Yesterday, I was watching the streaming coverage of the Amgen Tour of California cycling race. The race website features an amazing live streaming application called Tour Tracker which includes two video feeds, GPS tracking of riders, route profiles, standings, route profiles text updates, and live commentary by Joe Silva and Frankie Andreu (a former pro-cyclist and team mate of Lance Armstrong). It really is a great display of almost every Web 2.0 technology out there. And this year, the race is the biggest international cycling race on American soil and it features the top names in professional cycling. Plus,we have the return of Lance Armstrong! The Tour organizers are doing an amazing job and it’s really lived up to its promise, and so far the races have been really exciting. But what hasn’t been exciting is the commentary. In fact it’s been pretty lackluster. Guess it goes without saying that just because you were a good professional cyclist, it doesn’t make you a good commentator.
Frankie Andreu
But the commentary itself is not really what troubled me. What troubled me was that during yesterday’s great stage from Merced to Clovis, Joe and Frankie did a short interview with Road Magazine’s Neil Brown. Neil gave a good interview and also spoke a little about his use of Twitter to provide cycling news and to engage the cycling community in discussion (you can follow him at http://twitter.com/neilroad). And that’s where it all fell apart. Joe and Frankie, in particular, began joking about and then criticizing Twitter and the use of it by some professional cyclists and managers. Then Frankie began dismissing Twitter as an invalid source of information. Frankie actually said (and the quote may not be precise, there’s no replay on the live stream) “It’s ridiculous that Lance Armstrong is Twittering and people are quoting his Tweets. That’s not a real quote!” Frankie’s tirade continued, bashing Armstrong and other cyclists for Tweeting nonsense and for the public wanting to follow it. Neil teased Frankie a bit and suggested that maybe he should try Twitter. Frankie’s response “Oh yeah, I could say Frankie ate breakfast! or Frankie took the kids to school!” Based on his argument and his tone of voice, I guess we won’t be seeing Frankie on Twitter any time soon.
Frankie is what my friend Bert Decker would call an Old Communicator. In his commentary itself, Frankie is not connecting with his audience. (And please, don’t say it’s because it’s a boring cycling race. Phil Liggett, Paul Sherwen, and Bob Roll have been doing it for years and people love them!) Aside from his unemotional commentary, the statements like those he made about Twitter would indicate to me that Mr. Andreu isn’t very interested in connecting with people at all. I’m really not picking on Frankie here. I’m just using him as an example of an Old Communicator. They see the world in their terms and don’t make the effort to connect and engage with people. More importantly, they don’t motivate people to action. And that’s the other problem with Frankie. The Amgen Tour of California has a goal to support the fight against cancer. Many times during the race, Frankie and Joe interviewed folks from various organizations who are helping in this fight. Because of the basic lack of connection to the audience, I’m really afraid that the call to action for these guests was probably lost. That is the real shame here.
Lance Armstrong
Now, let’s look at the flip side of this coin. And since Frankie brought him up, let’s talk about Lance Armstrong in particular. (Disclaimer: Yes, I’m a Lance fanboy, but this post has nothing to do with that.) Lance is an excellent communicator. All during his reign as 7-time Tour de France champion, he always communicated well with the media and the public. Sure, he had his ups and downs and was under fire numerous times. But, he always maintained his cool. Lance also connects with people. I’ve seen him speak at numerous events and watched him connect both onstage and off with people. He cares enough to take the time to talk with them and get to know them. And he really takes the time to connect with cancer survivors. But more importantly, Lance not only connects with people, he truly motivates them to action. So, according to Bert’s definition, I’d say that Lance Armstrong is a New Communicator.
But I’d like to define Lance as even more. I’d like to define him, in direct response to Frankie’s statements, as a “New” New Communicator. Lance has gone beyond the traditional forums of communication and has embraced the new world of social media to further his connections with people around the world. Lance, and other cycling stars including Lance’s manager Johan Bruyneel, have taken the big plunge into Twitter, blogging, TwitPics and more. And they’re good at it. Really good at it. We’re not seeing Tweets or blogs about taking the trash out or feeding the dogs. We’re getting a real insight into what its like to be Lance Armstrong, professional cyclist and cancer fighter, on a daily basis on Twitter. We’re getting inside photos of Lance’s travels as he trains, races, and spreads his message around the world on TwitPic. And we’re getting real information that motivates people to action from Lance’s own blog and videos on his Livestrong website. And in case you’re wondering, it is Lance who is doing this, not some PR firm. People are interested in Lance and Lance knows that. And he’s making connections with the people who are interested and motivating them to do something. So, if I can revise Bert’s definition, here’s my definition of a “New” New Communicator: “New” New Communicators don’t just provide information, they influence and motivate others to action through the emotional connections they make, both in-person and through a wide variety of other interactive media. And according to that, I’d qualify Lance Armstrong as a “New” New Communicator.
[Start of mini rant] As for Frankie Andreu and his statement that Twitter and other social media sources can’t be quoted, I have this to say: Yes they can. And they are! You don’t get to make the rules anymore. Until the Old Communicators learn that these new mediums of communication are valid and important in our ever shrinking world, they’ll remain Old Communicators. As long as the Old Communicators believe that “information” can only come from certain sources, they’ll remain Old Communicators. And until Old Communicators realize that they DO need to connect with people to be successful and motivate people, they will remain Old Communicators. There is hope, but just know that there are still many Old Communicators out there to be converted. [End of mini rant. I feel better now]
5 comments so far ↓
1 Elizabeth // Feb 19, 2009 at 3:20 am
Whoa, just by the choice of pictures you’ve chosen to post here, we can see which side of the fence you fall on. Given that Frankie has had to speak 5 hours or longer at times with absolutely no feed, even then he was filling up time well. His commentary is knowledgeable. He’s an asset to the ToC with his objectivity unlike others in other media who fawn over certain riders/teams.
Because Frankie has better things to do with his time than Twitter says a lot more to me than someone who wastes his time following others. Is your life so dull you have to know the mundane things people are doing? That says more about them; does Twitter satisfy their craving for attention? Glad Frankie doesn’t feel the need and has better things to do with his time.
The only thing good about Twitter is that it could hold people accountable. Otherwise, I’m with him and Joe. It’s a waste of time.
2 Chris // Feb 19, 2009 at 4:19 am
@Elizabeth: Yes, I agree that on the first few stages, it was very rough for Joe and Franky without video. It was a lot of unexpected face time with not much to go on (except live Twitter feeds of the event). And I also wholeheartedly agree that Frankie is very knowledgeable and does add value to the commentary. But, that is not what I’m talking about here. Anybody with knowledge can “transfer” information. The real skill is in not only transferring the information, but connecting on an emotional level with the audience. That’s the point I was making here. I don’t dislike Frankie. He’s a nice enough guy. He’s just an Old Communicator.
As for his comments on Twitter, it’s a misunderstanding of a new medium of communication. It’s a cycle that happens over and over whenever new technologies are introduced. In every technology adoption, you have the innovators, early adopters, then the early majority (about where Twitter is now), then the late majority, and finally the laggards. There are just a lot of people now who are in the two majorities that are trying to figure out why and how they should use things like Twitter. If you’re interested, you should read Geoffrey Moore’s “Crossing the Chasm”. It explains all of this and more. Or check out a longer post on the subject of technology adoption here: http://tinyurl.com/djebjw.
Finally, I meant to convey nothing by the picture selection. It was what I found available for public use. Sorry if they “told a story”. Maybe that alone is saying something?
3 Katt_DC // Feb 19, 2009 at 10:23 am
@Elizabeth – Chris clearly states that he’s a Lance fanboy, so no need to try to read between the lines
@Chris – JoE tweets (theqrm) but can’t really do that and broadcast at the same time. I felt for them during the first few days with the lack of video. Cycling commentary is underwhelmingly captivating at the best of times, and to have to sit there for hours and talk about erm… nothing (much) is brutal.
Anyway, agree with your assessment of the new new thing.
4 dafogle // Feb 19, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Great post Chris – I totally agree with you - it’s a new way of communicating and connecting – and Lance, Johan and the livestrong team really do get it.
5 Clarke // Feb 20, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I don’t think you can say we are in the early majority yet. Under the new Twitter funding round this week, the estimates put total worldwide usage at around 6 million users. This is just over 1 percent of the U.S. population and only drop in the bucket of the developed world’s population (U.S., E.U., Japan, Canada, etc). I agree with your conceptual point on new communicators versus old communicators, but the ability to relate crosses technology platforms. Barack Obama is just as engaging on television, email, and in person. Twitter just compresses the communication. I would speculate that Twitter only enhances the persona and does not define it. You are unlikely to begin following someone on twitter who you don’t know. Twitter is interesting because it supplements information from other sources: television, phone, blogs, etc. While I am an admitted young (30) laggard (I started using text messaging only in the last few months), Twitter is not going to revolutionize the world of communication. It will only supplement it for some.
Leave a Comment