Tomorrow, the process of image rehabilitation will begin for Tiger Woods, and from that point forward, he’ll be putting the scandal of the last few months behind him.

Many, many people — sportswriters, public relations specialists, etc. — have weighed in with their thoughts of what he should have done, or be doing in the days ahead. I’ve put together a few representative samples here to a) take a look at some of these suggestions and b) debunk some of the assumptions that have been/continue to be made about Tiger’s situation, primarily because Tiger Woods and the reaction to him provide some noteworthy examples of the world professional athletes inhabit, and ultimately, what they should be prepared to deal with.

The Suggestions

One of the most widely talked about plans for Tiger came from Rick Reilly of ESPN. The heart of Reilly’s strategy, as plenty of others have suggested, was that Tiger needed to appear on “Oprah,” sooner rather than later.

First, Oprah Winfrey.

“It has to be Oprah,” says the king of Las Vegas publicity men, Dave Kirvin. “If you did a poll on who’s most disgusted by this whole mess, it would be women. To win over those women, you need to win over Oprah. You win over Oprah, you win over America.”

Once he’s on Oprah’s couch, he says this:

“To my wife, to my kids, to my family, to my friends, to my fans, I am so sorry. You believed in me. You looked up to me. You thought I was different, and I let you down. I’m ashamed of myself. My mom is ashamed of me. I’m sure my dad would be ashamed of me. I’m an idiot.” Then he has to go full Tebow: “From this day forward, you will never see somebody work harder, 24 hours a day, to win back your trust.”

It has to be next week and no later, because every day the British tabloids have him sleeping with everybody but the Page 3 girl. “The sooner he makes his public act of contrition, the sooner he takes the oxygen out of the story,” Kirvin says.

I’ll address the flaws in this thinking shortly, but let’s move through a few other samples.

Howard Bragman, CEO of Fifteen Minutes Public Relations, told Good Morning America that — contrary to initial thinking — hiding out might be the best course of action for Tiger:

Public relations expert Bragman, who once suggested that Woods get out in front of the tabloids and speak publicly, said the golfer’s troubles have become so numerous that it might be prudent for him to hide out for a few months and possibly seek rehab if tabloid reports of sex or prescription drug addiction are true.

“You don’t clear the road until the avalanche is done and this avalanche is not over yet,” he said.

Brand expert Aaron Kwitten of Kwitten & Company told Entrepreneur magazine that Tiger was a lesson in how not to handle a crisis. I’m excerpting his article fairly heavily because his suggestions were representative of what many public relations experts have suggested.

You can run, but you can’t hide

Tiger waited way too long to clarify what happened. Several days passed as unsubstantiated information was dispersed by the media. Even if you don’t have much to say, commenting early will help put you in control of the story.

No comment or too little comment from you gives others permission to comment on your behalf, leaving more room for rumor and speculation. I’m not necessarily a fan of Gov. David Patterson (D-N.Y.), but I do think it was wise of him to preemptively disclose his past extramarital affairs with the media prior to taking the oath of office for a position that was disgraced by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer (aka “Client 9″). By speaking up before the media could, Patterson made his “transgressions” virtually a non-issue and a one-day story.

David Letterman handled his confession quite brilliantly. By getting out ahead of the situation, he was able to better control the stories that ensued. Letterman was smart to maintain a business-as-usual strategy. Tiger should have done that, too. Canceling appearances and being a shut-in only spawns more speculation and misinformation. Tiger’s decision to be a no-show at his own charity golf tournament was a mistake.

Avoid doublespeak and shore up the information leaks

Customers aren’t looking for confessions, but they are looking for an acknowledgement and quick response to the issue at hand, at least. And they don’t want doublespeak or evasive language. From Tiger’s “transgressions” to Bill Clinton’s redefinition of sex or former presidential candidate John Edwards’ “terrible mistake,” euphemisms will not endear you to the public faster.

It is also important to make sure your advisors (legal, PR, finance) and their teams do not speak with outsiders or media. Unauthorized leaks of information beget rumor and speculation, which help drive additional, unwanted and often inaccurate media coverage. In Tiger’s case, the additional rumors of more mistresses and pending negotiations to give his wife a financial incentive to stay with him reflect a glaring error in his crisis management strategy.

If I were Tiger’s advisor, I would have relied less on his fan website to post statements. Instead, I would have suggested that he choose one reputable media outlet or reporter he trusts (not TMZ) to provide a statement and show a willingness to answer a few questions that are vetted and agreed to in advance. I also would have advised that he be more forthcoming about his situation from the start. Now his only recourse is an exclusive TV interview to set the record straight. Oprah or Larry King, anyone? Or maybe the Today show? It doesn’t matter: we’ve seen this movie before, and we know how it ends.

Setting the Record Straight

A number of faulty assumptions are made in the above examples, primarily because a) there has never been a public relations situation like this before and b) Tiger is one of the most popular athletes in the world, and being an athlete with Tiger’s brand pedigree brings a whole host of variables to the table that make dealing with him totally different from, say, a company or another kind of public figure from a public relations standpoint.

He should have gotten ahead of the story. This, more than anything, is what PR people have said about Tiger and how he dealt with this crisis — that if he had acted more quickly, he could have put this scandal to rest or at least have controlled it somewhat. Instead, he did nothing and let it snowball out of control. This is a complete fallacy, mainly because there was no possible way, given the media coverage and the nature of what they were covering, that Tiger could have gotten ahead of this story. Assume for a second that Tiger had called a press conference the day after the accident, admitted his infidelities, named every person who would eventually be named in the scandal, taken a few questions, and called it a day. There would have been absolutely no change in the way that his story was covered. Tabloids (and the major news networks, who were also all over this story) would have pursued every angle with just as much fervor as they did. The nature of journalism in the digital age is that any story, particularly one like this one, is going to be everywhere and it is going to be covered until people’s eyes and ears bleed from seeing and hearing it. You cannot prevent that, and you cannot escape it. What athletes do need to understand is that they need to be prepared to deal with scandals like these before they occur.

He should have done what celebrity/company X did. Tiger Woods is one of the world’s most famous and revered athletes, and built his brand image on abstractions like excellence, hard work, family and integrity. To suggest that one could deal with Tiger’s scandal the same way that an airline would, or a public official would, or that David Letterman would reveals a lack of understanding about the way that people relate to athletes, particularly athletes of Tiger’s stature. No one really cares about a public official or is surprised when they’re lacking with regard to their ethics (a sad commentary on the world we live in). People think David Letterman is funny, but they don’t like him, and they certainly don’t feel any sort of emotional connection to him. People are disappointed in Tiger Woods, rationally or not, on an emotional level because in some way — like all great athletes — he was a foil for them, for the best that they imagine in themselves.

He should have gone on Oprah. I actually do think that Tiger should eventually appear on Oprah Winfrey’s program or one like it, but not now. If Tiger Woods were to show up on Oprah tomorrow, apologize and answer questions, why would anyone believe anything that he says? It would come off as totally inauthentic, and ensure that people respond to Tiger with nothing but cynicism (much as they do Mark McGwire) moving ahead. Think of it like this: On the one hand, you have Tiger Woods, claiming to be sorry, that he loves his wife and wants to repair his marriage (per Reilly’s suggestion). On the other, you have the following fact: That he cheated on his wife with a dozen-plus women for several years, and told more than a few of them how unhappy he was. Any kind of interview that Tiger does at this point is going to come off as totally contrived. No one will believe that he’s sorry.

He should have used a single media outlet to push his cause. There’s no need to belabor this, but suffice it to say that it wasn’t the use of his web site that was flawed, but rather, the execution. At one point there were more than 30,000 unmoderated comments posted right under his initial apology, and as you might imagine, the vast majority of them were not supportive.

What Tiger Should Do

So what steps should Tiger take if he’s actually going to rehabilitate his image? These are fairly basic suggestions, primarily because at the end of the day, this isn’t all that complicated to repair.

You’re in, or you’re out. This entire scandal revolves around Tiger’s infidelity; he has to take a clear stance on his marriage to gain control of it in the eyes of the masses. Only he and his wife know if his marriage can be repaired. If they both are honestly interested in fixing it, he should say that he’s going to do as much. If not, he should acknowledge that he was a terrible husband, apologize for failing his wife so horribly, say she deserves much better, and get divorced. All that matters here is that the path he takes (ironically) is an honest one. The only way he’ll be able to prove that he’s a good/redeemed husband is if his wife eventually says that he is. She’s got a lot of credibility now. So if that’s where he’s headed, he should start down that path as soon as possible. At the same time, if he gets divorced and moves on, people will respect him on a basic level (and when I say respect, I don’t mean that he’ll be getting any kind of credit for doing this — it will just feel like an authentic move), and for treating his wife respectfully.

Don’t waste time with the media. The absolute worst thing Tiger could do at this point: media interviews. He should do exactly the opposite. Make his apology tomorrow, and that’s it, no matter what he says or how it comes off. Done. No more interviews, no answering questions about anything scandal related. Face the hecklers, let them heckle, but just move on. All that participating in non-golf related interviews will do now is fuel more media coverage, speculation, and the like. The only thing that Tiger Woods should be giving people to write about from here forward is golf.

Play great golf. At the end of the day, as embarrassing as all of this is, as much heckling as Tiger is going to take, where sports is concerned, winning cures just about everything. It won’t make people think he’s a great husband, but his image can be reinvented with great golf driving it, and in some ways, that new image could be just as powerful as his old brand, if not more so. Just ask Kobe Bryant.

About a year from now, go on Oprah. Time not only cures all wounds, it also makes your actions a lot more believable. A year from now, when Oprah is nearing the end of her television run and when there’s ample evidence of contrition (or at least, some great golf being played), Tiger should go on and admit his mistakes, say how sorry he feels, and talk about the steps he has taken to change his life (like being a good father, regardless of whether he stays married or not). At the right time, Oprah can be the ultimate stamp of authenticity; if she believes them, why shouldn’t everyone?

Be Prepared

As I hinted earlier, athletes need to understand that the new digital world has its own set of rules — namely, that with lowest common denominator journalism, the TMZs and tabloids are going to ensure that athletes are faced with these kinds of challenges (to various degrees) throughout their careers. It’s not enough to react — you need to proactively be cultivating a brand identity that can counteract these kinds of issues. And while nothing could have stopped the media tsunami that consumed Tiger Woods, the failures of his brand — as abstract as it was  — provide some valuable insights for how athletes can shape their own brand identity in a way that can actually help them in times of crisis. But that’s material for another post.

I’ll leave you with this from the Wall Street Journal:

In the course of going to Tiger Woods’ web site earlier this week to read his statements about the current controversy involving him, I was surprised to see that the site was now being operated by MLB.com.

I’m not sure what the thinking was behind that. The site itself — the current maelstrom aside — does little to brand him in any meaningful way; in fact, it really is just straightforwardly generic. Moreover, it’s not as if Tiger Woods needs MLB for increased distribution of his content or to make it easier for people to find him online.

But if there’s a compelling reason for having a company dedicated only to managing the branding of pro athletes handling your online activities instead of a corporate entity like MLB.com, it’s that MLB.com is not paying attention the way that they should be. To make this point, I need go no further than the statement Tiger posted today about his personal transgressions. It’s not the statement that concerns me — it’s the fact that the site has allowed upwards of 4,000 comments to be posted (with more happening every second) without any apparent vetting whatsoever.

Here are just a sample of the most recent — and there are many that are worse:

Angel194 wrote:

Now, Tiger – If I were your wife, I would beat you senseless with your 9 Iron! Men say “we’re only human” well, so is your wife who carried two of your children (while you were having your trysts). All these men posting on here are supportive of you – of course they are because most of them have probably done the same thing. Elin is the one who now has to picture you with that woman/en while she herself was pregnant. You slept with this other person and then came home and slept with your wife – you could have given her an STD or worse! It’s disgusting! You didn’t do this to yourself – you did this to Elin! I feel for her so much because it’s something she will never get over now. It’s always going to be a “wedge” pardon the pun, between you. You’ve ruined the trust in your marriage. Be a man and take your punishment.

NYCFemme wrote:

How is something a private family matter when Tiger was sleeping with multiple women across the globe? Do they get to be part of the private matter, too? I mean, they have seen his… Let’s be real – he wants privacy because there are many more skeleton, or in this case, large-breasted women, who have many details to reveal. The fireworks show should be spectacular.

TorontoFan wrote:

And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? How can anyone look at you the same now Tiger? All these posters who say oh he is human and blah blah..and its your business blah blah. Well it just became the world’s business and if ANYone in this world of once-awe-for you says you just made some mistakes…they just don’t GET what this means now. Tiger..you showed you have NO character. You have shown millions of kids and once-admirers all over the world that you have NO respect for yourself and your Family. You not only crashed your car..you crashed your Personal Life. The car is easy to fix. You cannot fix the damage you have done..and the sad thing is that you have such a Selfish EGO..that you don’t even know the damage you have done. Will SAM be the same because Daddy said its ok? Get some professional help for your attitude about others.

Granted, people are going to express sentiments like these all over the web. The one place that users should not be able to post like this, however, is on Tiger’s own web site — particularly in response to an apology that is supposed to help try and put this episode behind him. It’s inexcusable.

Generally speaking, brand awareness is a good thing, and if you’re an athlete, and you’re instantly recognizable to people off the street, some of whom may not even necessarily be fans of your sport, that’s typically not bad, either.

But if an athlete has goals for himself regarding how he’s perceived, both in the short term (in regard to his talent, for example, or other characteristics that define who he is as a player) or in the long-term (how he eventually fits into the pantheon of players who preceded him), just having people know who you are isn’t enough.

There’s no better example of this than Tony Romo.

Romo is one of the most well-known players in the NFL, and since he first stepped in for Drew Bledsoe midseason back in 2006, he has amassed a career passer rating of 94.2, second only to Peyton Manning among active quarterbacks.

Think about that for a minute.

His sudden ascent from unknown backup quarterback to starter on arguably the NFL’s prize franchise is a Cinderella story, and yet — because, at least to some degree, he’s done nothing to brand himself or control his own image — he’s known primarily for two things:

• Never having won a playoff game
• Dating Jessica Simpson

Two games into the 2009-10 NFL season, Romo is back in the press again, and for all the wrong reasons. Last weekend against the New York Giants, on the opening night of the new Texas Stadium, Romo threw three interceptions, and the Cowboys lost. Since then, he’s been absolutely hammered by the fans, media, and even current and former players.

There was this from former Dallas Cowboys running back Tony Dorsett:

“I think the media has given him too much credit for doing nothing…He hasn’t done anything really in the National Football League to deserve all the recognition and visibility that he’s gotten so far.”

Former Dallas quarterback Troy Aikman added:

“That is the kind of game that will play into the hands of those critics already out there,” said Aikman, “who want to point to games which haven’t gone well for Tony at the end of the season.”

Columnist Jean-Jacques Taylor of the Dallas Morning News offered this:

“Is he a franchise quarterback? A solid starter? Or is he the ultimate tease, a coach-killer who will always leave you wanting more?”

I would argue that it’s fairly absurd to blame Romo for Dallas’ failure to meet expectations in the last few seasons, and that there are some fairly obvious factors that seem far more to blame, but I’m not here to write about Dallas. We’re talking about Romo and how he’s perceived, so let’s get to the point — a point which I’ve made to a number of high-profile clients, some current, some prospective.

Even if you’re a household name, and really, all the more so if you are, you not only need to define your brand, but constantly make people aware of it. If you don’t, you are allowing the most vocal people, who are nearly always your critics, to determine how everyone else perceives you, and that can damage can have a real impact on opportunities on and off the field over the length of your career.

There’s no question that the media anointed Tony Romo as the savior of the Dallas Cowboys, and he has yet to be on a team that advanced in the playoffs.

There is also a ton about Tony Romo to talk about that’s unequivocally incredible, no matter what his critics say, and it’s really ludicrous that he’s not universally acknowledged as one of the best quarterbacks currently in the NFL, despite games like the one he had last weekend.

Consider just these simple facts about Romo and Aikman, who’s generally recognized as the last great Cowboys QB.

• In his first three seasons, Romo threw 81 TDs — nearly half as many as the 165 that Aikman threw over his entire 12-year career.
• Over the same period, Romo only threw 46 INTs, a ratio of 1.76 TDs to 1 INT. Aikman, on the other hand, threw 141 INTs over his career, a ratio of 1.17 TDs to 1 INT.
• Finally, in his first three years, Romo was 27-12 (.692 winning percentage). Aikman, for his career, was 94-71 (.569 winning percentage).

My guess is that Romo would compare favorably to the vast majority of quarterbacks and many of the better ones at similar stages of their careers. And none of that begins to speak to the other laudable qualities that he brings to the table as a leader and person.

Having a well-conceived brand and a consistent strategy for disseminating it guarantees that there’s a constant flow of information into the world that speaks to your strengths. Tony Romo — a superb young quarterback with as much promise as any player could possibly have — and athletes like him are doing themselves a disservice for not having one.

On Friday, the fourth and final installment of “In the Life With Steven Jackson,” which we co-produced, will air at http://inthelife.sj39.com.

The goal of the short documentary, which is essentially what “In the Life” is, was to give fans an unprecedented look into the life of one of the NFL’s superstars. It was also to realize Steven’s brand identity in a way that, to my knowledge, no athlete has done for himself before. What made the latter possible, really, was Steven. He is exactly the person who comes across on camera: an athlete with an incomparable work ethic and determination, a thoughtful, humble and occasionally hilarious person with a maturity well beyond his 26 years. For most of a week, we were part of his life, and everyone we met — especially his parents — could not have been more welcoming or helpful.

Shooting "In the Life With Steven Jackson"

As you might imagine, there were a number of memorable moments over the course of production. I thought I’d share some of them here.

Never Been Hit

While we were shooting one of his training sessions, we asked Steven to recount the hardest he’d ever been hit. He was in the middle of a drill, and when he finished, he stopped and gave the question a lot of thought.

“I’ve never really been hit that hard,” he said.

Alex and Elan, our two cameramen, shared skeptical looks.

“What about Sheldon Brown?” Elan asked.

If you haven’t seen the hit that Sheldon Brown put on Steven last season, it’s below. Steven goes flying and his helmet gets blown off. I actually watched the game, and like pretty much everyone, I’m guessing, the takeaway from the play was, “Damn, that was a monster hit.”

What I didn’t notice at the time, but which you’ll see in the video above, is Steven’s reaction. Not only does he leap right up, he actually does his touchdown celebration — rolling the dice — and strides right back to the huddle.

So when Elan asked his question, Steven looked right at him, and then — in so many words — communicated that Brown’s hit didn’t phase him in the slightest.

“Lawyer Milloy, one time…” he said, his voice trailing off as he searched for an answer. Finally, seemingly stumped, he went back to the drill.

An Aside on Ocho Cinco

One day when we were at lunch, the subject of Chad Ocho Cinco came up. Steven asked if we read 85’s Twitter posts and shook his head, laughing, telling us how crazy they were.

He went on to tell us that, hard as it might be to believe, Ocho Cinco was totally different when he was one-on-one and away from the cameras — down-to-earth, a friend and a good guy.

He Can Throw, Too

As we were wrapping up shooting one night, Elan and I challenged Steven to a throwing contest. Standing in the end zone of the high school field where Steven trained, we each took a shot at heaving the football as far as we could. Elan and I did our best Doug Flutie impressions, and roughly launched the ball about 40 yards, give or take. (There was no time to warm up.)

Then, from deep in the end zone, Steven took his turn. If throwing a football were Olympic ice skating, Steven would have gotten straight twos from the judges on style points. Based on the trajectory, the heave could easily have been mistaken for a punt by someone happening along at that moment, which made the end result all the more shocking. Released at a 65 degree angle, the ball vanished to a pinpoint in the sky before plummetting like a meteor well past the 50 yard-line. Had Steven let the ball go the way normal people throw (as in more horizontally than vertically), it easily could have covered two-thirds of the field.

Freight Train

I’ll leave you with this last bit because few people will ever know what it’s like to have Steven Jackson headed at them at full speed.

It happened to two of us during shooting. Steven was running a drill — basically, tracing an L between three cones and then back again — when I made the mistake of standing a few feet in front of where he was going to finish. We’re the same height, but that’s where the similarities end, and while I was fortunate enough to step out of the way, there was a moment where it looked like he might steamroll me.

It’s difficult to put into words what that moment felt like, but Alex did it perfectly after it happened to him.

While operating a glidecam, Alex rushed at Steven, who was in mid-sprint, to get a moving close-up. He got too close, and came within inches of having Steven barrel into him. Even with the glidecam and the camera, Alex would be hard pressed to crack 180. Steven is listed on the Rams web site at 236. It would have been a Mack truck hitting a Honda Civic.

Right after the near-miss, Alex took a moment to catch his breath and collect himself.

Steven, smiling, asked, “You scared?”

Alex didn’t answer. Again, Steven offered up, “You scared?”

Finally, Alex looked up at him.

“Yessir,” he said. “I am scared. I’m actually pretty sure I just wet myself.”

I couldn’t let this go without posting about it.

In an interview today on ESPN, Cris Carter, formerly of the Minnesota Vikings, passionately discusses the signing of Brett Favre. He’s great in the interview, but as it’s wrapping up, he’s asked whether Minnesota has a chance to make the Super Bowl this year.

I could hear my late grandmother laughing at his response.

Q: Are [the Vikings] a Super Bowl team?

A: I don’t know that. Because I don’t know if they have the glue — the meshugana — the thing that brings the team together.

As any Jew will tell you, meshugana isn’t the equivalent of ubuntu (roughly translated as team unity), which the Boston Celtics made famous. It means “crazy person.” Which, ironically, Minnesota may very well have with Favre’s arrival. (Alternatively, the team might be collectively driven crazy.)

Still, you’ve got to love the attempt from Carter, one of the best wideouts to ever play the game and a fine commentator, too.

The video (the exchange is in the last 20 seconds):

It is very easy to look at Stephon Marbury’s week of webcam performances and mock him, or shake your head in disbelief, or simply pity him. But in terms of branding as it relates to professional athletes, what he’s done is fascinating because it’s such an extreme example of an athlete exposing his inner life so completely to the world.

There’s a lot to be learned from it, and the reactions that have followed.

Based on what I’ve seen, it’s clearer to me than ever before that for an athlete, maintaining a significant distance between yourself, and both fans and the media, is not just important — it’s essential. That might seem contrary to everything that’s happening online right now where pro athletes are concerned, but as I’ll explain, it isn’t.

Generally, the branding takeaways from Marbury can be summed up according to the following principles:

1. The Power of Awe
2. A Glimpse Is Enough
3. A Point Is a Good Thing
4. Do What You Do Best

The Power of Awe

One of my favorite films is “Lawrence of Arabia.” I saw it for the first time when I was 17 years old on an 86-foot screen, courtesy of Los Angeles’ world famous Cinerama Dome, and the experience was, in the most literal and original sense of the word, awesome. The story, the grandeur of the film, the screen itself — everything about it dwarfed you, but at the same time, you felt like you were part of something extraordinary for a few hours, like the best films do.

Since then, I’ve watched “Lawrence of Arabia” many times, some of them on television. And while I love the film and stop to watch anytime I come across it, viewing the movie on TV is a far cry from 70mm. There’s something about Peter O’Toole, wild-eyed, screaming, “No prisoners!” as he leads hundreds of vengeful, scimitar-wielding horsemen across the desert that doesn’t quite translate to 27 inches.

Figuratively speaking, the same point can be made about professional athletes.  We want athletes to awe us, and that’s precisely what they do when they’re doing what they do best: playing sports. Think of your favorite highlight — Michael Jordan hitting over Bryon Russell, John Elway going head over heels into the end zone, whatever comes to mind. That moment has an epic, emotional power; you might find yourself shaking your head in amazement right now just thinking about it. But more than just witnessing that moment, you felt part of it. A critical part of being a fan is sharing in the experience of athletes you like. They’re the actors, performing the impossible, and we’re the audience, witnessing real-time drama unfold before our eyes, and feeling connected to it with striking resonance. They’re “Lawrence of Arabia” in the Cinerama Dome, larger than life.

With rare exception, what people don’t want – despite claiming the opposite – is to really “know” athletes in a way that diminishes them, a point driven home by Marbury. When it comes to athletes, people want a sense of connection, but only if it reinforces awe or respect. Consider the idea of a role model for a second, and you’ll realize that the operative word is role; we have an idealized notion of how athletes should be, and despite ourselves, we don’t want it compromised. If Shaquille O’Neal plays well and fires off one-liners on Twitter, he’s a great athlete who’s funny, and we like him even more. If, on the other hand, his play declines to the point of mediocrity and he’s still bombarding us with jokes, then he’s more clown than athlete. He gives off the impression that he cares more about one-liners than dominating the glass, and we respect him a little less.

To an extreme degree, Marbury has stripped away everything about himself that could engender awe. There is nothing to be amazed by – at least, not in a positive sense.

A Glimpse Is Enough

“The Blair Witch Project” is a compelling example of knowledge withheld. The entire movie rests on the filmmakers NOT showing you the Blair Witch. As a result, you’ll sit in your chair for 90 minutes just to get a glimpse of it – a glimpse, of course, that never actually comes.

There has been a tremendous proliferation of Twitter and live video streaming among athletes in the last few months, and for the most part, it seems like of a lot that growth has been of the “he’s doing it, so I should be doing it” variety. Moreover, many athletes seem to be creating content indiscriminately, none more so than Marbury.

I am all for athletes interacting with fans. But fans (and media) don’t need to know everything about an athlete; in fact, the less information revealed, the more mystery about an athlete there is, making every new insight or interaction that much more potent. In the simplest terms: Less is more. With Twitter, ideally, an athlete should tweet enough to make fans feel like they are connected with or have an opportunity to connect with the athlete, while still infrequent enough to make that connection feel like it is something special. I love Twitter precisely because of the mileage an athlete can get with fans and the media with extremely limited use.

In contrast, I’m not sold on the value of live video streaming for athletes, primarily because it is so undirected and difficult to control from a branding standpoint. Clearly, it’s great for fans. But what is the upside for an athlete in a professional context? The most practical use of video streaming is directly answering questions from fans, but that’s something that can – at least where the athlete is concerned – be accomplished just as easily with Twitter with no chance of anything going wrong. Live video streaming strikes me as extremely dangerous and requires restraint. Case in point: Stephon Marbury. You can literally destroy virtually all professional and fan interest in you in a matter of minutes (or hours, as the case may be).

One of the most undervalued things an athlete can do, and which far fewer seem to be doing since the arrival of Twitter, is blog. Here’s what I like about blogging:

• It reveals thoughtfulness on the part of the blogger.
• The entry is right there on the page in its entirety.
• News organizations and bloggers can easily quote it.
• With Twitter, an athlete’s fans are sure to actually see the blog entry.

To sum up: By combining Twitter, filmed video clips (as opposed to live video content) and blog entries, an athlete can give fans insight into who they are yet still maintain the kind of distance I’ve hit on a few times already.

Purpose Is a Good Thing

Athletes are told they’re a brand all the time, but for the most part, they lack a true understanding of how to define their brand identity, and/or make that identity work for them. As a result, they tweet, they blog, they make videos, they do all of the things that everyone else is doing, and at the end of the day, much of it is pointless and arbitrary.

Having an overall brand goal – even if it’s something as simple as establishing yourself, say, as the best rookie wide receiver in the NFL – gives everything that you’re doing a focus. A comprehensive brand strategy, by extension, not only puts the content an athlete creates into a context, but provides a clear purpose for everything he does. Purpose, we would all agree, is a good thing.

One of the saddest things about Stephon Marbury is that, assuming he actually did still want to play basketball (which may not be the case), all of his misguided energy could have been put to positive use if he had some sort of branding strategy.

Do What You Do Best

Perhaps the most fundamental lesson learned from Marbury’s exploits is that people care about athletes because they are athletes, first and foremost. The clearest route to becoming a YouTube sensation (and the one that’s most useful in terms of basic branding) is for an athlete to do something jaw-dropping in whatever sport he plays.

The notion of an athlete being a brand isn’t something that is new — it’s universally recognized, at this point, that Michael Jordan was the first pro athlete to take branding himself to the proverbial next level. These days, however, since all athletes are told that they are (potentially) brands, what athletes and the people they work with are doing to try and brand themselves has become a bit more involved.

An article yesterday in the Washington Post about Ty Lawson and his pre-draft branding effort has gotten some decent play in the past 24 hours, and without knowing precisely what is being done to market him, it’s difficult to assess that effort. The story does detail some of the things that the agency he is working with, D*MNGOOD, is doing in general terms:

Three representatives from the creative agency D*mngood had crafted three versions of an intro sequence to a Web site that would bear Lawson’s name, feature Lawson’s merchandise and publish Lawson’s blog. The young entrepreneurs, each wearing jeans, sport coats, sideburns and black spiked hair, anticipated Lawson’s reaction. He preferred a photo montage timed to the beat of hip-hop music preceding the lines of a basketball court being drawn on the screen.

A little later in the piece, one of the creative consultants explained some additional web strategies:

So Lawson gets to make directional decisions, such as which intro he wants on display when fans arrive at his Web site. He provides input on the logo he hopes will become a second form of identity. He agrees that establishing two Facebook accounts — one for personal use and another to drive traffic to the Web site — is a good idea. “We need to get you some business cards, something to start branding you,” said Daniel Adler, D*mngood’s executive creative director. “You’re like a business now. Ty Lawson is a business.”

Lawson’s agent, Jeff Fried of Peake Management Group, summed up the overall online plan:

“To a large degree, the marketing activities, the branding, that has all been set up so we’re ready to implement immediately upon the selection by the team,” Fried said. “We want to have everything pre-set.”

Lawson’s Web site will be ready to go as soon as his new team’s colors are added into the page schemes.

After Lawson has a home, he’ll become more involved in the business ventures with which his name will be associated. That, after all, was the plan all along.

To me, it’s great that Lawson and his representatives are thinking about him in this way; it’s too bad that more athletes don’t approach their professional careers like this. Still, there are few takeaways from this article worth noting with regard to what he’s doing online.

Ty Lawson doesn’t need two Facebook accounts. No athlete does. People are busy enough. No one is going to take the time to follow the same athlete on the same platform in two different places. The reasoning behind this decision — that Lawson needs an online space that’s official, and one that’s more personal — makes sense, however, which leads to…

Lawson needs to be on Twitter. Twitter is the place to express himself more personally, and it’s sort of stunning that his creative agency didn’t have him on Twitter since the end of the college season (let alone now; he’s still not on there), particularly given the sheer volume of press about Twitter and how successfully pro athletes have used it. (It’s actually even more amazing when you consider that the original proponent of athletes using Twitter, Kathleen Hessert of Sports Media Challenge, is actually based a relative stone’s throw from UNC in Charlotte.) That actually provides a great segue to…

Lawson should have launched ALL of his online initiatives already. Think of the NBA Draft as if it were a wedding. All of the buzz about a wedding precedes it. Then the wedding happens, and it’s a great night, and it’s over. After that, real, day-to-day life begins. The period of time between the end of the college season and Thursday is the primary buzz period for Lawson. Until Thursday, it is all about his potential, which is theoretically unlimited. The night after the draft? There will be a day or two of excitement in the city of the franchise he’s chosen by, and then, he’s old news until the fall. And when the fall comes, he’s an unproven rookie. The bottom line: It will be, at the minimum, months until anyone is this interested in Ty Lawson again, and depending on who drafts him, it could be significant longer. It’s great that he’s on Facebook, but waiting to launch his web site, or Twitter, or anything else regarding Lawson until after the draft — especially if it’s ready to go — is like selling Fourth of July tickets on July 5th.

There are a number of other things worth discussing (like why Lawson, assuming he’s his own brand, would orient his personal site around the colors of his new team, especially given the business realities of contemporary sports), but for now, I’ll simply end with the largest point:

None of this matters if Ty Lawson doesn’t play great basketball and conduct himself professionally in the NBA. I’m sure his representatives know that, but it’s amazing how often athletes and the people who manage their brands forget this point, particularly in light of the all-around excellence that defined (and continues to define) the Jordan brand — the archetype of all athlete brands — at its core.

This space is normally reserved for conversations about online branding, marketing and web site development, but I feel compelled to take a moment to acknowledge the accomplishments of one of our clients, Lamar Odom of the Los Angeles Lakers.

In the months before beginning Athlete Interactive, when I was still primarily a sportswriter, I wrote a long feature about Lamar, and that was the first chance I really had to speak with him for an extended period of time. Over the course of three separate interviews, all conducted after practice at the Lakers facility in El Segundo, Lamar answered every question I had with a shocking degree of honesty. Nothing seemed off limits, and he answered the most delicate questions — like those about his infant son Jayden, who had passed away only weeks earlier — with unhesitating vulnerability. As a journalist, particularly one covering professional athletes, it was an uncommon, if not unheard of, experience.

Not long after, Lamar became one of our first clients, and as time passed, through admittedly limited glimpses, I began to get a sense of who he was. I quickly discovered that Lamar was impossible to dislike. He was utterly without pretensions. He managed to talk seriously about basketball without seeming to take himself too seriously, and whether he was speaking from the heart or laughing his goofy, halting laugh, you knew you were getting, as he likes to say, Lamar Joseph. 

I also started to understand that he loved basketball in ways that went beyond just playing the game. His father had been absent from his life and his mother had died when he was 12; the game had given him a second family to supplement the grandmother, relatives and friends who raised him, a circle of intimates ranging from coaches to trainers, from teammates to his agent. As a result — and I think that this is something lost on fans until recently, perhaps — Lamar played with his heart and soul bared because when he stepped onto the court, in a very real sense, he wasn’t just playing for himself. He was there for the extended family who supported him, and to whom he felt he owed his best effort.

As a player, he could do things that could keep your jaw permanently dropped in amazement, and though he never seemed to be comfortable forcing the action as a scorer — more naturally falling into the facilitating role that matched his team-oriented personality — his desire to win, particularly over the past few seasons, was palpable in his actions. He played through a torn labrum and an injured knee in a previous postseason when either could have sidelined him. He did the same thing during last year’s NBA Finals, when his knees were plagued by severe tendinitis that, for the most part, went unreported.

For everything that made him who he was, I couldn’t help but root for Lamar. If Kobe was a phenomenon who left you in awe, Lamar was human, endearing, fallible and authentic. You could relate to him because he was preternaturally gifted yet imperfect, a lot like one of us might be with all the basketball talent in the world. More than anything, you wanted Lamar to succeed, and when he came up short, it killed you. It was like watching a younger brother fail.

So when Lamar became an NBA champion, I truly could not have been happier for him. From the fall, when he set the tone for the season — agreeing in a contract year, to come off the Lakers’ bench — to Sunday night, when he corralled Rashard Lewis, dominated the glass and buried all three of his three-point attempts, he showed that he was a true professional on the court. Through the wins and losses, the nights of dominance and the nights of doubt, he remained undeterred and true to himself.

LO, I hope you’re enjoying the triumph, and that you revel in the respect and adulation that’s coming your way. No one deserves it more.

In the latest issue of ESPN the Magazine, Bill Simmons writes an insightful column about the changing relationships between athletes and the media. The gist of the piece: the sports media has been effectively “boxed out” by athletes, that athletes now essentially insulate themselves from the media and only allow access when it suits their own needs.

“We learn nothing from today’s superstars beyond the spin,” Simmons writes, skewering Kobe Bryant for what he sees as a plastic performance in the documentary Kobe Doin’ Work, produced by Spike Lee. He continues:

This is how you use the media. Control the access, provide your own filter, say nothing profound, play a part, derive the benefits.

To Simmons’ credit, many insights in the column are dead on. Where the piece falls short, however, is in explaining why athletes — with very good reason — have insulated themselves from the media.

Simmons writes about what he sees as the golden days of sports journalism — before television and the Internet — when newspapers, magazines and radio were the primary vehicles for athletes to communicate with fans.

During the Scotch ‘n Sirloin era, beat writers, local sportscasters and SI were our conduits because we didn’t have Google, cable TV, blogs or SportsCenter. If you missed a game … you missed it. No TiVo, no VCRs, no YouTube clips, no message board recaps. Athletes cooperated with the media because they needed to. How else could we follow them? How else could they get us to like them?

Today, he goes on to explain, it’s a different world:

Things changed once cable, talk radio and fantasy took off and sports became a 24/7 industry. Locker rooms swelled with reporters of all types. Fans wanted more access, more info, more everything. But as salaries climbed, star athletes no longer cared about fan approval as much as they cared about shaping their personae in an electronic age. They began to deal with reporters and writers only on their terms. They spoke candidly, but not really. As they retreated further into little bubbles, PR people and agents protecting them, the dynamic shifted completely.

Some disagreements about Simmons’ view of history aside (did athletes in the Scotch ‘n Sirloin era really care all that much about being liked?), there’s a key element missing here regarding why athletes aren’t as accessible anymore: namely, the radical change between the golden age and now in the way the media covers athletes.

It’s a Lowest Common Denominator Game

Back in the proverbial day, there was an unspoken but implicit agreement between athletes and sportswriters not to report off-the-court personal matters that had nothing to do with playing actual games. Not that there weren’t salacious gossip columns — there were — but as Simmons himself notes, there was a closeness and camaraderie between reporters and athletes that involved a degree of trust.

Moreover, reporters who were given locker room access had to pass through occupational hoops that, at least in theory, ensured some measure of journalistic skill. We had whole generations of sportswriters — Grantland Rice, Shirley Povich, Jim Murray, Frank DeFord, to name a few — who wrote so well they could have written fiction (and did).

Breaks of the Game (which Simmons mentions) is great because David Halberstam was a brilliant, insightful and professional journalist in the truest sense of being a professional. He was granted access because people trusted his judgment and professionalism.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t exceptional sportswriters out there today. There are. But there are also vast numbers of writers and bloggers who are decidedly mediocre at best, and who are more interested in reporting the lurid, sensational details of athletes’ lives off the playing field than anything else.

Why would any athlete subject himself to that if it could be avoided? Why would anyone, for that matter?

The Twenty-Four Hour News Cycle

The 24-hour news cycle has also added another undesirable dimension to interacting directly with journalists. Any misstep (rightly or wrongly) is chronicled (and effectively magnified) on TV, radio and the Internet ad infinitum, chiseling it into the public consciousness.  The unfortunately reality is that when an athlete does something positive, it rarely receives close to the same level of frenzied reporting because stories about good deeds don’t draw ears and eyeballs.

Just as an example: Ricky Davis is a client of mine. Mention his name and most people will go straight to his infamous triple-double. (So does Google.) They have no idea that he has won a number of NBA community service awards, or that in the Miami Heat’s miserable 2007-08 season, he was the only player to play all 82 games, or that early in his career, he gave $10,000 to help the family of a comatose teenager who subsequently recovered.

That last fact that has appeared as a bullet in Ricky’s bio on nearly every team he has ever played for, but to my knowledge, not one reporter in print or televsion has ever done a feature on it.

Features Don’t Pay

Simmons writes that he hasn’t found a memorable feature that’s been written about LeBron James. The truth is that outside of a handful of magazine features appearing in ESPN the Magazine or SI, you’ll be hard pressed to find a great feature story about any athlete — access issues aside — because sportswriters aren’t encouraged to write them. Writing a quality feature takes time, and taking time is expensive  for the newspaper or magazine paying the reporter.

It also takes time for the writer, and I’m not convinced that most members of the media have a real interest in spending the time to write a feature well.

Athletes Need the Media

Contrary to what Simmons (and a lot of journalists) think, athletes do need the media. I can see why Simmons feels that they don’t, particularly as athletes use more forms of technology to interact directly with fans.

Ultimately, though, without the media, what athletes have to say about themselves — as Simmons suggests — can deteriorate into nothing more than spin. For that reason, I don’t see the media going anywhere.

I’d just like to see it improve. If journalists like Simmons  want greater access from the athletes they cover, they need to demand more of themselves as well.

Just as an example: Instead of complaining to readers that the version of Kobe Bryant in Kobe Doin’ Work is contrived, Simmons could call up the Lakers, fly out to Los Angeles, and spend a month or two trying to get to know the “real” Kobe Bryant. He’s Bill Simmons. They will let him do it.

Maybe Kobe wouldn’t talk. Maybe he would. But one of the best sports features ever written was a Gay Talese piece about Joe DiMaggio (which I’m sure Simmons has read), and Talese wrote it without ever interviewing his subject.

Who Is Ultimately Responsible

Simmons ends his article with a resigned conclusion about the state of covering athletes:

This isn’t a good thing or a bad thing. It is what it is, and maybe how it always should have been.

It reminded me of the end of the movie “The Mission,” when a politician explains the corruption of the world by saying simply and with similar matter-of-factness, “The world is thus.”

The reply, which comes from a fallen priest: “No, thus have we made the world…thus have I made it.”

(Note: It was pointed out to me after writing this that Bill Simmons does live in Los Angeles. I think that actually makes my point more strongly.)

Two recent articles in Yahoo Sports have raised some very useful questions about just how and why athletes should use social networking tools, or really, if they should bother using them at all.

The first, by Charles Robinson, detailed the way that NFL teams are creating “ghost” profiles — typically in the guise of attractive girls — to “friend” prospective players and then sift through their personal profiles in search of red flags.

As he wrote in “Social Networking a Potential Trap for Prospects”:

The woman in the Facebook picture is attractive, with auburn hair and icy blue eyes. She is flanked by several other women, each armed with an inviting smile and curvy features. Along with the photo is a hopeful note from the female “fan” asking to be added to a player’s personal networking profile.

The twist? These women don’t actually exist, at least not in the way that some unsuspecting NFL prospects are led to believe. Indeed, they are a figment of one NFL team’s imagination – a phony Facebook profile, used as a tool by one franchise in the pre-draft vetting process. A Trojan horse that, when used effectively, unlocks a door to a world of Internet pictures and information which most NFL teams are now consistently compiling to help polish their dossiers on draft picks.

The second, posted yesterday by Curtis Granderson of the Detroit Tigers, conveyed his frustrations with social networking, particularly when it came to establishing his own presence on sites like Facebook and MySpace:

Two years ago I signed on and made a public page on MySpace. The page is to get information out about upcoming events and things with my Grand Kids Foundation. Until recently I was only on MySpace, but I had a lot of people coming up to me telling me they were friends with me on Facebook. I know there are fan pages, but these were pages of people actually claiming to be me, and telling people they were meeting on Facebook that they were me. But, of course, it wasn’t me.

It’s not hard to imagine that these sorts of issues exist for athletes in many other variations.

Case in point: I’ve noticed lately as we’ve monitored our clients’ Twitter posts that the same profiles — often, of women with notably provocative background images — have shown up on all of them, and on the profiles of a large number of other athletes, too. I don’t know these people, or if they’re actually women, or what their interests or intentions are, but suffice it to say that their near omnipresence across so many athlete profiles raises an eyebrow for me, at the very least.

So in light of the potential dangers — which seem to be growing all the time — what is the real value for an athlete when it comes to using tools like Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter?

CONTROLLING YOUR BRAND
For us, the purpose of all of these services is to help maintain and extend an athlete’s brand. To do that effectively, athletes and their support staff (management, marketing, etc.) need to have as much control as possible over how those services are used while still managing to maintain overall authenticity.

That’s precisely why we place an athlete’s web site at the center of his or her online universe, allowing it to broadcast the overall brand message, and associated content that backs it up.

Beyond that, here’s how we feel about social networking where athletes are concerned. (Note: These are general guidelines and would vary from athlete to athlete, particularly in the context of any social networking campaign that might be employed for specific promotional purposes.)

• Know why you’re using social networking tools in the first place. To utilize them without a clear goal in mind at best dilutes an athlete’s brand and at worst, could cause serious problems.
• For the most part, we do not recommend using Facebook or MySpace for communicating with fans unless it is unidirectional. This runs counterintuitive to prevailing thoughts about social networking, but our belief is that these environments create more opportunities for problems than anything else. Both Facebook and MySpace allow the integration of external RSS feeds from an athlete’s blog or Twitter, and that can be all of the participation required by an athlete.
• In general, Facebook and MySpace can also be used simply to funnel users to an athlete’s web site. Both environments allow far less control, at least with regard to branding, than an athlete’s site has if properly built and maintained.
• Twitter presents the ideal place for communicating with fans provided that athletes keep their posts light and exercise good judgment. With that in mind, we recommend some sort of content oversight from an objective source to ensure that a well-intentioned post doesn’t go awry, or to deal with it immediately if it does. (And as I posted a little while ago, don’t use Twitter  – or any of these tools — without a well-branded site to go with them.)
• In all of these environments — unless they’re being used solely for personal communications with close friends and relatives — we strongly recommend that athletes refrain from all personal communication with people they don’t know or know well. (Respond to fans in Twitter, but generally speaking, DON’T follow them.)

The bottom line on social networking is this: You do not know who you’re communicating with, or how they intend to use any information you share with them. Proceed with caution, or not at all.