The triumph of Shaidorov and the lessons of political PR
The Olympic victory is an unforgettable moment of consolidation of society, universal pride in the country, recognition of its school, sports management, and national character, after all. And all this was presented to Kazakhstanis by the talented figure skater Mikhail Shaidorov. It is difficult to think of a better PR for the state. But in the midst of the euphoria, the media published budget expenses for the preparation of the champion.
From the point of view of political PR, an Olympic medal is a highly concentrated strategic resource. Society is rallying around the hero, and through him around the country and its institutions, because we all miss really good news and good stories. At such moments, the level of trust increases, polarization decreases, and a short-term emotional resource is formed to support the state.
Calculator instead of fanfare – what happened?
The publication of government spending on Shaidorov's training at the peak of national euphoria instantly changed the frame and shifted the perception from the emotional "our pride" to the rational "how much did it cost us?" Has such a redistribution of the champion's reputation capital helped the state? Of course not. The general holiday was overshadowed by money squabbles, reproaches, insults, and recalculations of estimates…
Moreover, users of social networks noted in the actions of officials far from the desire to ensure transparency (which in other circumstances would be commendable), but only an ugly attempt to encroach on the personal success of an athlete. A touch of injustice is a serious reputational trigger, and it worked. The officials had to explain themselves.
When it's important not to interfere
In conditions of high competition for influence, there is always a fear that if an institutional role is not identified in time, society will completely appropriate the victory of the individual. But the paradox is that it is haste that creates a sense of appropriation, which is what happened in Shaidorov's case.
It was important for a symbolic resource to go through a phase of social appropriation before embedding it in a political narrative, but not the other way around. After all, the most valuable thing in an athlete's Olympic victory for publicists is the very short period when society itself is ready to attribute competence to state institutions as much as it wants. Isn't that what they, the state institutions, need so badly?
At this crucial moment, the task of political communication is only imperceptibly integrated into the newfound success. We can emphasize the consistency of the training, thank the coaches, the federation, and the creators of the infrastructure. But never shift the focus and even more so compete for influence! After all, only a personal story generates genuine empathy – this is worth remembering.
The reputational balance was partially restored later, by Shaidorov's meeting with the president in Akorda. There communication was built differently. The PR people maintained a symbolic hierarchy, leaving the champion in the spotlight. Thanks to this, the agenda has returned to the emotional plane of national pride.