Rangers appoint DUP councillor as Head of Communications and Media Relations

[compo 7,048]

the new  PR team

[Walterbear 557]

I’m not up to date with these institutions. I’ve supported Rangers since I was a toddler and wasn’t terribly engaged with loyalist (or republican) organisations at that age although I was brought up in a mixed Glasgow family and I hated all the krap (particularly aimed at my mum from the catholic side), so I do understand the key social questions here.  
 

A key question for me is  ‘Do the Orange Order still prohibit members from marrying catholics?’ . 
 

I’m not into appeasement as a strategy as that has failed but if the OO can be perceived as sectarian or prejudiced against one group and this fellow is a leading member then the appt is a mistake for the reasons JM highlighted. Happily to be politely advised what the current reality is as I genuinely don’t know. 

[Bill 13,717]

2 hours ago, JohnMc said:

PR has a reactive and proactive element to it. For the proactive side I feel a large part of it should be about rebuilding the influence a club the size and importance of Rangers should have. That needs to start with the SFA and the SPFL and UEFA. We should also look to have very strong relationships with the main sponsors, potential sponsors and broadcast/media partners for the various leagues and competitions we play in, ultimately they hold a lot of clout so should be a main focus for us. Follow the money, always follow the money. 

Secondly we should be looking to at least punch our weight politically and in greater civic society. That will require forming relationships with individuals and organisations within those realms. We’ve not been good at that for a while now, we need a very different strategy to what has gone before to see any improvements in this. In my experience politicians hate surprises and like to be be seen to have influence and be in the know. Facilitate that as much as we can, build relationships on a personal level and on a corporate level, no matter how unpopular that might be with some supporters. 

Thirdly the media. Whether we like it or not they influence and shape opinion. Anyone who thinks there are no Rangers supporters in the Scottish media is very wrong. There are also a number of people who are not Rangers supporters but are professional enough to do their jobs well. Without the media it is harder to build influence with sponsors for example. So somewhere along the way compromise needs to be found. 

 

Reactive PR generally requires excellent relationships with the media. For a football club negative PR tends to come from player or supporter behaviour. Having the ability to manage or control to some extent how that’s reported is essential. I think it's all very well keeping Rangers bloggers and podders onside, and they do have influence with the support, however whether we like it or not mainstream media hold far more sway with sponsors and governing bodies, we need them, for now at least. 

That’s my 20 minute PR strategy.

 

Edit - to achieve that you need people who know the landscape and know the personalities in it. Ideally they've done some, or all of it before somewhere else. These people exist.  

Thanks. This essentially sets out broad objectives that I think few would disagree with. However, it still doesn't explain how we might achieve these goals, particularly in the face of an aggressively resistive and actively adversarial media and football community. I think what's needed are effective strategies rather than simply describing the destination. So far I've seen little of this from any source and it may well be that, in the current socio-political climate, there are no workable solutions. The old adage about taking a horse to water comes to mind.

[Bill 13,717]

The other question of course as we move into what will surely be a new era in Scottish football (and life in general) is whether we need the media more than they will need us? I'm not sure the answer is as clear as many seem to think. Nothing lasts forever, certainly not the BBC.

[Gonzo79 15,294]

46 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

if the OO can be perceived as sectarian or prejudiced against one group and this fellow is a leading member then the appt is a mistake

Rangers FC and Rangers supporters are perceived that way by a lot of Scots and most Scottish sports journalists. 

[Frankie 8,570]

3 hours ago, JohnMc said:

PR has a reactive and proactive element to it. For the proactive side I feel a large part of it should be about rebuilding the influence a club the size and importance of Rangers should have. That needs to start with the SFA and the SPFL and UEFA. We should also look to have very strong relationships with the main sponsors, potential sponsors and broadcast/media partners for the various leagues and competitions we play in, ultimately they hold a lot of clout so should be a main focus for us. Follow the money, always follow the money. 

Secondly we should be looking to at least punch our weight politically and in greater civic society. That will require forming relationships with individuals and organisations within those realms. We’ve not been good at that for a while now, we need a very different strategy to what has gone before to see any improvements in this. In my experience politicians hate surprises and like to be be seen to have influence and be in the know. Facilitate that as much as we can, build relationships on a personal level and on a corporate level, no matter how unpopular that might be with some supporters. 

Thirdly the media. Whether we like it or not they influence and shape opinion. Anyone who thinks there are no Rangers supporters in the Scottish media is very wrong. There are also a number of people who are not Rangers supporters but are professional enough to do their jobs well. Without the media it is harder to build influence with sponsors for example. So somewhere along the way compromise needs to be found. 

 

Reactive PR generally requires excellent relationships with the media. For a football club negative PR tends to come from player or supporter behaviour. Having the ability to manage or control to some extent how that’s reported is essential. I think it's all very well keeping Rangers bloggers and podders onside, and they do have influence with the support, however whether we like it or not mainstream media hold far more sway with sponsors and governing bodies, we need them, for now at least. 

That’s my 20 minute PR strategy.

 

Edit - to achieve that you need people who know the landscape and know the personalities in it. Ideally they've done some, or all of it before somewhere else. These people exist.  

An excellent post...

[der Berliner 3,747]

Problem is that Scotland is - essentially - a media pond. You see the same faces and people for a decade or two and you have to look hard to find more than half a handful in the Scottish  media that view Rangers with an impartial eye, not to mention favourable eye. Did the club ever go after one of those who blackmailed us or besmirched out club's name in any way or form? The umpteen times it happened? Or how the media tried to influence e.g. SFA officials like the CO? And successfully so. You can try a softer route with these media chaps, but is anyone here really of the opinion that this would sway these feisty trolls and opinion makers in any way or form? This is Scotland after all, where clan mentality and swapping loyalties (for a time) has seemingly been reared to perfection. (No insult intended BTW.)

 

We should draw a line for ourselves and if someone in the media goes beyond that Pale, we should confront them "vigorously" and not just in words on a homepage.

[Bill 13,717]

It wouldn't matter how many journalists sympathised with Rangers because they don't decide what's printed. So long as sub editors pursue an anti-Rangers line, that's what will appear on the page.

[barca72 440]

7 hours ago, buster. said:

Good to see you still around Scott 

 

Day 5 of lockdown in Spain means you´ll have to put up with me !

 

It´ll probably be the second week before it drives me into The Lounge where I´d guess Coronavirus has already morphed into Corona = Communism for the resident XXXXx 

Just out of curiosity, question for @barca72

Re. Orange Order statement that I referred to several times that offered olive branch suggestions (re. marches in Glasgow). Do you know if David Graham hd anything to do with it ?

I ask because I thought it to be an excellent proposal ...although it didn´t receive enough coverage/traction.

 

Jim McHarg as Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland made that statement.
I would have no way of knowing which advisors had input into its composition.

[barca72 440]

5 hours ago, Walterbear said:

I’m not up to date with these institutions. I’ve supported Rangers since I was a toddler and wasn’t terribly engaged with loyalist (or republican) organisations at that age although I was brought up in a mixed Glasgow family and I hated all the krap (particularly aimed at my mum from the catholic side), so I do understand the key social questions here.  
 

A key question for me is  ‘Do the Orange Order still prohibit members from marrying catholics?’ . 
 

I’m not into appeasement as a strategy as that has failed but if the OO can be perceived as sectarian or prejudiced against one group and this fellow is a leading member then the appt is a mistake for the reasons JM highlighted. Happily to be politely advised what the current reality is as I genuinely don’t know. 

Can a Catholic join the Orange Order?
The Orange Order is a Protestant organisation. Members are required to be of 'a reformed faith'. In the past the organisation explicitly banned Catholics but that is now covered more subtly under the Reformed faith requirement. Protestants who are married to Catholics can't join either.

 

Can an Orange Order member marry a catholic?
You cannot be a member of the Orange Order while married to a practicing catholic. A catholic has to marry and take the partner to the altar. The truth is that the Catholic Church is opposed to any such order.