PDA

View Full Version : IBJ > Pacers' Next Fight? Damage Control



ChicagoJ
12-16-2004, 02:35 PM
This week
VOL. 25 NO. 38, NOVEMBER 29-DEC. 5, 2004

Pacers' next fight? Damage control
Team faces PR battle to keep fans, sponsors
By Anthony Schoettle (aschoettle@ibj.com)
IBJ Reporter

What do you think of the response of the Pacers organization to the episode in Detroit?
Click here to join IBJ's disussion forum. (http://www.ibj.com/discussion.asp)

Surveying the damage inflicted by the Nov. 19 melee in Detroit to the Indiana Pacers' image, prospects for a championship, and potentially the NBA team's bottom line, team officials had one goal: perseverance.

"We owe that much to our players, our fans and our community," co-owner Herb Simon concluded in a statement Nov. 21.

There is much to mend in the relationship between those who consume the Pacers' entertainment and those who provide it after the team's three leading players waded into the stands at The Palace in Auburn Hills, Mich., and fought with fans. NBA Commissioner David Stern dealt those players the harshest non-drug-related penalties in league history.

"This is a brutally tough marketing challenge," said Richard Sheehan, a University of Notre Dame economist and author of "Keeping Score: The Economics of Big-Time Sports."

"I think the Pacers as a franchise this year are simply screwed," he said. "How in the world do you market this to the fan?"

For a team with championship aspirations and a fast start, the turn of events dismayed fans and riled pundits across the country. An already-injury-depleted lineup meant just six players were available for the Nov. 20 game, which the Pacers narrowly lost.

Three days later, the team handily defeated the Boston Celtics at Conseco Fieldhouse, but still faced a daunting schedule with Ron Artest, who led the charge into the stands, out for the remainder of the season. All-star Jermaine O'Neal and newcomer Stephen Jackson are out until mid-January.

"Going into this with the idea of just mitigating the damage is a flawed strategy. They have to take control of the situation and turn it into a positive" by taking more responsibility and being more upfront with fans, observed Dean Bonham, former Denver Nuggets president and founder of Colorado sports marketing firm The Bonham Group.

Certainly, the franchise has suffered a massive public relations black eye that could cost more than $1.5 million in lost ticket revenue and another $2 million in lost concession, parking and merchandise sales this season alone, sports business experts estimated.

NBA officials said the Pacers can't count on realizing any savings from players suspended without pay. Although league officials Nov. 24 were still trying to determine where the $11.8 million from suspended Pacers players' salaries would go, it won't end up in the team's coffers. The league will probably split the money among a number of causes, anti-violence charities among them.

For now, Pacers pillar sponsors such as Bank One and Sport Graphics have vowed to stay with the team, but several sponsors said they'll be watching closely how the team handles the situation in the weeks to come. The effects, as well as the event, are unprecedented.

"I'm not sure people understand the enormity of this situation," said Randy Schwoerer, president of Schwoerer & Associates, a local sports and marketing consultancy. "The Pacers are already marketing around this; you can see that by their public statements.

"I think players, coaches and executives need to be very, very careful here," he added. "This is already a defining moment in the team's history. How dark the moment is may depend largely on how they respond to this crisis."

While there's a groundswell of local support for the Pacers, detractors also are coming forward. Some fans who own season tickets and other ticket packages say they are not getting the product they purchased.

If the team can't maintain its winning ways, sports marketers said, the grumbling will become much louder.

"Certainly, there's no guarantee issued with these tickets and players do get injured," said Milton Thompson, president of Grand Slam Cos., a local sports marketing firm. "But people bought their tickets thinking the Pacers would be competing for an NBA championship. And to the extent that the players' absence is due to behavior that the team should have been able to control, that is a different scenario."

Emergency preparedness

Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh wasted little time pulling together the organization's legal team and public relations personnel immediately following the incident.

But Walsh wasn't alone in his effort. This nightmare was so real, and the ramifications loomed so large, normally hands-off owners Herb and Mel Simon also quickly became involved, sources close to the team said.

"The Simons are sharp businessmen," said Mark Rosentraub, a former IUPUI dean and author of "Major League Losers," a book about professional sports operations. "They understand what's at stake."

The team's tactical response was led by a statement released late Nov. 21 by Herb Simon, within hours of Stern's announcement that Artest would be suspended for the remainder of the season, Jackson would be lost for 30 games, and O'Neal would be out for 25.

"While we do not condone some of the actions of the players involved, we do consider the action taken Sunday by the National Basketball Association to be unprecedented and inappropriate based on the circumstances," Simon said in the statement. "We believe that there was a rush to judgment and not enough opportunity for all sides to be heard."

The next day, Pacers Coach Rick Carlisle--along with players Reggie Miller, who received a one-game suspension for his part in the melee, and Austin Croshere--were brought in for a carefully orchestrated press conference. Walsh and Larry Bird, president of basketball operations, appeared immediately afterward in a separate press conference.

Later that day, the team issued statements from Artest, O'Neal and Jackson.

Meanwhile, Pacers officials were phoning and faxing their best season-ticket holders, suite holders and sponsors to reassure them of the team's commitment to winning games.

Tactical error?

Ernie Reno, a crisis communication specialist and president of locally based Avatar Communications Group, was not impressed by the Pacers' initial moves. With legal and marketing issues so tightly wound, any misstep could cost millions in lost fan and sponsor loyalty, in addition to lawsuits already being filed in Michigan courts.

"The response to this episode on the part of the Pacers represents a measurable lack of planning," Reno said. "The most glaring error in judgment that I perceived is the failure, by all parties involved, to accept their level of responsibility.

"The Pacers, along with the NBA and Detroit Pistons, are trying to spin this in their own way," he added. "The public will eventually see through it and all parties will have a bigger problem."

The Pacers may not value Reno's opinion on crisis management, but they'll likely be concerned about what he says as an avid sports fan and father. It's unlikely he will take his family to another Pacers game.

Fans' drunkenness, swearing and ranting are too prevalent at professional sports, he said, including at the Fieldhouse.

"It isn't just me saying this; it's many of my friends who have families," Reno said. "I can no longer justify subjecting my children to this."

This is a particularly important time for Pacers officials to reach out to individual fans. The corporate demand for tickets has fallen dramatically since the Fieldhouse opened for the 1999-2000 season. Average per-game attendance has declined from the capacity of 18,345 during the inaugural season to 16,558 last season.

The Pacers have made a concerted effort to attract more walk-up ticket sales to fill the corporate void over the last two seasons.

"The loyal, long-term fans will stay with the team, but the casual fans, which are so critical now, are at severe risk," sports analyst Bonham said.

The day following the Pacers press conference, sports marketers said Artest made matters worse by giving a rambling interview to Matt Lauer on "The Today Show." Artest not only deflected responsibility for the incident, but also took the opportunity to promote his music label.

The display showed just how little control the Pacers have over the situation, industry sources said, with one close to the team saying Pacers brass were upset by the interview.

"Artest's comments during 'The Today Show' interview shows he still doesn't get it," Reno said. "Despite all that has happened, Artest didn't miss an opportunity to use the folks at NBC to promote his rap album."

Reno added, "Perhaps Artest can take comfort in the fact that he has a kindred spirit in David Stern, who, while condemning the brawl, refuses to acknowledge any culpability on behalf of the NBA."

Stern, like Walsh, is an attorney.

With lawsuits already pending from fans who claim they were injured in the brawl, and appeals from the NBA Player's Association up in the air, Grand Slam's Thompson, who also is an attorney, said the team's marketing and public relations arms might be tied by the legal staff.

"Everyone will craft their statements to avoid legal liability," he said. "If you say it's our fault, you accept liability. I'm sure the Pacers want to be careful not to admit guilt in a civil or criminal way."

Bonham thinks compromising fan and sponsor communication to protect the team legally is a slippery slope.

"Communicating to fans and sponsors better be a front-burner issue," he said. "They can't afford any confusion right now about the future of this team. That will certainly multiply any losses."--




https://www.ibj.com/topstories.asp?A=16959

ChicagoJ
12-16-2004, 06:53 PM
Didn't we hear rumours of two sponsors either threatening to pull out or reduce thier contracts with the Pacers. Does anyone know anything more about that?

I know the letter I got from DW, which presumably was the same form letter every other season ticket holder got, was fully into crisis/ apology/ we'll do better mode.

able
12-16-2004, 07:54 PM
Sorry, Jay this is not to you, but this articles is not only very badly written, it is also not researched, no fact checks and moronically self indulgant.

We now know the writers "opinion" and what he bases it upon, half and complete un-truths.

<shiver>

Kegboy
12-16-2004, 08:08 PM
Well, the article is a couple weeks old. But, regardless, just to set the record straight:

- The Pacers only had to pay the first 10 games of the suspensions, saving most of the $11.8M listed.

- Attendance has gone up since the brawl.

- Attendance is up over last year, when the team had a superior record.

able
12-16-2004, 08:26 PM
Add to that the fact that Ron's interview was supposed to be about his cd and agreed long before the brawl and you get what we are saying :)

Hicks
12-16-2004, 08:48 PM
Add to that the fact that Ron's interview was supposed to be about his cd and agreed long before the brawl and you get what we are saying :) If you're referring to this:


The day following the Pacers press conference, sports marketers said Artest made matters worse by giving a rambling interview to Matt Lauer on "The Today Show." Artest not only deflected responsibility for the incident, but also took the opportunity to promote his music label.
You are incorrect. :) The 'Today Show' interview was scheduled only after the fight, and only to talk about the fight. You're thinking of his appearance on a sports network (which was either ESPN or FSN, I think ESPN) where people were criticizing him for talking about the CD, when in fact he had scheduled to appear much earlier to do just that.

But the interview the article mentions in my quote box, on 'The Today Show', that was Ron looking really bad because he was there to talk about the fight, and he acted cute with his CD.

Kegboy
12-16-2004, 09:46 PM
Are you sure Hicks? Everything I heard was that the Today Show appearance was about the CD and booked weeks in advance. That's why it was co-broadcast with the radio station in Indy.

Hicks
12-16-2004, 09:50 PM
Pretty sure, though that makes sense about the co-thing with the radio station. Think about it: Is Matt Lauer gonna have an interview with Ron Artest over his little CD in the middle of the Today Show, booked in advance? No way. They're one of THE major news outlet shows, network tv, they wouldn't waste time with an Indiana pro athlete promoting a CD no one cares about. It was ESPN/FSN.

ChicagoJ
12-16-2004, 11:57 PM
Sorry, Jay this is not to you, but this articles is not only very badly written, it is also not researched, no fact checks and moronically self indulgant.

We now know the writers "opinion" and what he bases it upon, half and complete un-truths.

<shiver>This came from the Indianapolis Business Journal, and should be read while considering the source, intended purpose, and primary audience. This isn't sports-page drivel.

I think its a fine article that points to the struggle the business operations has been having, post-brawl, with sponsors, suiteholders, and ticketholders that are either (1) embarassed, or (2) disappointed that Pacers' management appears to have no control over a franchise, or at least one troublesome player. This was a franchise advertising to have "one goal" and championship aspirations.

And it expounds on the tight line that Pacers' brass must walk down between assuring the sponsors and major customers that this type of embarrassing event (DW called it an embarassing low-point in his letter to STH's) won't happen again without admitting to guilt in a way that can be used against them later.

Ron's bad-boy image may work for a shoe manufacturer, soft drink company, or video-game producer. Not many of those folks in Indy, the people actually paying the Pacers' bills are at insurance companies, banks, Lilly, etc. The Pacers are facing a bigger challenge on the PR front with thier primary customer than the challenge they face to still make the playoffs in the East.

Just because you don't like it - and by the time I saw it in print and decided to post it on here it was obviously no longer "timely" - doesn't make it any of those adjectives you used. Now I'll agree he gave too much space to that one consultant, but I'd say that it is, in fact, the most accurate article we've seen regarding the affect of the brawl on the Pacers' business operations.

able
12-17-2004, 04:49 AM
Jay, as you will understand, I nay know the mag :)

I do see "some" of the struggle, but not much more, usually I have a hard time agreeing to the "PR" babble and subsequent power to the sponsors.

I can go in a page long diatribe about marketing and why looking at it from the angle they do is not quit spot on but more a "a**kissing" method which comes close to begging, a method that lost it's appeal in a large deal of markets.

"Street Cred" VA has always been an urban myth, brand positioning is far more important, the image of the "sponsored" players is a large part of that positioning, nobody can tell me that Ron's image has changed that much over the course of the events. IF he lost the contract then there are a few things that are clear: he wil still get his money whether it comes from the Palace or the manufacturer and the reason for getting Artest was not Artest but the price.

In both cases I do not feel sorry for anyone but Ron; used and abused.

Hicks, it was written in several newspapers that the Todayshow interview was planned, to promote the CD (Which btw is only produced by Ron and definitely not about Ron, Allure had previous record contracts elsewhere, Ron gave them a second chance in life, let's not forget that part) and because it was straight after the "Re-Match" at Detroit, there would not have been much time to get Ron into any studio the next morning after the brawl and much less easy access. The Pacers would have definitely said no to such a request.

Peck
12-17-2004, 05:25 AM
Sorry, Jay this is not to you, but this articles is not only very badly written, it is also not researched, no fact checks and moronically self indulgant.

We now know the writers "opinion" and what he bases it upon, half and complete un-truths.

<shiver>

Able, no offense here friend but have you considered that you say this at almost every turn when there is an article or editorial that does not agree with your point of view on the whole Brawl thing?

Obviously you take this very passionatly, which is fine, but you allow zero room for a disenting opinion on this.

You just can't, for whatever reason, understand that not everybody is in lock step with the Ron Artest fan wagon on this.

I understand your view point & even understand why you have it, I just don't agree with you.

Why can't you do the same thing with people who disagree with your point of view on this? :whoknows:

able
12-17-2004, 05:45 AM
The fact that I do not agree with the content's opinion is an opinion I am entitled to, but has little if nothing to do with the facts mentioned in the article being incorrect.

See Hicks answer for more accurate description of that, perhaps I should have stated those shortcomings straight away but I was thinking most of us know them anyway.

I can fully understand people's right to an opinion, I always agree to disagree without losing respect for other people, no matter what their opinion, however I do object by nature to opinionated articles which are presented as fact to the masses while they contain misrepresentation of those facts.

Respecting you for your contributions despite a discerning opinion to mine does not alter the fact that most if not all of your posts are fed by facts that are irrefutable.
I can have a different opinion on how to read those facts, or how to highlight other facts then you mention to ascertain support for my opinion, but you will not hear me say or see me write that you are wrong.

Bias is human, we all have our reasons to like or dislike people or players, we all form opinions from the things we read/hear/see and believe in them, changing opinions is always the hardest thing to do, however respect for other people's opinions is not that hard to muster, if you can see how and where they base them upon.

The only opinion you and I differ in is on whether Ron should come back and play for the Pacers or not, an opinion that devides larger parts of this community and one I can live with, there are players I'm not to fond of either.
I do not condone what Ron did, and stated so from the beginning, however I do believe he was treated wrongly with the suspension he got, by that, "my team" was hurt badly, where as you say that he hurt the team badly, we do both agree that the team was hurt though.

I am not complaining of your opinion, nor of Jay's; I only try to discuss the reasons and perhaps to some feeble extend to change your mind by arguing a case for the defense.
It does however most surely not mean that I do not respect the prosecution in this case (you and Jay) nor does it mean I would now lowball your great contributions in other non-Artest related articles.

I merely pointed out that the article was flawed, not knowing where it came from, which is slightly less relevant but does bare some relevancy, and did this because other articles that are perhaps more correct in factual content are ignored or seen as "pro-Artest" while all they do is correctly picture the facts that I saw with my own eyes, ad nauseum.

I don't recall anyone reacting to :montieth: statement about the "general public opinion" being (now weeks after the fact) that Ron got to hard a deal.

Rehashing things that are untrue, or partially misrepresent the facts is revisionist and that is something I see to much of to begin with, and am opposed to by sheer nature.

I hope this makes you understand my reaction.

Please disagree with me, but let's respect the facts and each other and we can have great discussions, after all, is there anything more fun then to debate facts and their explanation?

Peck
12-17-2004, 06:32 AM
Please disagree with me, but let's respect the facts and each other and we can have great discussions, after all, is there anything more fun then to debate facts and their explanation?

Yes, eating breakfast at miliways :D

Fair enough, as long as we both agree the team was hurt I guess the sands of time will decide who did the hurting.

On the other hand, David Harrison is great :)

Hicks
12-17-2004, 09:25 AM
Hicks, it was written in several newspapers that the Todayshow interview was planned, to promote the CD (Which btw is only produced by Ron and definitely not about Ron, Allure had previous record contracts elsewhere, Ron gave them a second chance in life, let's not forget that part) and because it was straight after the "Re-Match" at Detroit, there would not have been much time to get Ron into any studio the next morning after the brawl and much less easy access. The Pacers would have definitely said no to such a request.
I need proof, because IMO there is NO. WAY. A show as "big" as The Today Show plans to have Ron on to talk about that CD. It is way, way too insignificant for that show to care. I think you're thinking of a diff. show. I feel more confident about this than I do Reggie making a clutch 3. If you lived here and saw the Today show, you'd know why I'm extremely skeptical that you have your information right.

SOMEBODY on PD besides me must watch this show if even just occasionally, can you back me up here? You know what I'm talking about when I say no way does the freakin' Today show plan to interview Ron over that stupid CD. It's beneath them.

Kegboy
12-17-2004, 12:58 PM
I need proof, because IMO there is NO. WAY. A show as "big" as The Today Show plans to have Ron on to talk about that CD.
Uh, sorry Hicks, but have you ever seen the Today Show in your life, or any other morning show for that matter. It's all cooking and gift ideas and Dr. Phil-esqe lightweight crap. Sure, they'll have a real news interview or two, but there's a huge difference between the broadcast morning shows and the news channel morning shows (Fox and Friends, CNN This Morning, Don Imus, etc.)

Granted, when the Today show set up the thing with Ron and the radio station, they probably didn't plan on Lauer doing the interview until after the brawl. But that doesn't change what the purpose of the booking was.

beast23
12-17-2004, 01:01 PM
It would surprise me if the Today show booked Artest.

But I would say that a show as organized on time as well as the Today show definitely books their celebrities that appear on the show as far in advance as possible.

I would say that it would be an extreme exception that a celebrity is booked within 3-4 days. The calendars of celebrities are just too full to take that risk.

Manuel
12-17-2004, 01:19 PM
Uh, sorry Hicks, but have you ever seen the Today Show in your life, or any other morning show for that matter. It's all cooking and gift ideas and Dr. Phil-esqe lightweight crap. Sure, they'll have a real news interview or two, but there's a huge difference between the broadcast morning shows and the news channel morning shows (Fox and Friends, CNN This Morning, Don Imus, etc.)

Granted, when the Today show set up the thing with Ron and the radio station, they probably didn't plan on Lauer doing the interview until after the brawl. But that doesn't change what the purpose of the booking was.
I disagree with you Kegboy.

I believe Hicks is correct. It doesn't make any sense for the Today show to be booking Ron Artest because his label has a CD coming out. In fact, I don't think the Today show has ever booked an NBA player because they had a CD coming out. They booked Ron because of the whole incident, and he just brought up the CD.

Kegboy
12-17-2004, 01:28 PM
I disagree with you Kegboy.

I believe Hicks is correct. It doesn't make any sense for the Today show to be booking Ron Artest because his label has a CD coming out. In fact, I don't think the Today show has ever booked an NBA player because they had a CD coming out. They booked Ron because of the whole incident, and he just brought up the CD.
But what about the fact it was simulcast on a freakin' radio station?!!!

able
12-17-2004, 01:28 PM
In order for a show like that, to organize the local facilities, (booking!) and to make sure Ron can appear a few things have to be taken care off.

1. They approach the Pacers for permission. (Pacers own rights to players, certainly when it concerns the team, last thing any show would want to do is **** management off)
2. book the studio space
3. make sure the technicians are available
4. make sure Ron wants to appear.

Now besides the fact that f.i. the NY Times mentioned that this was a pre-arranged interview, leaving asunder whether by who it was arranged, there were several other national media stating such.

I am 100% sure that Ron would not have appeared to be interviewed on the brawl as he would never do that without permission from management, you can be pretty sure that such was the first instruction the players got after the game.

Ron might have called in a favour or two to get the slot (well in advance) to promote the Allure CD, which is common day occurance and the content of half these shows including the "Today show".

waxman
12-17-2004, 02:33 PM
Sounds like a rock and hard place for everyone involved.... No one wants to be held solely liable by admitting cupabiltly....so everyone deflects blame... more for legality reasons than anything else.

What did the League/and everyone else expect Ron to do.... give some weepy apology on national TV accepting all the blame for everything that happened that frightful night at the Palace... would that have changed anything?....NO....


This situation is much bigger than the players or fans involved now.... everyone is posturing.... from the franchises... to the League... to Players Association....to the coporate sponsors...to sportswriters .... to f'n crisis mangagement specialists... everyone is using this situation to get a better deal for themselves. Which is much more disgusting (although not suprising) than the incident itself.... IMO.

And who gets screwed the worst??....the faithful Pacer fans.

Hicks
12-17-2004, 03:05 PM
But what about the fact it was simulcast on a freakin' radio station?!!!
I think it just ended up working out that way. Whether 93.1 wanted him on for the CD or the fight, I think they just decided to simulcast it because both wanted him at the same time.

Yes, the Today show has fluff stuff, but never in a 1,000,000 years would they waste time interviewing Ron over his little CD. No way.

To top that off, I even remember READING ABOUT what able is talking about, that Ron was on ESPN (I thought; could have been FSN) and was getting criticized after it for promoting his CD more than talking about the brawl, which was unfair to Ron because THAT was the planned-ahead interview to talk about the CD.

Two different interviews, both Ron going out of his way to smile and flash his CD, ONE where he was meant to do that, the other not. I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell the Today show planned that before the fight to talk CDs. Not for Ron Artest; and they rarely do for big names. If they bring music into the show, it's live performers, not interviews with artist promoting the CD alone; it's when they stop by and perform, and the names are music names, not NBA players producing little-known CDs. It just doesn't work that way.

Looking at my posts, it looks like I'm hyperventalating behind the keyboard over this, and that's not how I mean to come across. It's just something that not in a million years did I think anyone would confuse, and yet it's happening, and I guess it's blowing my mind a bit that it's lasted this long without being shot down.

Hicks
12-17-2004, 03:07 PM
btw one of the reasons I go on about it is, I have the Today show on a lot these days because my classes are at times where I'm awake getting ready between 7 to 9 depending on the day, and so I leave it on; i've seen it quite a bit. Having lame cooks, Dr-Phil clones, etc, doesn't prove they have NBA players to promote CDs on to interview.

Able, you keep saying articles or magazines, newspapers, but I've yet to see the quoted article, or links to them.

stipo
12-17-2004, 03:12 PM
I believe that the of Rons interview that was already planned was the radio part. The Today Show just took advantage of the fact that he was already scheduled at 93.1 and made it a simulcast.

Hicks
12-17-2004, 03:17 PM
I believe that the of Rons interview that was already planned was the radio part. The Today Show just took advantage of the fact that he was already scheduled at 93.1 and made it a simulcast.
I think so too.

Hicks
12-17-2004, 03:18 PM
Ok Hicks, I hate to do this (please dont ban me)

but you watch the today show. I mean, I can handle watching The OC, but the today show?

minus 100 million cool points :tongue: There's a difference between watching a show, and LOVING :love: a show. ;)

I watch it for "major" news in the mornings, and I don't mind the light-heartedness of it; rather start my day with some fluff; let the dark, bitter realities of the world hit me after I've fully woken up. ;)

mmxx
12-17-2004, 10:33 PM
Almost all those talk shows book their guests (at least) A WEEK IN ADVANCE.
This is a fact. Go to the show's website they list their next week's guests on the front page.

Today Show
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/?ta=y (page down and look for "coming up on Today")

Letterman
http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/

many others
http://talkshows.about.com/bldailysched.htm


Don't want to be over critical but I am shocked some people here can't figure out the obvious. If Today Show had Ron on on Nov 23rd, that means they'd already had him on schedule by Nov 16th, before the brawl.

If you think Ron being on the 23rd show was a result of the brawl, then you are basically saying that

either

Today Show booked someone else for Nov 23rd, and on the day right after the brawl they suddenly decided "ok we're gonna show Artest no matter what" and kicked that originally scheduled celebrity out of the way,

or

Today Show knew the brawl was coming and in the prior week intentionally left the 23rd show spot open, (so Ron would filled in as soon as the brawl happened)

...
...
...

btw what's so impossible about getting Ron Artest in to promote his CD on the release date? There are people less famous promoting their CD on those shows all the time...

yeah in hindsight comparing with the brawl of course the CD looked like nothing, but backed in Nov 16th it was just business as usual, Ron's record company looking for channels of promotion and Today was one stop on the tour.




I need proof, because IMO there is NO. WAY. A show as "big" as The Today Show plans to have Ron on to talk about that CD. It is way, way too insignificant for that show to care. I think you're thinking of a diff. show. I feel more confident about this than I do Reggie making a clutch 3. If you lived here and saw the Today show, you'd know why I'm extremely skeptical that you have your information right.

SOMEBODY on PD besides me must watch this show if even just occasionally, can you back me up here? You know what I'm talking about when I say no way does the freakin' Today show plan to interview Ron over that stupid CD. It's beneath them.

Hicks
12-17-2004, 10:37 PM
Just because they typically do that, doesn't mean they can't get something going quickly. The fight was a big new story on news networks and the like, they had 3-4 days to get it going.

There is just no way they had Ron planned before the brawl to be on. They wouldn't waste the time over his tiny little CD release.

mmxx
12-17-2004, 10:52 PM
Just because they typically do that, doesn't mean they can't get something going quickly. The fight was a big new story on news networks and the like, they had 3-4 days to get it going.

so you believe they kicked the orignally scheduled celeb out, or they predicted sth. huge was gonna happen the next week so they intentionally left the 23rd spot open a week in advance?

Hicks
12-18-2004, 09:08 AM
I think they made room for it, be it 'kicking a celeb out' as you suggest, or whatever else they had originally planned to do.

stipo
12-18-2004, 03:30 PM
so you believe they kicked the orignally scheduled celeb out, or they predicted sth. huge was gonna happen the next week so they intentionally left the 23rd spot open a week in advance?

Maybe you're not familiar with the program mmxx, but it's a NEWS show.:) Since I don't believe even NBC has the power to predict what will happen that is newsworthy, they always keep room in their schedule for these kinds of things. I believe, along with NEWS, another key word is RATINGS.;)

ChicagoJ
10-10-2006, 03:00 PM
Although the discussion from posts #2 and beyond was very topical to the brawl, its interesting to re-read this article two years later... after Ron finally snapped and was traded, and after some of these guys got themselves into yet another violent situation.

Two years later, this team is still in damage control mode.

Anyway, I was digging for Reggie's post-brawl comments when I found this. I know there's a transcript somewhere from the famous Rick-Austin-Reggie press conference.

vapacersfan
10-10-2006, 03:23 PM
Some things are always changing, some things never change......