The most fascinating thing about the current social media craze is the idea of live Tweeting events. For example, during the recent
Mad Men finale, I watched the show while also constantly reading how others were reacting to the show on Twitter and joining in the conversation. During the recent #PITvsCIN Wildcard Game last Saturday, Twitter went wild with opinions, GIFs and Memes describing one of the most unusual football games I've ever seen. However, after the Bengals Interception by Vontaze Burfict, which many thought ended the game, the Bengals Twitter account (
@Bengals) went silent until after the game was over, not acknowledging the two personal fouls that allowed the Steelers to reach a victory. At the same time, the Steelers Twitter account (
@Steelers) was Tweeting almost constantly, updating its followers about the game's events. As I was combing through the real time game posts, I wondered if this was the right decision for the Bengal's PR department to make.
I still haven't answered my own question yet. I think from a crisis communications standpoint, it made sense to stay quiet because posting about the events happening during the game would just spark negative conversation about the Bengals. However, the point of a professional sports team Twitter account is to keep fans updated on what is going on. The Bengals had to be proactive and reactive at the same time, which is almost impossible. Perhaps the Bengals could have avoided Tweeting about the personal fouls by still keeping fans updated on the game events. On the other hand, they could have diverted attention away from Burfict by providing some sort of fun fact about the team or the other players. I think remaining silent, in this case, was the wrong communications move on the part of the Bengals. What is your opinion on the situation?
