They asked a bunch of questions, and you could tell the form was generic. This is likely the same exact survey they launch each year after the marathon and they didnt edit it at all in content. For example they asked about:
- My previous marathon experience (how many, have I done chicago before)
- What I thought about communications prior to the event (newsletters, website, etc)
- My opinions on the start line (gear check, communications, signage, corrals)
- My on the course experiences, including fluids, medical service, communications
- My finish line experience
2008 Bank of America Chicago Marathon
So, 10 days into the new year they are asking me about the 2007 event. And I found out that registration for 2008 opens on February 1! This whole thing got me thinking. The next Chicago marathon is already on the horizon, how likely is it that they will be able to implement the results from this survey (just sent to me today) for this year's event? I can answer that question - its not likely. I am sure the survey is open for a couple of weeks (at least) then they need to tally results and evaluate. It takes a long time to plan a major event and most likely the big stuff is already done. Then I wondered, will they share the survey results with the public? I think that being honest and open with these results would be a good way for the Chicago marathon to start mending relationships with the running community - but I feel that its highly unlikely. Looking at how marathon organizers have handled PR thus far suggests that they will be secretive and follow the trend of denial when it comes to uncomplementary information. Surfing around to see what people are saying about this survey I came across an awesome article that was written shortly after 2007's Chicago marathon that I think is well worth taking the minute or two to read. It seems to be the only article I have seen that is truly saying what I have been thinking - without siding with organizers or toning down the language. In fact, its pretty harsh when it comes to Carey Pinkowski (the race organizer).
Running in Circles: The 2007 Chicago Marathon and Crisis Communications, by Michael Geczi, details 4 major areas/way in which race organizers made some pretty major PR snafus in the days and weeks following the meltdown. I thought these were stated so well I just copied them straight from the article - but give it a read anyway :)
- Denial. "Perhaps the grossest communication pitfall of all has been marathon director Carey Pinkowski's insistence that there was an adequate amount of fluids for runners. From participants to volunteers to spectators, the complaint is universal: the Chicago Marathon ran out of water. Pinkowski's denial has further alienated marathon officials from the disgruntled runners they should be attempting to appease."
- Blame. "Pinkowski has used his soapbox to blame the ailing runners for the marathon mishaps instead of accepting responsibility, castigating runners for using the water to douse themselves rather than drink it. He absurdly defends, “That's something that, I'll be honest with you, we didn't anticipate.” Kicking a man when he is down – or 36,000 runners, for that matter – is hardly an effective communications strategy. Pinkowski has since watched idly from the sidelines as host cities of other marathons advertise discounted or waived entrance fees for Chicago participants – a message of sympathy that Chicago's race officials should have been the first to communicate."
- Self-Praise. "While the media has unanimously branded the 2007 event “calamitous,” race officials have attempted to spin it into an absolute success. Pinkowski consistently offered self-congratulatory, narrow statements that clearly flew in the face of the facts, such as: “Is there anything we could have done better? No. … I'm very proud of the way things went.” His declaration leaves no room for messages of future improvement or lessons learned – some of the most elemental components of successful crisis communications."
- Opaqueness. "While marathoners have demanded clear answers, Pinkowski has adopted a platform of vagueness. In a mass e-mail written to runners five days after the event, Pinkowski botched a golden opportunity to 'come clean' with transparent messaging. Pinkowski mustered only an opaque reference to a water supply investigation, or as he vaguely put it, 'reviewing the details.'"
5 comments:
I was so annoyed that the survey was no different than it would have been any other year. If they truly want to understand the 2007 experience, rather than ignore it, they should have revamped the questionnaire.
I took advantage of those two fill-in boxes at the end. :)
I agree with all that was said here. Did you read the RW spread on Chicago in this month's issue? I think they did a pretty good job discussing the race.
I'll agree that I was quite irked that the survey came out 3+ months after the race and really did not give ample time to take into account the perspectives and suggestions of the '07 participants. I don't remember last year's coming out this late.
I'm surprised that more people aren't raising eyebrows as to why two water stations were cut from the 2007 course (compared to the '06 course). When water and Gatorade are all donated, the only thing they have to do is rally the volunteers and rent tables.
The RW article isn't bad. I like thats its called something like "The Chicago Marathon Meltdown" I didnt even run the Chi-athon, but i was standing there amidst all the confusion...I cant believe that survey. thats so bogus.
I also filled in the boxes at the end, who knows how much its gonna make a difference. Its funny how many things all of us noticed (like the missing statins noted by Running Jayhawk) that are repeatedly overlooked by the press, public, and the race organizers. I am very interested to see the changes (if any even!) that take place in 2008 and how they handle this whole thing...
Post a Comment