Touchdown: The Leafs score on price hike communication

Uncertain economic times call for straight talk. And while companies have a responsibility to maintain long term success, and to determine the best course of action to ensure this, how to present this is a challenge. The Toronto Maple Leafs recently announced they are raising ticket prices by an average 3.5% for next season. Recognizing there is never a good time for a price increase, what is important from a communications perspective is how this announcement was handled. The view among the Veritas team is that, throughout all of the interviews conducted, Tom Anselmi, Maple Leafs Sports & Entertainment executive vice-president and chief operating officer, has remained consistently open and honest. Firstly, he recognized the impact the decision would have on fans. When asked how MLSE weighs ticket increases against what the average fan can afford, he responded "We know we ask a lot of our fans. We're blessed to be in this market. We're blessed to have the kind of loyalty we do. We don't take that for granted for one second. We just got to a place where costs keep going up and we felt we had to do it. We tried to minimize it and make it as painless as possible. I think our fans will understand and we hope they do." Obviously, this isn’t going to magically make everybody happy, but our take is that by acknowledging that it was a tough decision to make and that the primary reason for that was because they considered the fan impact, Anselmi demonstrates a well delivered, sincere and emotional message. He has also been completely transparent, openly sharing all of the reasons for the increase, complete with valid explanations. Avoiding getting into a debate about the numbers he outlined the team’s responsibilities and the financial challenges that come with those, focusing on the message that they are in ‘building mode’ to ensure healthy, continued growth for the organization which to fans means a better hockey team.

Fumble: A-Fraud still can't walk the walk

One of the other things that cheers me, besides the resumption of meaningful golf events like this week’s World Golf Championship, is the start of Major League Baseball spring training. Alex Rodriguez is still the man of the hour given his steroid use confirmation, coupled with former Yankees manager Joe Torre’s great new book that really rips Rodriguez. As Torre’s book points out, the word on Rodriguez is that he was essentially “a fake,” someone who’d say one thing to the media and then act another way. And, sure enough, Rodriguez demonstrated that again this week. As the New York Times put it, A-Fraud “employs a startling number of advisers and image consultants, yet he continues to do things that defy common sense.” Namely, after a game against the Toronto Blue Jays in Dunedin, Florida, Rodriguez left the ballpark in an SUV driven by his cousin, Yuri Sucart. It’s the same cousin he threw under the bus when he claimed Sucart acted as his drug smuggler from 2001 to 2003, bringing him steroids from the Dominican Republic and even injecting him. Yankees General Manager Brian Cashman, who probably wonders about the long term nightmare he signed on for when he acquired Rodriguez from the Texas Rangers, was blunt when asked about it by reporters. “It’s been handled.” Rodriguez can spit out key messages just fine, but he will continue to be believed a fake until he learns to walk the walk. A good lesson for us all.

Touchdown: PGA Tour faces rough times

Consider this: 18 of the PGA Tour's corporate tournament sponsors are either (mostly American) car companies or financial institutions. Now think of what’s happening to American car companies and financial institutions. The Buick logo, so long affixed to Tiger Woods’ golf bag as one of his main sponsors, is gone (as is Buick’s sponsorship of the world’s best player). Players and Tour officials are beginning to understand that tournament purses may need to shrink and that some perks, like free cars from Buick to use all week during a particular event, may be a thing of the past. But unlike automaker CEOs who flew to Washington in private jets looking for bailout money, the golfers deserve a Touchdown for facing up to today’s economic realities. “If I have to rent a car, big deal. We’re out here playing for $6 million a week,” said U.S. Ryder Cup Captain Corey Pavin. “If I have to rent a car for $500 a week, I think I can handle it. I think everybody out here has to understand that. And I think everybody is getting educated out here to understand that.” Tim Rosaforte, the dean of U.S. golf writers, put it in perspective with a good piece in Golf World magazine. In it, player Jay Williamson, a 14-year veteran of the Tour, put it in the right perspective: “I’m shocked that we’re still able to play golf right now. I think in a year, if things don't get better, I really worry where this Tour goes. I just don’t think that if these companies are getting government money, they’re going to able to say. ‘Oh yeah, by the way, we’re going to have a golf tournament next week for $5 million.” Good point.

Touchdown: Ignatieff on oil sands, present & future

The National Post has been giving prominent play to the fact that National Geographic magazine is about to publish a damning, prominent feature on the environmental repercussions of the Alberta oil sands. As the world’s most widely read nature magazine, this article can have a massive impact on opinion right around the globe about what it calls our “dirty oil” operation. Officials in Alberta and Ottawa are buzzing and fretting about it. The challenge for communications people is, what do you do when you’re standing on the tracks staring at the headlight of an approaching train like this? The answer – painful as it might be – is to understand that you can’t stop the train. National Geographic is going to run the story, and it won’t be the last bit pretty. But what do you do afterward? Smart (and directly affected) spinners will get busy – quickly – on pointing to the future, and how steps can and should (and, potentially, “will”) be taken to remediate the environmental impacts (as much as can reasonably be done) of the oil sands operation in future. Which is precisely where Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has landed. He knows better than to denounce the oil sands, for both their political and economic importance, but he also knows there’s ground to be claimed here, and so he needed to balance his messages carefully. “This is a huge industry. It employs Canadians from coast to coast. We have oil reserves that are going to last for the whole of the 21st century. We are where we are. We've got to clean it up and we've got to make it a sustainable place to work and live, not only for the aboriginal population, but for the workers who live there," he said. "My concern is that, at the moment, it's barely environmentally sustainable, and it's barely socially sustainable … We need to move forward. But am I proud of this industry? You bet. It's a world leader. We just need to make it better. But I don't take lessons from the National Geographic." Well played, Iggy.

Touchdown: Ladies bare all

“Steven Page Quits Barenaked Ladies” was the headline, right after the official announcement was made on the band’s website. Quick – what was the last thing you heard about Steven Page? Right … the drug bust last year in New York state. The two must be connected, was the natural assumption – and that was the chatter in the immediate wake of the announcement. However, I must say well done to Page and bandmate Ed Robertson, both of whom availed themselves to major print and broadcast media right after making the split official. Both spoke in detail about changes in musical direction, but also of the unbreakable bond between the two of them as friends, and between Page and the rest of the band, regardless of this parting of the ways. And, they also had no qualms about addressing Page’s legal issue, making clear that while they understood how people might draw a connection, that the split was really was about the music and the future desires of all concerned. By being present in all but the initial breaking story with their comments, Page and Robertson were able to blunt the natural it-was-the-drug-bust conclusion, and make this a story about artists and their future. Had I been consulted (jeez, guys, I’m in the book!), I would have suggested announcing the change initially through a joint interview with a prominent and trusted media outlet, to ensure that the story was properly framed right out of the gate. But on balance, I think things have ended up as they wanted, so again, I’ll give them a Touchdown at the end of the play.

Touchdown, Fumble: Missing skiers in B.C.

What a horrible story. A couple sets out on what’s supposed to be a romantic ski vacation, and end up lost in the Rockies. She dies; he survives and is rescued nine days later. How could this happen? Why were search efforts not mounted sooner, especially when other skiers spotted the desperate “SOS” messages the doomed couple had stamped into the snow as they wandered in search of the way home? These are the pertinent questions, and they were addressed by the RCMP in a news conference yesterday. "There's an error on the part of the RCMP for not initiating a callout on Feb. 21 (the day of the first ‘SOS’ sighting)," RCMP Corporal Dan Moskaluk told reporters. "Search and rescue should have been called out on Feb. 21." Not an ideal thing to have to say, but unlike what we often see in circumstances like this, it’s an honest and obvious answer, and therefore the right one to give in this crisis communications situation for the Mounties. When you’re under fire, and there was obviously a major failure on someone’s part in your organization, the best spin is no spin at all: acknowledge the obvious error, express genuine regret, and then try and focus on ensuring this doesn’t happen again. So a Touchdown, under adverse circumstances, for the RCMP. But I must also call a Fumble on Purcell Helicopter Skiing, ironically the company that spotted the survivor and helped in the rescue. They tried to say they weren’t commenting, but then did so, explaining their reluctance to comment as follows: “"We aren't worried about talking about it. It’s just that we are too busy. We haven't been able to get out for three days – this is the time of year when we make our money," said owner Rudi Gertsch. "We have to concentrate on what were doing." Yeah, good luck with that, Rudi. Yeesh.

Fumble: On-line is forever

Veritas com.motion guest column provided by Ed Lee

When a National Post reporter responded to a potential interviewee’s Twitter update about his abrasive voice message, the social media world got a timely reminder that everything you say can and will be used in evidence against you. David George-Cosh’s (@sirdavid on Twitter) string of expletive-ridden Twitter messages directed towards marketing consultant April Dunford were deleted soon after they were posted but thanks to Google and the quick fingered “ALT + PrtSC” (take a look at your keyboard) Twitterers following the online spat, his words are saved online forever. FUMBLE. However, April took this all in her stride and rose above the vulgarity. Ever the professional, she declared Twictory in the battle for hearts and minds by posting “Re-read what you have just Twittered. Then re-read what I Twittered. Deep breaths David. Calm.” This very public, very much discussed issue shows communicators two things. One, always assume that what your write will be online forever and two, never, ever, respond to online trolls in a similar manner. Remain cool, calm and collected in the face of adversity. Or at least a raging reporter from a national newspaper. Here at com.motion, we always advise our clients in similar situations to take a deep breath, step back and consider how what you may say will affect you, your brand and your employer. Follow April’s example and turn a Fumble into a Touchdown.

Postscript: George-Cosh certainly knew how to go out in a blaze of glory as he has since left these fine shores for a presumably more lucrative role in Dubai. Although I am sure they have Google in Dubai as well…

Touchdown: Maybe it’s not about who is wrong

BY JACK WOJCICKI

The plans to re-enact the battle of the Plains of Abraham has sparked a battle of its own, this one of words. Those for and against came armed with biting commentary, targeted logic and history, and even assaults of downright anger. Through it all they saw but two solutions—conduct the event or cancel it. How tremendously refreshing it was to hear Konrad Sioui, Grand Chief of the Huron-Wendat First Nation offer a constructive alternative for which he gets a Touchdown. Sioui suggested that a “burying the hatchet” ceremony be held as a “treaty of peace and friendship” modeled on the 1701 Great Peace Treaty of Montreal between France and 39 First Nations. He would like to oversee a celebration of alliance “among all the parties wishing to join: First Nations, French, English, Scottish, Irish, new immigrants, sovereigntists, federalists and so on.” Beyond the symbolism of the suggestion lies some very compelling communications. As a leader in his own right he has done what a good leader should do… Find a solution and communicate it in a way that would be seen amicable to any parties affected. It’s often far easier to lash out rather than to remain calm and think of a creative solution. What he has also done is use a timely discussion to forward some of his key messaging—forbearance, forgiveness and an eye to the future. The ability to develop a plan that communicates such positives in the light of such negativity—historically and due to the current situation—marks some adept diplomatic communications and understanding. Indeed, it is the kind of solution and messaging that one would have hoped to have seen coming from either of the parties involved or from the Federal Government itself. And finally, while there may have been the temptation for Sioui to take the ‘Why didn’t anyone ask us?’ stance, he didn’t go there at all. Another mark of a good communicator is to recognize your core message, know how to stick to it and know what would defeat it.

Fumble: Charles retraces his footprint

BY JACK WOJCICKI

When the heads of the Big 3 North American automakers were roasted for their use of corporate jets in their bid to secure money for their companies, notice was served that the world was paying attention to detail. Similarly, when Prince Charles flew to Tokyo to deliver a message about greenhouse gas emissions he was soundly pilloried. "Flying to an environmental award ceremony is a bit like turning up to an Oxfam award ceremony in a stretch limo," said British environmentalist Joss Garman. So when we heard that the Prince of Wales was planning an official visit to South America on a 16,400-mile round trip to promote environmental awareness we thought ‘well Charles must’ve learned his lesson.’ Apparently not. Now it is certainly acceptable for a person of Charles’ status to take a private plane for such a venture, particularly taking security and timing into consideration. The problem is that the aircraft chosen is basically a luxury hotel on wings—an Airbus 319 that normally would seat 134 people which has been extensively modified to accommodate only 29—that will leave a 327 thousand kilogram (322 Ton) carbon footprint. Just what is that saying to the countries he is visiting? And what does it say of England’s commitment to environmentalism in general? And during a time of economic uncertainty on a global scale, doesn’t this communicate financial waste and a laissez-faire attitude? Brand consistency requires consistency of communications as well as actions; indeed these are often two sides of the same coin. We see these examples too often, where people don’t realize that their actions are a form of communication and need to be in line with the messages they are trying to communicate. When they aren’t aligned they nearly always lead to communications fumbles. In this case what is sad is that there are many other environmentally positive things that Charles is doing. Efforts which have been totally overshadowed by this choice of transport and what that seems to say about how he really feels.

Touchdown: A-Rod redux

As a colleague here at Veritas once remarked, “the only way out of the fire is THROUGH the fire.” Regardless of how he may be performing in the execution, Alex Rodriguez is following the right overall crisis communications strategy in trying to turn the page on his steroid-using past. The exclusive interview with an ESPN reporter from whom he would get a fair hearing was the right first step; and this week’s news conference at the New York Yankees’ training camp in Tampa was another one. By letting a mass assembly of the sports reporters who will cover him all season have at him now, he can take his lumps and then credibly pronounce the issue dealt with once the baseball season gets down to business. Finally, by agreeing to become the first celebrity spokesperson for the Taylor Hooten Foundation, established in memory of a young man who died from steroid use, A-Rod is showing that he intends to walk his talk as well.

Touchdown: Harper plays host

I submit that the stakes were higher for Prime Minister Stephen Harper than they were for President Obama during the latter’s visit to Ottawa, and he, too, accomplished what he needed in terms of communications and optics. Like his guest, Harper needed to use this whirlwind visit to score some leadership points. It has been a tough winter for the PM, from the fizzled fiscal update through the political brinksmanship of the opposition coalition, the proroguing of Parliament and the do-over Throne Speech and budget. So basking in the glow of the world’s most popular leader would give Harper some much needed shine as a leader himself, provided he was still able to cast his own shadow – which he did. By showing some firmness in referencing issues like the U.S. position (or lack thereof) on emission targets or Canada’s commitment to North American security, Harper struck that all-important balance between being positioned close to the President of the United States – but not too close. It’s a fine balance to walk, and Harper’s on-the-job performance yesterday, coupled with a refreshingly open interview with Peter Mansbridge on CBC’s The National last night, earned him a communications Touchdown.

Touchdown: Obama takes Ottawa

Sure, he was charming, affable, and even stopped for a Beavertail in the Byward Market on his way home. But there are far more strategic reasons for giving Barack Obama a Touchdown for his efforts in Ottawa yesterday. From a communications standpoint, the U.S. President needed to do a couple of things: first, show himself as comfortable and credible in the role of statesman on this, his first venture out of the United States as its leader. Ottawa makes a great off-Broadway perch in terms of the world political stage, and Obama was very solid indeed in his debut performance. He showed he could engage a foreign leader on some sensitive bilateral issues (i.e. NAFTA, Afghanistan) while holding true to his vision of working co-operatively together for mutual benefit. He needed to show that he will deliver on his promise of change in the way the U.S. deals with the rest of the world. And, he also needed to speak – as all leaders must – to the voters at home, specifically reassuring them that he is capable of balancing global issues with the ultimate best interests of the American people. And finally, it didn’t hurt to also show them that, despite now getting to tour around in Air Force One and being greeted by honour guards and dignitaries, he’s still a regular guy at heart – and that stop in the Byward Market to pick up some presents for the girls was a capper of a photo-op.

Fumble: Christian’s apology “Bale” out

Veritas Team Huddle Compiled By Lauren Cosentino

An audio freak-out by “Dark Knight” star Christian Bale (which happened 7 months ago), a violent on-set outburst toward director of photography Shane Hurlbut, suddenly appeared and went viral in less than 24 hours, leaving Bale in need of a quick communications play. Promptly addressing the issue, Bale called into popular L.A. morning show Kevin and Bean on K Rock FM. While Bale’s public apology leaves no questions unanswered and seems sincere enough, we’re calling it a Fumble. Trying to win back his fans in the apology, Bale allowed hosts Kevin and Bean to poke fun at him while he simultaneously begged for fan forgiveness and threw in shameless movie plugs. Bale also mentioned that he resolved the issue with Hurlbut on the set that same day, but without evidence to prove it this claim is fruitless. This is at least the second time Bale has appeared in the news for anger management issues. If Bale’s brand is going to be “the bully brand” similar to that of Simon Cowell, then this would presumably be a Touchdown for him. Since this doesn’t appear to be the case we at Veritas are giving him a Fumble for brand misidentification. In the communications world, knowing your brand is the key to success and Bale seems to be slightly confused about his right now. Furthermore, if Bale has one more on set blunder like this one, fans will have a hard time believing the sincerity of his next apology or even listening to it. If Bale does care, he needs to counteract it with meaningful interviews and meaningful actions. If he has anger management issues, he needs to say so and indicate how he intends to act to fix the problem.

Fumble: MLB’s inaction on A-Fraud

Given that Major League Baseball held Alex Rodriguez out as proof (as its highest paid player, $28 million U.S. per season) that you can be clean of performance enhancing drugs and still excel, it was hugely disappointing this week to see MLB’s muted reaction to the Sports Illustrated revelation, backed by the player’s own admission, that he did in fact use drugs. Rather than get MLB’s Commissioner Bud Selig out in front of the story in a leadership position, it was left to virtually unknown Major League Baseball Executive Vice President of Labor Relations Rob Manfred to issue a short statement that the league is “disturbed,” has “grave concerns” and is “fully committed” to eliminating drug use in baseball. It was left to others to define the issue from a communications perspective, from disgraced former Cincinnati Reds great Pete Rose to President Barack Obama. MLB’s head-under-the-covers reaction was a clear Fumble. One baseball writer, Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune’s Patrick Reusse, called for Commissioner Selig to resign in favour of someone who will actually fix this mess, which resulted in a telephone call from Selig on Monday. Reusse reported in a subsequent column that Selig was “frustrated,” made several statements “not fit to publish in a family newspaper” and at one point spat out “what do you want?” That’s just unacceptable. A footnote: Rodriguez also Fumbled when he accused Sports Illustrated writer Selena Roberts (who broke the steroids story) in an ESPN interview of “stalking him” and being “cited by the Miami Beach police for trying to break into his home as his daughters slept.” Miami police denied it all. It left A-Fraud, as Rodriguez is now referred to, looking even more foolish.

Fumble: Bailing out on facts

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s release this week of a ‘bank stabilization plan’ reminded me of those old fast-food commercials: “Where’s the beef?” It was very odd after the big setup the night before by President Barack Obama, who in his first nationally televised press conference said he didn’t want to “scoop” Geithner’s big announcement the next day. No danger there Mr. President. Geithner turned out to be as superficial on the subject as Obama was. One of the best takes on this I saw was Cam Harvey’s Global Finance Blog on the Toronto Star website (check it out), where he said: “I was flabbergasted that the plan was so light on details. They have had 3 months to put something together and the best they could deliver is a 7-page fact sheet.” As for Geithner’s comment that the Treasury “will act to prevent the catastrophic failure of financial institutions,” Harvey commented: “There are two ways to translate this. First, he knows more than we do and he is telling us that our financial system is insolvent. Second, it is fear-mongering to get support for this.” There is a great communications lesson here. In the midst of a crisis, we need to be very careful about promoting a “big announcement,” as this one by Geithner was portrayed as being. Secondly, when emotions are running high in a crisis situation like this, when you do make it to the podium you need to be prepared with something to actually say and deliver on. Platitudes like “greater transparency” and “we’re determined to get it right” really beg for ridicule when people are losing their jobs and their homes every day across America. It seemed like Geithner either wasn’t ready, or somebody clipped his wings in terms of the specifics of his announcement. Either way, it was a big disappointment that hurt the new Treasury Secretary’s reputation so early into his tenure.

Touchdown: Obama’s Town Hall meetings

Well, that didn’t last long, did it? Barack Obama has spent a lot of time in Washington since his inauguration trying to win support in Congress for his economic stimulus package. But he obviously remembers that the people who AREN’T in Washington are the ones who sent him there, so he was back outside the beltway this week, first to Elkhart, Indiana and then to Fort Myers, Florida, to sell the plan to actual voters. The warm welcomes and comfortable presence before the assembled masses were all sweet optics for Obama, but all you really had to hear was the comment from one gentleman in Florida who prefaced his question with a thank-you for “coming to listen to us – we haven’t seen that for the last eight years.” The President is among the people, listening first-hand to their challenges, and telling them first-hand about his plan to help. That’s the message that came through loud and clear, and that, my friends, is a Touchdown.

Fumble: Ticketmaster’s ‘no comment’

On the list of corporate entities people love to hate, one can safely number Ticketmaster in amongst the banks, airlines and oil companies. What they all have in common is a perceived control of the marketplace in the areas in which they deal, and Ticketmaster’s ownership of a large chunk of live event ticket sales – plus airline-like surcharges and fees over and above the base ticket price – gives it a special unhappy place in the hearts of many concert-goers. There were numerous comments along the lines of “it’s about time” when first one and then a second class-action lawsuit was launched against Ticketmaster on behalf of fans who felt burned by their purchase experiences. Media had no trouble getting loads of colourful quotes from lawyer Jay Strosberg who filed the suit, and ditto for numerous unhappy customers. Yet Ticketmaster, which is in the throes of merger talks with Live Nation aimed at becoming an even bigger player in live event ticketing, has said absolutely nothing thus far. It’s “no comment” without using the words, and in a situation where there’s a hot story on the go and all of your critics are accusing you of unsavoury practices, by saying nothing you will most likely end up coming across as if you had said at least one word: “guilty.” Now, I stress that none of the allegations contained in the class action suits have been tested in court, but in the court of public opinion, it’s a Fumble for Ticketmaster to stay mum when all else about them are piling on. They don’t need to – and shouldn’t – comment on the specifics of the case filed against them, but a declaration of an intention to defend Ticketmaster’s reputation and some kind of high-road statement about the way they do business would be a place to start at a bare minimum.

Fumble: Obama talks too long

There. I knew that if I really searched, I could find something U.S. President Barack Obama has come up short on, in terms of his communications. And watching his first Presidential news conference this week, it hit me: the guy goes on way too long when answering questions. It’s one thing to rag the puck and chew up the clock in a time-limited debate, but when you’re fielding questions from a full-to-capacity White House press corps, it’s a mistake to prattle on and on and on, for a couple of reasons. First, answers that run well over five minutes in length on average will, by their very design, be unfocused. Make a couple of points, hit a few key messages, and move on. Second, it’s bad media relations, especially for all those who stood no chance of getting their questions in because of the length of Obama’s answers. So there you have it – the first Fumble of Obama’s presidency.

Touchdown: Small ask, big return

Veritas Team Huddle Compiled By Whitney Shanfield

At Veritas we believe that desperate times call for smart communications, which is why this week we give a Touchdown to advertising firm Huxley Quayle von Bismark for the communication of their Only One Project campaign. The campaign began last week as a solution to the large scale layoffs of late in the competitive ad industry. The idea behind Just One Project is this: Huxley Quayle von Bismark is asking major companies with large advertising budgets to give “only one project” to the agency, who will then hire laid-off ad folks on a freelance basis to work on the projects. They claim that one project from major spenders (e.g. Bell) is enough to make a difference in the lives of those who have been laid off but is unlikely to result in further layoffs for competitor agencies currently working on the business. In a difficult financial climate, Huxley Quayle von Bismark have differentiated themselves from their competitors with a campaign that involves helping others during hard times. The campaign resulted in a great feature story in the Globe and Mail and an interview on CFRB, both outlets carrying an audience of prospective clients. The agency also harnessed the power of social media, using Twitter, Facebook, the company blog and a microsite - www.justoneproject.ca - to disseminate their message. We applaud Huxley Quayle von Bismark for using the right vehicles to get the right message to the right people at the right time. The perfect equation for communications success.

Fumble: Lindros penalizes players and fans with his silence

As a player, Eric Lindros was not everyone’s cup of tea. His refusal in 1991 to play by the established rules of the NHL entry draft created no small controversy. And arguably, he never quite lived up to his sky-high expectations, although he was among the league’s most dominant players for the better part of fifteen years. However, as the NHLPA’s first independent ombudsman he seemed to be taking on a truly worthy service to the game of hockey. His job was to be a court of last resort for players who felt ill-used – and a de facto check and balance on both the league and its players’ union. Along with the arrival of Paul Kelly as the NHLPA’s new President, Lindros’ appointment was supposed to signal a fresh start. Or not. Lindros abruptly quit his post earlier this week after months of rumoured tension with Kelly. According to leaks and rumours, Lindros was reportedly doing his job too well and the NHLPA President objected. So why fumble Lindros for taking a principled stand in defence of his own independence? Because we don’t know if that’s what really went down. We don’t honestly know if Kelly was interfering inappropriately or if it was just a personality conflict. We don’t know because Lindros has decided to remain stoically silent. Say what you will for keeping your dirty laundry out of the living room, if Lindros was exercising truly sound communications judgment, he would be sharing his side of things. When hockey fans are left to wonder what the real story is, when others might fill the air with phony versions to suit their own ends and when the NHLPA is still battling to restore the integrity of its brand, Lindros would be well advised to speak up and speak out. After all, he wasn’t shy when it came to saying “Non” to Nordiques fans.

Touchdown: Bonus, we don’t need no stinking bonus

In a logical world, the CEOs of Canada’s banks would be recognized for their superior recent efforts. They would be applauded for largely shielding our financial sector from the weakness that has crippled so many U.S. and global giants. For generally outperforming their international counterparts. For avoiding the paralytic credit crunch that has choked Europe and America. And they would receive bonus cheques commensurate with that achievement. In a logical world. But we live on Earth, not Vulcan. That’s why it was so smart for bank CEOs to step forward earlier this week and voluntarily forfeit their multi-million dollar bonuses. In fact, there are two good communications lessons to be drawn from this single touchdown. First, symbolic gestures count for a lot. By foregoing well deserved pay, the CEOs send an important signal that they ‘get it’ – that they are not oblivious to the hardship so many of their clients are suffering. Second, by sacrificing their bonus pay the CEO’s actually invite positive attention as to how our banks have performed. Such scrutiny would have been impossible to secure were they defending their entitlement to such large top-ups. Goes to show you that there’s more than one way to live long and prosper.

Fumble: Phoenix accentuates negatives

The idea of Joaquin Phoenix quitting his film career to become a full-time rapper is about as bizarre as the physical transition he has gone through recently, but it’s what he has said about it that warrants a closing Fumble for this week. We often talk of the dangers of “parroting” back negative words, phrases or suggestions contained in questions as part of your answer – because as soon as you say it, you own it, regardless of the fact that someone else said it first. Phoenix was responding to swirling – and hardly surprising – rumours that perhaps this whole gambit is nothing more than an elaborate hoax, to draw attention to a new film project, or perhaps just to himself in general. And in responding to those ostensibly negative descriptions of what he’s really up to, Phoenix just gave them all fresh legs by repeating them himself. “There's not a hoax," Phoenix told The Associated Press. "Might I be ridiculous? Might my career in music be laughable? Yeah, that's possible, but that's certainly not my intention." On a separate occasion he told PEOPLE magazine “Are there people out there who think I'm a joke? I'm sure there will be. Are there people who think it's going to suck? Probably, but I can't worry about that." So let’s review: “hoax,” “ridiculous,” “laughable,” “joke,” “suck,” all from his own lips. The lesson? When confronted with negative suggestions about what you’re saying, doing, etc., don’t make the mistake of giving those suggestions new breath yourself by re-stating them. Talk about what it IS, not what it isn’t.

Touchdown: Obama admits he “screwed up” on Daschle

Even when he’s getting one wrong, he’s getting the bigger thing right. U.S. President Barack Obama made no bones about his failure and that of his vetting team with respect to Tom Daschle’s nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Turns out Daschle has a whopping unpaid tax bill that nobody caught before his name was put forward, and he was forced to withdraw as a result. Obama accepted responsibility for the failure of scrutiny, telling a succession of network news interviewers that he and his folks “screwed up.” The President’s candour and willingness to admit a mistake was breathlessly reported by the White House press corps, due largely to the stark contrast of Obama’s actions to that of his predecessor. Which, viewed through a longer lens, is arguably the bigger message: he campaigned on changing the way things are done in Washington, and he’s personally bringing a fresh approach to the office. Now, I’m willing to bet that Obama knows full well that he can only get away with admissions of failure for so long, before they become not a badge of humility but one of incompetence – but that said, if you’re going to admit mistakes, doing so early on the job while still in the full blush of the honeymoon is precisely the right time to do it.

Fumble: Phelps falls in hole and keeps digging

At first, I was going to call a Touchdown for Michael Phelps, last summer’s Olympic hero for winning eight gold swimming medals in Beijing, this winter’s latest casualty of drug use + not-so-good-friend with a cell phone camera. The photo of Phelps taking a hit off a bong at a party was hot news, and when he quickly issued an unqualified mea culpa in a statement to the Associated Press (calling his behaviour “regrettable,” demonstrating “bad judgment” and “youthful and inappropriate”) and vowing that there will not be a repeat, I thought he had played it the best way he could. But it was the subsequent comments made by Phelps later in the week that turned it into a Fumble. He was still contrite, but suddenly began floating the idea of not competing in the 2012 Summer Games as a result of the controversy. “If I decide to walk away, I’ll walk away on my own,” he said, adding that “if it’s now or in four years, who knows … it’s not a decision that I’m going to make today, and I’m not going to make tomorrow.” By entertaining what is – until he actually makes a decision – a hypothetical scenario, Phelps is not only keeping the pot-use story alive, he has now cast a huge pall over his entire future as an Olympic athlete, which holds potentially larger negative impacts on his many endorsement deals. Never, ever speculate about “what if” scenarios, unless it is somehow central to the message you need to convey. That’s obviously not the case with Phelps’ situation – no good can come from uncertainty about his competitive future – so it’s a Fumble.