hunts.................nice!

[brewcity77]

+1 4ever...I struggle to call him "Michael"

Back on topic, I just wanted to thank everyone for keeping this on-topic. This article took 4-5 drafts and about a week of discussion back and forth between the CS staff. Ultimately, we wanted something that would be more constructive on the topic than much of what's been written on message boards like this one, the Scout sites, or JS Online. I think this thread has done a great job of doing that. I hesitated to even publish this simply because I wasn't sure the can of worms needed to be reopened, but I'm glad we went ahead.

[Marquette84]

Regardless, something needs to be set straight here: contrary to what some people believe, Marquette has not been "breaking the law" for the last ten years.. the policy simply hasn't been compliant.  "Non-compliance" is not synonymous with "illegal."  Granted, they usually go hand in hand, but in this case, as Brew pointed out, you can't be in violation of the law for not reporting a crime that you didn't believe occurred. 

Actually, I think you need to be "set straight here."

Contrary to what you believe, MU was required to report the alleged crime:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf
"Any unlicensed private security person who has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."

Obviously, MU had reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed because they took the time and effort to investigate it themselves.