Those who called for Paterno’s ouster – following his handling of an alleged 2002 pedophilia incident by former assistant Jerry Sandusky – believed he failed that victim and all subsequent victims when he did not use his power to force those in the athletic department and university administration to contact the authorities, instead of allegedly opting to deal with the problem internally.

The reported actions of those top decision makers at Penn State, which began in the days following the 2002 locker room incident and continued until this week, all shared the same misguided goal: Protecting the institution at all costs.

Those involved in the scandal likely thought they were being successful crisis managers the past nine years because the story never reached the media. That all changed on Sunday with news of Sandusky’s indictment and the filing of perjury charges against University Vice President Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley for lying to the same grand jury that indicted Sandusky.

Even in the face of such unprecedented scrutiny, University President Graham Spanier stuck with the broken game plan of protecting the institution at all costs by placing unconditional support behind the two men charged with perjury when a statement calling for an internal investigation would have better served the university.

According to many reports, when the media arrived on campus earlier this week and demanded answers, Spanier did not allow Paterno the opportunity to host his weekly news conference, which could have served as a forum to express even the simplest words of concern for the victims. Instead, silence prevailed once again.

Yes, the leaders at Penn State did manage to protect the institution’s name for nine years by keeping this information away from the public, but for what? This short-sighted and frankly dangerous attempt at crisis management made the situation so much worse and has potentially ruined the legacy they were all working so hard to protect.

Effective crisis management is so much more than keeping negative information out of the news. As this week’s events have shown, word will eventually get out. Acting as if it will not is a flawed crisis management strategy.

Being ready to accept accountability, acknowledging fault and explaining how things will be repaired are the real key tenets of crisis management that never found their way into Penn State’s strategy – until last night.

While not everyone is pleased with Joe Paterno’s firing – as evidenced by the riots on campus in State College – it was the only option left on the table for the Board of Trustees, the real top decision maker at Penn State and the one that actually understands how public relations works.

Removing Paterno (and Spanier for that matter) sent a clear message that Penn State University understands its responsibility to protect the institution AND the importance of having the support of its fans, alumni, faculty, donors, state and federal education officials and the general public. Being connected with those who were part of the alleged cover up could not continue.

The trustees understand very well that without public support there is no Penn State University. It’s a shame it took this long for this storied institution to finally properly manage what is likely the worst scandal in college sports history.

WTOP, the all-news goliath of the Washington, D.C., market (with significant spill over into the Baltimore market), is cited as one of the best examples of these local radio stations, ranking No. 2 nationwide in 2009 with $50 million in billings.

The major reason for the success of WTOP and other all-news stations appears to be the introduction of Arbitron’s Portable People Meters (PPM). These devices are designed to more accurately collect data on the radio listening habits of Americans in major media markets than did their predecessors, listener diaries.

The PPM data indicates all-news stations are likely benefitting from the high volume of people who will check out the all-news radio station in their market at some point of the day. Listeners who turn the dial to hear about the next impending “Snowpocalypse” or to find out why traffic is at a stand-still may very likely stay on that station to learn more about their local, national and international news.

During an era of unprecedented media fragmentation, all-news radio stations are the rare exception to the rule, and PR professionals should be sure to include them near the top of the list when pitching a story. And it’s not just because all-news radio is growing in influence and reach; there are other reasons why all-news stations should be high priorities:

1)      News segments can air several times throughout a day, allowing your story to be told to a much larger (and broader) audience than just one placement could do.

2)      Phone interviews are more widely accepted than they are by television news stations, which by comparison, typically prefer to only use phone interviews in breaking news situations.

3)      It may seem like a no brainer, but no visuals are required. Sometimes the logistics of developing a piece for a TV news crew can become overwhelming not just for the PR person, but for an organization’s operations team too. Radio takes that out of the equation.

4)      Online media supports radio content on multiple platforms, including website articles with supporting audio clips, live streaming of the radio station on the station website, and smart phone applications that offer live streaming and podcasts.

Radio may be coming up on its 100^th anniversary, but it’s far from being finished with its evolution. Look for more stations to capitalize on the all-news trend in the near future, giving PR professionals more options for sharing their stories.

For the past five years I have been willing to pay around $12 per month (plus hardware costs) for the opportunity to listen to my favorite show on SIRIUS. Before Howard Stern announced he was headed to the satellite radio company back in 2004 for a five-year contract that would begin on Jan. 1, 2006, I never gave much serious thought paying money for radio, something that had always been free.

But the idea of uncensored content on two 24-hour-a-day channels programmed by Stern made the $12 per month seem like a very small expense, especially compared to the cost of cable TV or high-speed Internet. So I, like millions of others, decided to pay good money to continue to hear the show I loved.

The end of that five-year contract with SIRIUS is approaching, and for the 56-year-old Stern, retirement has always seemed possible. Stern’s recent complaints about the early start time of the show have caused many to think this would be his last year on radio.

Adding to that, Stern’s reported $100 million per year salary may be too much to renew for SIRIUS, a company that has struggled to avoid penny stock status in recent years, despite a merger with its one-time larger competitor, XM.

On this morning’s show, Stern said definitively for the first time that he’s not ready to retire. What’s more interesting was the doubt he expressed that he and SIRIUS will be able to reach a new deal.

It’s very possible all of this is just one elaborate negotiating ploy by Stern (he’s done this before), but I don’t think that’s the case this time around. The money Stern thinks he is worth is a very high expense for a company in SIRIUS’s financial situation. More importantly, there are now other options for Stern, beyond going back to the restrictions of FM and AM radio.

So let the speculation begin. Is it possible that the most popular and financially successful radio show of the past 20 years is headed to its third technology platform in five years? Will it be a podcast, Internet broadcast or a Smartphone app? Or maybe a combination of all three?

The promise of these technologies is very appealing for Stern: There would be no content restrictions and all subscription and advertising profits would go to him. Another technology change would again make him a pioneer, and it would lend credibility to people who already have been relatively successful in podcast and Internet broadcasting. Of course it would open new doors for other radio personalities too.

The real questions that matter are these: Will Howard Stern’s sizable fan base be willing to come along with him again to a new medium? Will he be able to convince them that online broadcasting can work in their cars? And, will advertisers follow?

So is this another negotiating ploy, or are we perhaps at the precipice of online/mobile broadcasting going mainstream? Only time will tell, and that time is coming soon.

It was about Old Spice and its recent social media marketing campaign, which was one of the biggest marketing stories of the summer.

The July campaign, which featured the Old Spice Guy replying to consumers’ questions on various social networks in the form of 180 YouTube videos, led to tens of millions of combined views on YouTube of the video replies. Here is just one example of a reply: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So5yDtITswY&feature=channel.

While there has been some debate about whether or not this creative approach to achieving social media marketing success has been a major driver of business, there is no debating the reach Old Spice produced in a short period of time.

So you may be wondering, Chris, how does your shower factor into all of this?

Here is your answer. I recently purchased Old Spice Swagger body wash for the first time (perhaps because of the recent campaign), and I immediately noticed something missing from it. There were no links or logos referencing Old Spice’s social networks. Yes, those same networks that made the Old Spice Guy campaign a success.

The verbiage on the back of the plastic body wash container looked like what I imagine it did pre-Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, offering just an 800 number for people to call with questions or comments.

This immediately struck me as a missed opportunity. What better way to keep your current customers engaged and purchasing your products than promoting your social networks on the products they just purchased?

I don’t want to single out Old Spice, so during my weekly trip to Safeway later in the day yesterday, I checked dozens of products for messages that encourage consumers to Like the brand on Facebook or follow it on Twitter. I couldn’t find any that did.

We all see plenty of TV ads that ask people to visit a Facebook page to interact with the company, but the same message isn’t carrying over to the actual product packaging.

Why is that the case? My guess is for many companies the product packaging and marketing departments aren’t on the same page when it comes to the importance of social media.

The other products I saw during my grocery store visit still exclusively promote an 800 number, much like Old Spice’s, for fielding consumer questions and concerns. With most of these major brands now on Facebook and Twitter, it seems a bit outdated to only promote a customer service hotline on packaging.

I attest I wasn’t able to look into every consumer product for sale right now during my field research yesterday, so I’m sure there are some companies that are incorporating social media logos and links onto their product packaging. But it seems like the majority are not. And it’s a major missed opportunity that can be easily solved through better internal communication.

Our challenge to MGH Blog readers: Help us find examples of products that feature social network links and/or logos. We know they must be out there! You can either post a link to an online photo or post them to our Facebook wall at www.facebook.com/mghus. We look forward to seeing what you can find.

Interleague Baseball returns tomorrow, with one of the major cross-town rivalries, the Cubs vs. the White Sox, among the match ups.

Games between National League and American League opponents have enjoyed higher attendance than traditional intraleague match ups during the past 14 years, especially in regional rivalries that attempt to approach the excitement of those found in college football.

So it probably isn’t a surprise that one of these rivalries decided to have an official unique trophy, much like the ones found in college sports.  And the fact that two teams decided to get the trophy sponsored isn’t a surprise either, given the need to generate revenue through unique sponsorships in sports.

But what is a surprise is that the trophy is sponsored by BP and all sides have decided to carry on with the sponsorship, despite the negative publicity BP is enduring due to its handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Last week, BP announced it was scaling back the promotion, but ultimately, the trophy will still have the BP name on it and will be presented on the field after the six games are completed.

So if you were in Cubs or White Sox management, would you hold up your end of the contract, or do whatever you could to break it and avoid the awkwardness of accepting a trophy sponsored by a company many Americans do not like?

Do the Cubs and White Sox deserve any negative PR for remaining associated with BP, or should they get a free pass because the sponsorship was arranged before the oil spill?

Read more from MGH NOW:

Four Lessons to Learn from BP’s PR Nightmare

BP to Use Google Search to Control Image

As Darren Rovell from CNBC reported this week, the Seattle Sounders, a Major League Soccer team, recently decided to go against this model and issue refunds to all 32,000 season ticket holders after a lackluster loss to the L.A. Galaxy – in the form of a credit for the cost of season tickets in 2011.

Refunds certainly happen in other parts of our economy, but rarely like this. Often when a product is recalled – like a car or pharmaceutical drug – it is following public outcry or pressure from government agencies. In these economic times, a for-profit organization intentionally forfeiting revenues without strong external pressures to do so appears on the surface to be ill-advised.

But as Rovell points out in his article, offering refunds to fans for a team’s poor performance doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Another team, the River City Rascals of minor league baseball, have turned it into an opportunity by partnering with an insurance company to offer “winning insurance” each night.

Beyond the possibility of offsetting financial losses by rolling them into renewal plans and creating new sponsorships, there is the potential benefit of positive public relations that comes from a move like this. Some fans, especially those who never fully believed that being a fan meant life-long loyalty, will view sports teams that guarantee wins or their money back more favorably. To them, even if their favorite team loses, they keep their money.

This approach may work for sports teams, especially ones struggling to get noticed, but would you ever consider giving refunds en masse to your customers as a way to get positive media coverage for your business?