Combine a sanctioning body with no self awareness, select media members inflaming a penalty, an unclear inspection process and technical issue, and a driver who likes to speak his mind and you’ve got a lesson in public relations no-nos.
There is an old adage in PR: if you don’t tell your story, someone else will and you may not like how they tell it. This is something the folks at NASCAR could stand to learn.
In a media environment that is increasingly loud, swift and dare I say hostile, treading lightly around these penalty issues is very important.
In the wake of the Clint Bowyer penalties this past week, NASCAR used their weekly teleconference to explain the issue and answer questions – only they did a pretty bad job at both. Instead of making sure things were appropriately explained, and giving media members every opportunity to ask questions, they were unclear (even when asked to explain in layman’s terms) and limited them to one question (which some promptly started complaining about on twitter).
All told the teleconference explaining this thing took 21 minutes. What NASCAR needed to do was to take the car, get their video conferencing equipment and go through it – then they needed to let the media members ask as many questions as they wanted (whether that took 20 minutes or 2 hours). Of course all of this needed to be available for fans to watch.
The resulting inadequate explanations then got muddled when the story was told. Then RCR added to the story by essentially calling BS on NASCAR (NASCAR addressed in the teleconference what would later become RCR’s explanation and said given previous data they had, it was not likely). With the amount of trust fans have in the sanctioning body though it was apparent who they believed. As usual, the story got away from NASCAR.
This wasn’t helped by some media members who took to their respective websites and social media accounts to join the chorus of anti-NASCAR sentiment. Again, they, like RCR, told the story, not NASCAR.
What I find hard to believe though is that NASCAR doesn’t realize the implications these penalties have with the fans. If they’d do a reasonable job explaining the problem, this means going on TV and explaining in actual layman’s terms what the issue is (because most people don’t understand what goes into the inspection process, or what exactly a penalty is being issued for because they haven’t been involved in building a COT, or understand the engineering of it), and then debunking things, they wouldn’t spend two weeks defending themselves against (or doing what they normally do and ignoring) unfounded allegations.
This sporting body has trust and public relations issues unlike their counterparts throughout America. It’s to the point I believe it’s driving fans away. They though are tone deaf. Truly mind boggling. Let’s hope whoever takes this unenviable position of Chief Communications Officer convinces the leadership at NASCAR to do a better job of creating transparency (which they are under no obligation to do) for the sake of the sport.
NASCAR wasn’t alone in their communications missteps this weekend. Look no further than Denny Hamlin, a guy who is never afraid to give his opinion. During his Friday Chase press conference Hamlin said:
“In the garage, everyone has known it for months… It’s not two weeks old. They’ve been warned for a long time, way before Richmond. … They knew it was wrong way before that, and they wanted to get everything they could.”
Now I won’t comment on the validity of Hamlin’s comments, but they got him into trouble. As JD Gibbs later told him, sometimes it’s best to keep our thoughts and opinions to ourselves.
Whether acting under team orders, or as a lone assassin, Kevin Harvick, during practice on Saturday, proceeded to let Denny Hamlin know that his comments were not well received. Afterward there was some intense discussion. NASCAR said ‘boys, have at it’ right? No doubt failed communications on all parts.
What we learned this week was that NASCAR still has a long way to go in regaining the trust of it’s fans and that is probably going to start with much more transparency to prove that they really have no agenda – other than maintaining their rulebook. And don’t screw with RCR, because they’ll get you.
TheNASCARInsiders.com Follow the Insiders on Twitter or be a fan on Facebook!
When NASCAR announced today that they were dropping the hammer on Clint Bowyer and his team for violations following his win at Loudon, they showed the teams and fans that nobody is above the law. Big team, small team, in the Chase, or just trying to qualify, the rules apply to everyone.
Both myself and Journo have not been afraid in the two-plus year existence of this blog to both criticize and defend NASCAR. If we’ve thought one way or the other, we’ve said so. And in the process, we’ve often been called homers, kool aid drinkers, and worse. One very glaring example of such a case where we were accused of being homers was the infamous Carl Long incident. Over and over we had commenters who claimed that NASCAR was trying to hold the little guy back, and that they never came down hard on big teams (search Carl Long in the search box to the right to see the many posts and comments). We gave example after example that proved otherwise, but it didn’t matter. “If the same would have happened to Jimmie Johnson, the penalty would have been less severe.” So I have one question haters, where are you today?
In a statement from the team, Richard Childress said the measurement in question was off by 60 thousandths of an inch. So in effect, NASCAR just poured gasoline on Bowyer’s Chase chances (with the 150 point penalty) over the thickness of 15 sheets of paper (Thanks Dr. Diandra). Still think NASCAR only bullies the little guys?
It was very interesting today to follow this story as it developed and all the discussion via Twitter. We had everyone from drivers, to the media and the fans reacting as this story happened. For those upset by the penalty, it appears that the overwhelming reason is that NASCAR wouldn’t give exact details about what was illegal. I did see too the theory that NASCAR was doing this to Bowyer just to help out Jimmie, which I think is great, because dropping Bowyer from second to twelfth in the standings doesn’t benefit Johnson in any way. He’s still 92 points out of the lead regardless. What I didn’t see were any comments about the fairness of the penalty based on the status of RCR as a team in the sport.
I also want to point out that this penalty was announced on the same day as a penalty levied against little Whitney Motorsports for engine valves that did not meet weight requirements. They were fined $50,000, lost their crew chief for six races, and lost 50 driver and owner points. I sure didn’t see anyone piling on NASCAR for penalizing this small team. And they claim that it wasn’t their fault because the engine was worked on by Arrington Engines, which sounds awfully familiar to the story Carl Long gave about his illegal engine. Yet still no comments. Why? Because it’s tough to hate on NASCAR for being unfair on a day when they showed that it doesn’t matter who breaks the rules.
Over the last few years we’ve been fed all types of reasons why something was illegal on a race car. We’ve heard rogue crew chiefs, rogue engine shops, and rogue crew members were to blame. But a rogue tow truck driver? Now that takes the cake.
Filed under: Clint Bowyer, Chase for the Sprint Cup, Richard Childress Racing, NASCAR
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
After a couple of days of what I’m sure was intense hand wringing and some serious questions, NASCAR announced Wednesday the punishment for Carl Edwards and Brad Keselowski after their last lap melee at Gateway. As I’m sure most of you saw, NASCAR docked Edwards 60 driver points and fined him $25,000 and docked Jack Roush 60 owner points. Both Edwards and Keselowski were placed on probation until the end of the year.
After the announcement Twitter was a buzz with speculation about what this would mean for NASCAR’s ‘boys, have at it’ policy. Many decried this as inconsistency, others said it would have a chilling effect, and still some applauded it.
Wherever you stand on the penalty, I thought the insistence by some that this would kill the new, more open policy was interesting – especially after the intense discussion on the matter leading up to NASCAR’s Wednesday afternoon announcement.
I personally tend to think this penalty won’t have a great affect on the current atmosphere. Certainly I think Carl’s penalty will make guys think twice about paying somebody back on track, but in the heat of the moment I believe we’re still going to see retribution.
Perhaps if this had been the first penalty issued after NASCAR instituted the policy it would have not changed the way things operated. Guys would have seen that NASCAR wasn’t serious about the change. Consider though what NASCAR has allowed drivers to do this season.
Denny Hamlin was wrecked under caution after Clint Bowyer returned to the track – Bowyer got probation. Carl Edwards returned to the track after getting repaired at Atlanta and wrecked Brad Keselowski – Keselowski ended up on his top in the fence and Edwards got parked and put on probation.
Drivers have seen what NASCAR has allowed others to get away with. The key lesson to all of this is, if you have spoken with John Darby, Mike Helton or both already regarding an incident with a fellow competitor and they’ve told you to cool it, you better cool it. If something blatant goes down on track you’re probably going to have a harsher penalty as a result.
Still NASCAR knows what a success this policy has been, and how good the racing has been this season. The last thing they want to do is murder the thing that has helped them get to this point – and I think most drivers know that.
Some More Penalty Thoughts
I think it’s important to remember Carl is a repeat offender – and these two have a long history. Was this weekend’s wreck any more or less blatant than anything anyone else has done this season? I don’t really think so. I do think though at some point NASCAR was going to have to draw a line and say “enough is enough.” This just happened to be the point.
Was it inconsistent? Maybe in the sense that they’ve chosen not to punish offenders quite so harshly this season (Carl among those). It’s unfair to compare this to previous seasons though as NASCAR was operating under a different policy. That said, NASCAR could stand to use some consistency. At times they’re definitely making up penalties as they go.
It hurts the credibility of the sport when the sanctioning body isn’t consistently enforcing things, or drawing clear distinctions ahead of time for what is and is not OK.
I know we and everyone else has spent a lot of time talking about this, this week (and generally we hate to have two posts of similar topics on the same week), but we like to be able to foster and facilitate discussion. Overall I think this week has been interesting in the development of this new doctrine – though I honestly don’t believe anything will change.
“Boys, have at it” may have finally reached its limit.
In the final lap of the Nationwide race at Gateway this weekend, familiar foes Brad Keselowski and Carl Edwards went at it…again. Each driver took a shot at the other, beginning with Keselowski into Edwards, and ending with Edwards into Keselowski (and Keselowski into the wall and Shelby Howard into him). The controversial end to the race is just the latest in a series of incidents since NASCAR loosened its grip on driver confrontations.
Overall, I think we can all agree the policy shift has been successful. Drivers are now settling their disputes between each other, and NASCAR is not affecting points or relationships. Like all good things though, there comes a time when too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing – we may have seen that Saturday night.
Perhaps the goal of these two is to see which can kill the other first – I don’t know. That said, I can’t necessarily blame either for their individual actions. Brad was utilizing the bump and run (it didn’t work), and Carl wasn’t happy about it (given their relationship that’s no surprise). What transpired just short of the start/finish line though should be yet another warning for all those considering ending a fellow competitors day on track.
Did you see how hard Shelby Howard hit Keselowski? The front stretch at such a small track is dangerous with the checkered flag in the air. Again, I don’t necessarily blame Carl for doing what he did, but I think we’re nearing the point when NASCAR needs to draw a line in the sand, and say “this is not acceptable.”
The problem with NASCAR issuing damaging penalties though is that it could have a chilling effect on the policy. If drivers see that there are limits, they might be more apt to keep their mouths shut and their frustration private – something NASCAR desperately wants to avoid.
NASCAR has to walk a very fine line with this (especially under the circumstances). Too much of a penalty they risk alienating a positive policy change. Not enough, they enhance the environment for something more serious to occur.
So far we’ve just seen probation given to those who have actively engaged in on-track retaliation this season. Could that change on Tuesday (NASCAR’s usual penalty announcement day)? I honestly don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised either way.
What do you think? Was the payback justified? Should Carl be penalized? What’s the limit for ‘boys, have at it’? Talk amongst yourselves.
After yesterday’s story about Front Row’s possible infraction at Pocono, we are hearing today that the penalty from NASCAR could be the biggest ever handed down.
When NASCAR makes the announcement later today or tomorrow, expect the penalty to include a $250,000 fine and 300 driver and owner points for Travis Kvapil and owner Bob Jenkins. A suspension for crew chief Steven Lane will also be included.
This penalty tops the sanctions handed down last season to Carl Long’s team after his engine was discovered to be too large at Charlotte.
Like we’ve said here before, NASCAR will always be harshest about infractions dealing with engines, tires, and fuel, and they are obviously using this situation to reinforce that notion.
No word yet on how this will affect the team’s status moving forward. Expect the team to appeal the decision.