In a story this week, The New York Times called out a “shrewd”: and “carefully constructed” marketing
campaign by 22 year old chess phenom Magnus Carlsen and his “handlers”:
Chess has its superstars, but.. there is no one like
Carlsen, of Norway, who..remains the first world
No. 1 from a Western country since Bobby Fischer.
Carlsen sits at the center of a campaign carefully constructed by him
and his handlers to use his intelligence, looks and nimble
news-media-charming skills to increase his profile outside the sport, as
if he were a tennis or golf star. Not since the days of Fischer,
Kasparov and Karpov has a player managed to move so deftly beyond the
world of chess into the world at large.
I read the story closely and could not find examples of the referenced campaign. I did find good reasons for the media and world at large to be taken by the star – his winning record, young age and good looks, for starters. I saw a star riding a wave of media popularity, and basking in its glow.
The reporter cites these things, yet attributes the extensive and glowing coverage to calculated marketing; the media, apparently, are hapless victims of the charm offensive (oxymoron alert).
Perhaps there was some marketing campaign – the reporter mentions sponsors, but,these often follow someone with telegenic appeal and a winning record. They are not generally part of a campaign designed to manipulate the media.
I think it is kind of funny and cynical to say that Carlsen and handlers are running a calculated marketing campaign, instead of owning the fact that reporters like to cover this star – why not admit the simple fact that Magnus Carlsen is a good story?
The NY Times has done this kind of unfair depiction of marketing and PR before; see my earlier stories:
NY Times Pans Assad Media Campaign – and the PR Profession
Absurd to call Samsung Customer Servcie Issue a “Tech PR Fail”
