Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sport
Going back a long way:
Alex McFarlane wrote:The BBC informed Lara (twice just to rub salt in the wounds) that they wouldn't cover the event since they were concentrating on sports this summer. They stated that officially chess was not recognised as a sport.
provoked some discussion on chess as a sport. But I suspect even if chess were a sport the bbc would not be interested this summer. It is just a convenient indisputable response. I'm reminded of the BBC sport documentary that found young footballers were often told "you're not big enough", because it was easier for the coach to say than "you're not good enough".
The British
I'm not sure how the Marketing Director could promote the British well nationally. It is one of the reasons I'm in favour of reform, in the hope we can find a format that is easier to promote.
In passing I don't want to defend the DoM. I've been accused at various times of being an apologist for CJ, the CEO, and the Home Director (admittedly, not the last one today). I'm also apparently dazzled by the FIDE delegates charisma and celebrity. So I don't have have the time to time to help Tim too. Although I could imagine a coherent marketing strategy that did not include the British, because I'm not sure it is a flagship event, I'm doubtful it was treated as it was for strategic reasons.
Local Press
The local press will indeed cover anything, even chess, if you give them content. But marketing has to have an aim. It seems to me the most sensible use of loacl media is to get people into chess clubs, so it is chess clubs not the ECF who should be using it.
Popular Media
Similarly, I see Krishna's vision of promoting youngish titled players, but I want to ask the fundamental marketing question - what are we selling to who? It sounds to me like part of the secondary school junior chess strategy, not something that would appeal to a man reading a newspaper on a Clapham omnibus. That said, thinking about target demographics, maybe Krishna is a person we should think about. Potential chess parents read magazines, which are hungry for human interest content. I'm not sure how you would pitch a story at a parent that encourages them to introduce their children to chess. But maybe someone does see it. (Unfortunately Gawain and Sue have missed the chance to sell their wedding pictures to Hello.

)
The concept of a "media darling" is an interesting one, and I think crosses into the discussion about popular media. Professor Brian Cox is maybe an example, a physicist who somehow quickly became the tabloids face of science. The trouble here is finding the group of activities that are in the popular media that link with chess. I don't see them. Simon Spivak made an excellent point in another thread about a conversation with a poet. Even taking away what we see as our main image problems - the middle aged man factor - we would probably still struggle to get popular coverage, because we are an intellectual activity. Poetry is not dominated by middle aged men, but receives similar disparaging coverage from the popular media. We have an anti-intellectual strand in our popular culture which will unfortunately outlive us all.
I am far more optimistic chess may benefit from a slightly higher brow approach. It would be premature to describe Jonathan Rowson as a media darling. But he has appeared on radio 4's Today a couple of times. The first time giving a think tank view on something unrelated to chess. However his return, when they had a chess story, was very encouraging. Editorially, they did not need to cover it, but wanted to and knew someone they could go to. He noted 40% of people are now attending university, and referenced Melvyn Bragg's concept of the mass intelligentsia. These days being clever doesn't mean being small.
It seems to me 10 million chess players, and the ECF working with ITV1 is unrealistic. But a hundred thousand, and the ECF working with Radio 4 would be a bright future. Even if we are relying on a Scot to lead the way

A very well thought out and coherent post Paul. I do agree with much of what you have to say. There is one thing though which I think I disagree with, which is how to move forward.
I actually think that we should use everything at our disposal. Radio 4 etc is excellent as it will pull in their target demographic; but at the same time we should also target the nationals - not necessarily just the tabloids though eventually we might find our way there. I think someone mentioned about the week-end spreads etc.
I think that Brian Cox is another excellent example. He is an intelligent guy, good at what he does and looks good.
We have to explore this avenue alongside all the others. The thing is, we have to understand that the population is made up of many demographics. Different people are attracted by different things; yet someone like Brian Cox/David Beckham has mass appeal.
Mass appeal is what I am talking about. Whilst some may say
"Well that is impossible for a chess player!" I would argue, the same may have been said a couple of years ago about 'a Physicist' and now look at Brian Cox.
The thing is, it matters not one jot what they actually do. It is what they look like, how they go about doing it and how good they are at it. If you have the combination of factors and you want people to be interested, then you really have to use it.
We have problems with participation at the moment. I have said it many times now. We can not keep squeezing our existing members for more money. We have to attract more people into chess and we have to use whatever means we have at our disposal to do this.
Therefore I would say, go for a many pronged attack. Go for the young ones by appealing to parents and kids. Go for the middle-aged market as they are the current representative demographic. Also, go for the older ones as chess is for everyone and definitely go for the 'high brow' as ultimately they will love chess also.
PS Thank you to Paul for the example of Brian Cox - I think that is the best one so far.