A Thought Exercise about the Problem with Publicity in E-Sports

The following isn’t representative of CLG. It isn’t an official statement. I’m looking to set the foundation for future statements and content. The outcome of this is to present a problem in the e-sports industry. Hopefully your response helps a solution to be found.



Don’t read between the lines on the below example. I deliberately didn’t include anything that would allude to recent issues at CLG.



Let’s say I have a player named ZeroCool. ZeroCool is a great player with attitude issues. Or maybe he’s a terrible player with a great mindset. Maybe he commits a major infraction on the company that we can’t legally bring to light. The company will try everything to fix it first. The player is informed, and told the problem needs to be fixed. The player is informed months beforehand. If not improved in a certain timeframe, the company is forced to release the player.



Let’s say ZeroCool has gotten to that point. The decision is made after hours of deliberation by staff and with input from the players. It is always painful. It is never completely good or bad. The result is a tradeoff that no one comes out a clear victor from.



A generic announcement is decided on. Within moments it is synched to Reddit and media. ZeroCool supporters flood the internet. Supporters are pissed, people on the sidelines speculate on what happened. The majority burn the company and management. The management stays silent, and this pisses people off even more. The only assumption is the people in the company are brain dead. What the hell is happening? Why isn’t the company being transparent?



It’s because the company only had two real ways to handle the announcement, as follows:



* 1) The company could out ZeroCool. Air every bit of dirty laundry, and open the floor to an AMA. All questions answered, and the exact reasoning for why the player was released is offered.



* 2) The company could release ZeroCool without a strong statement either way. People wonder and rumor mills form, but no one is exactly sure what happened. The company keeps it vague and doesn’t elaborate.



Think a bit about both options. Which answer is correct?



In #1 - the company deliberately chooses to bury ZeroCool with the truth. It’s bad (that’s probably why Zero was removed) and it’ll effect/damage his brand. Zero, probably 18 to 25 years old, will deal with the global fallout of his problems. Massive pressure falls on him and other teams wonder if it’s worth picking him up. He may have trouble finding another team, or even pursuing a career in e-sports at all.

The company also sets a precedent for how it deals with players. If you mess up, we’ll tell. Maybe a little, maybe a lot, maybe everything. What you do behind the scenes is aired to your supporters. If you mess up a year ago and the team finds out, eventually it’ll get out. What kind of culture does this set for a team? Would you want to join an organization like this?



In #2 - The companies vague statement is met with resentment. Supporters of the company feel betrayed. Supporters want more answers, and don’t understand why they aren’t there. People change their Reddit icons in droves. There’s ten threads discussing management’s incompetence. ZeroCool is absolved of any wrongdoing and goes on his way. The enemy becomes the company.

This puts the company in a weak state. The company can’t issue a statement, but ZeroCool creates content. He’ll stream, Youtube, and offhandedly comment on his side of the issue in interviews. Without a defender, this side is automatically believed. The company takes the hits and the player continues his career.



I’ve thought about the “problem of publicity’ in e-sports a lot. I can only come to the conclusion that neither answer is correct. It’s a matter of tradeoffs. Both have serious negative outcomes. Choose to protect your brand, or your player. The answer isn’t simple.



I’m exploring the options around this problem and how to handle it. In making decisions thus far, our outcome was to protect the player’s reputation in the e-sports community. Ideally we’d accomplish this with the secondary goal of not obliterating the company as a brand. So we went with #2.



First objective accomplished. Have any doubt? Check your newsfeed around any event like this one, including the recent ones. You won’t find many people blaming the player. Now contrast to the comments about the company’s management.



So the second objective, protecting the company, left something to be desired. But I’m not sure there is an answer to this problem. Maybe you can’t have the cake and eat it too, or maybe someone always takes a fall. The likely outcome is that there is probably no totally positive way to handle it. The result is always a group of people upset.



There are many people in the community who think they have a better answer than the one we ended up on. Well, I’d like to hear from you. What is a productive way to solve this problem? How does a public facing company improve its communication without expensing its players and staff?



Your answers may shape the future of how these issues are handled. If nothing else, I hope it sheds some light on the difficulty of reaching conclusions in situations like this.



Reply · Report Post