The Eagles are, Smartly, Embracing the “Quarterback Controversy”

Screen Shot 2013-10-15 at 2.20.18 PMGotta hand it to the Eagles’ PR people, again. Ever since firing VP of Communications Rob Zeiger and Chief Marketing Officer Tim McDermott last November and then hiring Anne Gordon and, later, Brian Papson for those respective roles, the team’s marketing and PR has gotten noticeably better. We’ve mentioned it before on the site – from the way they rolled out Chip Kelly when he first got here to the #FlyEaglesFly campaign – but here’s yet another example of the team controlling the message during a big week.

Instead of running from the quarterback debate-controversy-competition between Michael Vick and Nick Foles, the Eagles are embracing it. Check out these Tweets this afternoon:

Screen Shot 2013-10-15 at 2.19.40 PMScreen Shot 2013-10-15 at 2.19.33 PMScreen Shot 2013-10-15 at 2.20.03 PMScreen Shot 2013-10-15 at 2.19.55 PM

Brilliant. That immediately disarms the negative connotation of quarterback controversy and turns it into a positive. They did the same thing with Andy Reid’s firing. I do think they got a bit too out ahead of the Riley Cooper thing and fanned the flames of their own fire (putting a crying Cooper in front of cameras was a bad idea), but that was probably a lose-lose situation. A QB controversy, however, doesn’t have to be.

Well played.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

6 Responses

  1. I have to respectfully disagree, Kyle. Twitter, and any form of “new” media, is not the place to “control the message.” Those days are loooong gone. If we’ve learned anything in recent years, it’s that organizations/people use of Twitter and other similar instant media only exacerbates controversies due to: 1.) the salesmanship vibe its use gives off; 2.) everyone’s immediate ability to react and react negatively to it. Twitter does not “disarm” people’s opinions – it merely confirms what like-minded folks are thinking or throws gasoline on opponents screeching opinions.

    That being said, this is hardly a “controversy” the Eagles need to worry about. I think it’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Eagles fans realize what this is – two above average QB’s alternating starts. Pretty benign stuff.

    1. I disagree. Social media is absolutely a way to get their message across. Problem is that many teams have been slow on this and have tone-deaf messages. Yeah, this isn’t a big deal, but it’s clear the team has said, instead of trying to avoid it, let’s celebrate it. I think this is a good move.

  2. 3 – 3 with the three wins coming against teams with a combined 1 – 16 record.

    Eagles really like to pump their chests out and celebrate mediocrity.

  3. DS,

    2 of the 3 loses came against undefeated teams(Broncos, Chiefs). Yes they haven’t beaten anyone but their loses aren’t bad loses. You gotta win the games you are supposed to win. They should have beaten the Chargers but were a Alex Henry missed FG short.

  4. All good and all BUT this Media team needs to understand the difference between ESPN’s nonsensical “QBR” and the NFL’s preferred Passer Rating

    The term “QBR” is an ESPN created term developed to measure quarterback contribution to scoring points and wins. Its measured on a scale of 0-100.

    Passer Rating is an entirely different metric that measures Completion Percentage, Average Yards Per Attempt, Percentage of Touchdown Passes, and Percentage of Interceptions and scales from 0-158.3

    The Eagles Media people obviously have this confused sine you cant have a QBR over 100.

    Nice try though

    1. Yes, lib, they mislabeld the passer ratings. Good job. You’re so amazing. Thanks for completely missing the point of the article.

Comments are closed.