PRovoke Media Longreads https://www.provokemedia.com/ Features, insight and profiles from PRovoke Media, p/k/a the Holmes Report. https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/does-your-firm-need-a-science-advisor https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/does-your-firm-need-a-science-advisor pholmes@provokemedia.com DisinformationAnalysisLongreadsenvironmentRecyclingScienceNews Does Your Firm Need A Science Advisor? Asked to communicate complex facts in an environment where disinformation is rampant, agencies might find independent verification of scientific accuracy helpful. Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:36:05 Z 2024-02-19T16:36:05Z How much responsibility does a public relations firm have for ensuring that the statements it issues on behalf of clients are factually accurate? And how, at a time when consumers are inundated with disinformation and junk science, can a public relations firm be expected to evaluate controversial scientific claims?

These are questions that occurred to me—not for the first time—as I read through The Guardian’s account of a new report produced by fossil-fuel watchdog group the Center for Climate Integrity, which presents some compelling evidence that plastic recycling is not the responsible waste management solution the industry has been promoting for the past several decades.

More troubling, the report suggests that the plastics industry has known for most if not all of that time that “does not solve the solid waste problem,” to quote one industry source.

Reading through the report itself—even knowing that it comes from a source with an ax to grind against the fossil fuel business—it is hard not to hear echoes of the story told about the tobacco industry in books like “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, or climate change denialists in “Doubt Is Their Product” by David Michaels.

Those books provide well-documented evidence that leaders in first the tobacco industry and later the oil production business were well-aware of the harmful impact of their products long before they shared that information with the public—and indeed, that they knew the information they were sharing with the public was not only incomplete but downright false.

In the case of the tobacco industry in particular, there is compelling evidence that at least some of the communications professionals were well aware of what the industry’s own scientists had discovered. Specifically, a December 1953 meeting between the representatives of major tobacco companies and PR legend John Hill (of Hill & Knowlton) laid the groundwork for one of the most deceptive and destructive public relations campaigns of all time.

In short, the industry created a template that involved finding experts who were prepared—whether for financial or ideological reasons—to sow doubt about the scientific orthodoxy; assailing the integrity of academics and industry critics; and leveraging the media’s susceptibility to charges of bias in order to prevent or delay regulations that would have hurt the sales of their products and saved countless lives.

That campaign would also lay the foundation for the kind of disinformation that continues to delay action of climate change and has since been used against corporate America by the anti-vaxxer movement.

But not every case in which public relations professionals have presented inaccurate—even distorted—science is quite so clear cut.

In 2016, for example, the top public relations award at Cannes went to a campaign that purported to show the benefits of a Swedish family switching to an all-organic diet, but by focusing on chemicals found in certain pesticides and completely ignoring the different set of chemicals found in organic pesticides—an approach that was at best misleading and at worst completely dishonest.

There’s no reason to believe the PR people involved in this campaign understood just how misleading the selective presentation of science was. After all, they were sufficiently proud of their work to submit it for the scrutiny of an awards jury.

Which brings us to all the work public relations firms have done to promote plastic recycling initiatives around the world, much of which has been submitted to and even won PR and advertising awards (including this site’s own SABRE Awards). Some of those campaigns were paid for by the plastics industry, or by industries that use plastic packaging, while others were sponsored by government and even by NGOs. But my guess is that most of the PR people involved in these campaigns believed they were doing something good.

There’s no question that public relations professionals are increasingly being asked to communicate controversial scientific information, in areas ranging from healthcare to nutrition to the environment—not to mention the upcoming explosion of AI-related communications.

And let’s be honest about this: most public relations people are not scientific experts. Yes, there has been an increase in the number of healthcare communications professionals with medical qualification; yes, there are some nutritionists in the food and beverage sector; some energy industry PR people have environmental science or natural science education. But these subject matter experts are outnumbered—understandably—by those with PR, communications, journalism, or other liberal arts degrees.

But lack of scientific expertise can no longer serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card for PR agencies caught up in controversy. And I would like to think that most agencies would prefer not to be caught spreading lies for their clients. So some basic degree of fact-checking is necessary to protect an agency’s reputation and to fulfil a communicator’s obligation to the people with whom he or she is communicating.

That’s why I think every agency ought to have either an in-house chief science officer or, if that isn’t viable, an on-call science advisor, someone whose job is to review the scientific claims an agency is asked to make on behalf of its clients.

There is so much disinformation out there right now that adding to it—even inadvertently—can not only damage an agency’s reputation, and feed public cynicism about how public relations contributes to disinformation, but also create real public health risks. As trust erodes in business, media, and science, an extra layer of protection is a good investment.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/'i-don't-care-about-size'-burson's-leaders-on-merger-challenges-opportunities https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/'i-don't-care-about-size'-burson's-leaders-on-merger-challenges-opportunities arun@provokemedia.com Arun SudhamanLongreadsInterviewsHill & KnowltonBCWBursonAnalysisNews 'I Don't Care About Size': Burson's Leaders On Merger Challenges & Opportunities Burson CEO Corey duBrowa and chairman AnnaMaria DeSalva sit down with PRovoke Media to talk through change management challenges, benefits of scale and "the opportunity of a lifetime". Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:11:49 Z 2024-02-20T03:49:09Z It has been barely a month since WPP announced its blockbuster decision to merge BCW and Hill & Knowlton, prompting a cascade of coverage, analysis and commentary. And while the new Burson does not officially launch until 1 July, things are already moving quickly, with regional leaders confirmed and further appointments expected soon. 

To talk us through some of the decisions and context, PRovoke Media caught up with Burson CEO Corey duBrowa and chairman AnnaMaria DeSalva last week. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity. 

People don't always like change. What's your message to staff that might feel threatened by a change of such scale?

Corey duBrowa (CdB): When people understand the strategic rationale for change, questions — which are of course natural after a merger announcement — start to shift toward enthusiasm. We had two very complementary businesses which had been moving closer together in terms of strategic direction, shared philosophies, and overall ambition. Coming together as Burson is a force multiplier for us in terms of building the full-service communications agency we envision, focused on building and protecting the reputation of our clients. We have received very positive feedback from our people and our clients and from the broader industry about the rationale for what we are building. And because we had been so similar in terms of our goals and talent and strategic direction, the change brought about by the Burson merger of equals is really more about the scale of what we can collectively build.

AnnaMaria DeSalva (AMDS): Historically, Hill & Knowlton and BCW both played really important roles in the WPP network and then of course in the industry. And I think that as the world has progressed and changed, especially in this post-Covid period, we're living in an era when strategic communications has never mattered more. And I think that the best players in the industry are focused on elevating talent, elevating technology, bringing to market interdisciplinary solutions and are endeavoring to move up the value chain and play more of a strategic role.

And I think that as both BCW and Hill & Knowlton made moves to do that, our strategic priorities just increasingly converged. So the opportunity to come together and to have a shared agenda for investment, to have a shared agenda for technology, to have a shared agenda for how we develop talent going forward and to be able to draw on our respective talent pools, I think you begin to see the power of that in the leadership announcements we made recently, and we're not done. We have several more announcements to go to flesh out the leadership team, and we have an abundance of talent at the company now because we're able to combine the rosters of both agencies. So I feel like that's resonating with people. I feel like there's an overwhelming logic, which is what comes through in the conversations that I have around the company.

CdB: I've been at BCW now for seven months, and some of the first conversations that AnnaMaria and I had were really just comparing notes. I've been away from the agency side for 15 years. So a lot of what was informing my view was the primacy of the issues that I had faced as a client. Many of those same areas of volatility or change are still quite prevalent today. What became obvious to both of us is that the firms, if anything, were moving closer together in terms of strategic imperative.

I think if there had been any difference in the past with the way that H&K may have gone to market or the way that BCW or prior to that, Burson-Marsteller and Cohn & Wolfe had gone to market — those differences had slowly evaporated as the firms moved closer together. So when I was speaking with AnnaMaria, it was almost like speaking with myself to some extent — the things that we both believed about the world, about the changes that were taking place in business, about how important strategic communications was, both from a reputation point of view, but also a business point of view. We really have viewed this as a merger of equals, the name of the firm, notwithstanding. I think that both firms really bring some similar views and philosophies to the table, but also some complementary skills and areas of expertise that actually make the logic of this union quite sound. So the more that we explored what this looked like after Mark [Read] asked us to, the more sense that it made. 

It's interesting you mentioned that the differences between how the two firms went to market were disappearing. For big firms, I think the issues that they are addressing and the ways they're investing — they are quite similar, at that end of the table. So how do you hope to distinguish yourself from other giant public relations agencies?

AMDS: I think it has a lot to do with quality. Corey and I have both been long-serving clients. So Corey mentioned his 15 years and, all in, I've spent about 18 years on the client side. I think that we both vividly live the client experience even on this side of the industry. We really understand what today's CCO is solving for. And so I feel as though today's client really has to rely on a strategic partner, sort of at the bridge of the enterprise, dealing with all the fusion of issues and stakeholders and strategies and having to make very material decisions rapidly and really intersecting strategy and execution.

When Hill & Knowlton went into the market to do some research to support our rebrand, that is really what the market told us. And so they asked us to be that firm. It made perfect sense to me because that was my own experience as a client. It's really around being able to be that partner to create those solutions that are highly material in a very complex operating environment and bridge strategy and execution globally very effectively. So that's not the only point of difference, but I think sort of a starting point.

CdB: I think that's a pretty good summary of the state of play. Two more things I might add to that that helps us bring this to life. One is the scale at which we operate. So if you think about what BCW plus H&K together as Burson will do, it really gives us unparalleled scale, in the sense that we're literally in dozens of countries, dozens of different markets, the world's most important news, business and economic capitals. Just thinking back to when I was at Google or Starbucks in particular, Salesforce too for that matter — you're really talking about big global brands that carry with them all of the complexity of operating in dozens of markets around the world. What's important to clients in that environment is your ability to translate global messages and campaigns on a locally relevant basis. I don't want to underestimate how important this scale and the talent that goes along with that scale is — I think this is really something that for many of our clients, if I think back, for example, a client like Ford that's been with WPP for 80 plus years, being able to be locally relevant in many, many different places simultaneously is hugely important.

The second thing is, and you all have covered this at PRovoke, it's that technology and our use of technology is definitely already proving to be a differentiator. If I look at a tool like Decipher, some of the most difficult issues that our clients face currently and have faced in recent years have to do with the proliferation of mis and disinformation. If I think back to what I was doing at Google, I spent six years working with a team that we had hired specifically to create a bespoke tool to help deal with this problem of predictive analytics and what does that present to us in terms of the problems that we're trying to solve as communicators, how we best protect and enhance the reputation of the company. What we're learning through tools like Decipher are how to apply predictive analytics at scale, which is tremendously valuable to clients. And that starts to give us some clues about how important these AI tools are going to be to the future of communications.

So when you ask me what makes the new Burson stand apart from its competition, the fact that we can offer this sort of expertise at scale, the kind of talent that we have around the world, and that these tools are starting to give us some clues as to how best to counsel clients in this very choppy reputational environment that we find ourselves in right now starts to build a picture of what we think can differentiate us in the marketplace and the way that our clients are finding value in the services that we bring to market right now.

It's conventional wisdom, let's say, that there's never been a time when big clients are less likely to buy agencies across multiple markets. When I started covering this industry, there were so many global pitches and one agency would win the mandate for the whole world. Those types of assignments seem fewer and further between these days. Do you think that, first of all, that premise is not correct, or do you see the scale in terms of how you are servicing clients, particularly big clients, in a different way? 

CdB: To answer your first question, I don't think it's that those kind of remits have disappeared entirely. If I look for example, at one of our biggest wins of 2023 between the two firms, AMD was essentially a global remit. Having that kind of capability at that kind of global scale, particularly given the changes in the semiconductor industry, it's probably never been more important for AMD to have a partner that can have that kind of scale and expertise. So I wouldn't say that's entirely true, I think those kind of remits still do exist. But that said, I do think there are a number of clients who are quite frankly trying to solve for more locally relevant solutions for them.

This is where, again, at the scale at which we operate, we really do have the talent, the expertise, the sector knowledge to be able to be relevant to a number of different clients, even at a local level where you're looking at specific solutions for markets within Asia-Pacific, for example, or markets within the Middle East and Africa, or things that are very locally specific to markets in the USA, whatever it might be. I actually think that it cuts both ways, because the firms have both a shared sense of philosophy and value, but also have quite complementary pieces. I think that AnnaMaria's team was a little bit further along in terms of developing global points of view about sector expertise. They already had practice experts in technology, healthcare, consumer, corporate and public affairs, energy and industrials. It's not that BCW didn't have that expertise — we do at the local market level or at the regional level — but H&K was further along in terms of developing a global point of view. Being able to take that local expertise that you have and wed that to a global perspective on technology, for example, as a former tech client, that would've been hugely valuable to me in both dimensions. So I don't think absolutes apply here. I think that both things can be true simultaneously.

AMDS: It kind of goes back to the point I made earlier about the interest in the strategy and execution continuum. I do feel like some clients will lean into a global mandate and for others it will be some sort of a combination where you have to be able to work on global strategy, but then prove that you are a worthy partner at the local market and regional level to do both strategy and execution locally. It's a win for clients when a team like ours can be coherent in that respect and can earn the right to be at each of those tables around the world. And it might be a different type of decision making process than it is in the days of when there was one big powerful decision at HQ, everybody fell in line. But it's still, I think, important for large clients that we can play and be competitive in several arenas. 

What benefits would you say a larger organization will bring to your employees?

AMDS: I think it's substantial. Frankly, people are very excited about that — and that's a lot of the feedback that I'm getting. They see that there are larger opportunities and larger client relationships. There's more critical mass around growth strategies. There's more opportunity to invest. And obviously we have a huge focus on talent at every level because that's what we offer. The entire business is about the quality and the development of our people at every level. So if we are putting a stake in the ground and saying that we're going to the trouble of combining these businesses to be an enduring leader in our industry through this period of change, then that is a really big commitment and it's a big commitment that talent is going to be at the center of that proposition.

I get a lot of notes from employees expressing support and interest in bringing creative ideas forward and wanting to be a part of the current decision making and signaling their support for what the opportunity is ahead. And that really boils down to their career opportunity. I feel that as we're making these leadership decisions around the world, it's very exciting because for a lot of our top talent, it's a step change improvement in terms of their scopes and mandates. That will continue and progress as we develop both the regional and local markets and the practice areas and the major functions. And as we invest in technology and build our creative muscle, I think there's just going to be more opportunity for a talent than there is currently, respectively, in each organization. 

CdB: If you apply the client lens to the talent question, clients get really attached to and really engage with the agency because of the talent — people are our asset. That's literally what it is that we talk about when we go to visit with clients. I think when you look at the ambition from a talent perspective at Burson, the opportunity is to make Burson the destination for top talent in our industry. That's the ambition. You want it to be the place where you know that you are signing up to do the best work of your career with the best clients in the world, with the best tools that you have access, to literally do the kind of work that would embellish or enhance your CV, whether you're with us for 30 years or whether this is a stop along the way to becoming a client or whatever it might be.

That's the ambition at the top end of it. That's ultimately what our clients are looking for. And when I was at Google in particular, the way that I would articulate this to our agency partners is 'you all are an extension of our team, of our family'. When we get it right, we are building one team to work across the business, both people who are in-house serving that capacity and people who are agency partners. You're really looking for that magic mix of skill, capability, culture fit, etc. I'd like to think that what the two firms together will offer our people are sort of unparalleled opportunities to grow, to learn, and to do the best work in the industry. Ultimately as we think about the leadership appointments, we're spoiled for choice, if you look at the level of talent within both firms and the ability for us to really make decisions that benefit our clients, benefit our people, and ultimately give us the best pathways for growth in the future. Independently, I don't know that we would've had that same opportunity, but together we absolutely have that opportunity.

How will Burson solve the 'two into one won't go' issue, if indeed it is an issue. You may have two heads of corporate, two heads of digital, there are two heads of creative. Do you expect to lose senior talent? How do you plan to address this challenge?

CdB: We're approaching this as a merger of equals between the two. We'll get to bring the expertise, perspective, values of both agencies into Burson. You saw some of that with the leadership appointments that we made last week, where you're starting to see both teams contribute to what will ultimately form the heart, soul, and scaffolding of what the new Burson will look like. One of the other things that we referenced last week was the creation of an integration team, which is represented by folks on both sides of the firms. And so I think that team of global experts will help us lead the practical work of integration planning.

The other thing that has to happen in the background, is that both agencies will continue to operate as BCW and Hill & Knowlton up until July when the transaction becomes complete. And the focus for both of those teams is really on the client work, quite frankly. I think the integration team will be working really hard to limit the impact on jobs to the greatest extent possible. Because of the work that our peer set has done at WPP and the fact that AnnaMaria and I have both been a part of mergers and acquisition activities before, we have some best practices to draw from in terms of the work that's ahead and the way that we determine what the best unified leadership team is for both agencies. I think that approach will be fair, consistent, thoughtful. It's also really early in the process right now, so I'm not going to comment about any specifics other than to tell you that that was part of what the announcement was last week — to basically chart the course for what that integration team does in the future and give us some room to be able to make the best set of decisions between now and the July date.

What do you think the most difficult aspect of the merger will be?

AMDS: I think what we are wholly focused on is on creating value for our clients and for our people. So that's a high bar. Just ensuring that we deliver on the promise and the potential of this merger is our mission every single day. It makes everything, all the challenges in a situation like this, workable and attractive, even, because if we're successful — when we're successful in creating step change value for clients and for employees, it really will be a great accomplishment, a great benefit to our business and to the industry. What we share is this tremendous commitment to making sure that this merger creates much more value than we could have delivered as separate companies. That means benefiting clients, that careers do get better, that there is a culture that elevates everyone and is magnetic and makes it an attractive place to work and to come and learn and develop. For me personally, I feel like if we can do that, that is a really enormous chapter of career and life to be able to make a contribution like that. And so that's the motivation, and certainly in that context there are challenges, but we're highly motivated to power through those challenges.

CdB: Let's just step back from this a minute. This is, to me, the opportunity of a career to be able to build Burson in the way that is true to what Harold Burson himself stood for all those years. If you sort of think about the values that he espoused when he was founding his agency, I mean, these are things that he wrote about. These are things that he spoke about. This is the way that he behaved with clients — honesty, integrity, transparency, and excellence — and these are words that fell out of his mouth. The opportunity that AnnaMaria and I have is to shape an agency for the future, an agency that sets the standard for a truly global communications leader that's the most modern, strategic, technology driven, full service communications offering in the industry. That's extraordinary. That's the opportunity of a lifetime. So I think of it less from the vantage point of challenge and more from the vantage point of opportunity.

Now, all that said, I will say, and I think PRovoke has been a part of this — but not exclusive to you all — is that the industry seems fairly obsessed with size. That has been a big theme through the early rounds of coverage about what we're trying to build at Burson. Quite frankly, I am not thinking about that at all. To AnnaMaria's point, the industry may be obsessed with size. We're obsessed with value — that we deliver to our clients and value that we can deliver in the lived experience that our people have working for both the two firms now and what the two firms will become as Burson in the future. To me, that's an extraordinary opportunity. It's also a significant responsibility and obligation that we have as leaders to be able to deliver on that. I'm really excited by that opportunity.

But I have to tell you that in the league table that emerges around who is the biggest or what is the size? I don't care. I don't care. That's the message. I don't care. What I do care greatly about is the quality of service that we can deliver to clients and the quality of experience that our people have working for this new firm. That's what matters. The rest is for other people to debate.

How will WPP evaluate the success of the merger?

CdB: Right around the time that we made the announcement, three things happened in succession. We made the announcement, we boarded a plane for London and attended Capital Markets Day, which I know you all covered and looked at in detail. And then we had the chance to chat with the board about it as well. I think from Mark [Read] to everyone that we've had the chance to get feedback from to us, clearly, one of the ways that people look at this is through a set of KPIs, like they look at every agency in the portfolio, are you delivering to the commitments that you've made? Because we depend on those commitments and, frankly, the investment from WPP to be able to deliver on the promise that we've essentially put forward.

That's one set of things, and that's private to us to decide whether we're delivering on that or not. I think the bigger judgment for how successful it is is its enduring quality as a brand and as an agency that delivers on this idea of being the best in the industry, the best in the world, the kind of place that becomes a destination for both clients and for talent. There are short-term things that the market tends to judge you by. And then there's the longer tail of the way the industry tends to look at the lasting value of something like this.

The idea is to build something that is great, something that is lasting and something that gives both our people and clients an enduring sense of what it is that we can deliver to them in the way of value. That's what matters. That's ultimately how we will be judged. And I think those are all fair parameters to put around whether this is successful or not. There's a lot of work ahead of us for this, and I think that history will prove whether this was something that was enduring or lasting, but all of the great CEOs that I've ever worked with in the past, that's the way that they tend to think too. It's that the value of the brand, the value of the thing that they were building should last beyond the people that were in the building when it was created in the first place. That's the way history tends to judge these things. So it may sound like a very outsized way of looking at it, but I think that's how history will ultimately judge whether it was successful or not.

AMDS: It definitely boils down to value creation. You can think about that in terms of our financial performance. You can think about that in terms of how we help clients create value and solve their highly material issues and opportunities. And then what type of reputational capital do we create for the company and for the industry and all the intangible value that comes with being respected and trusted and a destination for talent. So value creation writ large, and I think really with those three domains rolling up to that ultimate outcome.

How should external audiences evaluate the success of the merger and when will we know whether it worked?

CdB: Ultimately, that's up to you to decide. I mean, I'm not going to lay down what parameters PRovoke or any other industry watcher may apply to whether it was successful or not. I think to the extent that we are able to grow the business, grow our relationship and our trust with clients, create value for WPP shares and stakeholders, and to be able to see our people step into the promise of what it is that we're building, I'll feel quite good that we've delivered on the things that we said we were going to sign up to do.

AMDS: What's happened in my own career is, over the last dozen years in particular, I've been a part of some really, really big transactions. Going to Pfizer to work on the world's largest pharmaceutical merger between Pfizer and Wyeth, then going to DuPont and working on the world's largest industrial merger between DuPont and Dow, being involved in big breakups of conglomerates and the creation of new public companies, all of these transactions are meant to create step change value. You don't go through all that trouble and you don't take on all that risk if you don't have a big opportunity to create step change value. Ultimately, history judges them largely by the total shareholder return.

And we will have a similar yardstick in terms of how much value we create for WPP and its shareholders. But I would think about it even more broadly as total stakeholder return. How do we become an engine for value creation within WPP and within the industry? How do we create a different type of experience that helps light the way for what strategic communication has to be going forward? Which is, I think, the thing that's so thrilling for all of us because there's never been a time like this, to be in our discipline. Strategic communication is now at the very center of the entire value creation endeavor for our clients.

What experience would you say the two of you have across agency and corporate that you think will prove helpful in terms of merging two organizations of this size?

AMDS: Just building on what Corey said, when I joined Pfizer in 2009, it was expressly to lead the corporate affairs effort for the new innovation engine, bringing together the Pfizer R&D organization and the Wyeth R&D organization. That was a massive two year endeavor. It purely focused on integration strategy and creating that new value proposition of a science-driven Pfizer. That was the work that has led Pfizer to its current path — it was incredibly challenging, but rewarding work. Then, as the chief communicator at DuPont working on the massive multi-year merger with Dow, the combination of those portfolios and then a breakup into three new publicly traded companies was also a pretty unusual experience. Also very challenging but rewarding. I feel as though I'm, personally, on very familiar terrain and understand why we're doing this and what needs to happen as a result of this merger.

It was very interesting to me in the Dow DuPont environment, it was so disruptive. It was similar in that you had these two longstanding competitors in the market and it was almost unthinkable that they would merge. You would think that it would be very disruptive to employees. But in doing that work, we were able to improve the trust and confidence that employees had in the company and in the future all the way through that transaction. And even though there will be disruption, there will be challenge and tension, we can do this in such a way that we really support our people. I think that's what makes our partnership powerful and unusual is that we are different in terms of the industries we've been in, but we're very similar in terms of the nature of the experiences we've had.

CdB: It's so funny just listening to AnnaMaria talk through her client experiences — it is like having a mirror conversation with yourself in a way, whether it was 10 years at Waggener Edstrom or the last 15 — I can think of different transactions that happened in the Starbucks era, the Salesforce era. I mean, Slack was a part of the acquisition strategy when I was at Salesforce. Google went through a number of acquisitions while I was there. When you've gone through those experiences or helped to lead communication and value creation through those kinds of material events over the course of your communications career, one of the things that you learn from that, is the culture that sits at the core of what it is that you're building.

In any merger or acquisition, ultimately the test of how successful and what the longevity of that transaction can be is the strength of the culture that you build. What I said for many years as a client, is that internal communication was like half the job done with a quarter of the resources. I think that's what AnnaMaria and I bring — our lived experiences that we've gone through a number of these episodes, we've led communication, we've been quite rigorous about the way that we were thinking about value creation now, including having to report to the board on what the progress of these events were. The strengths that we have as communications professionals and being able to lead organizations through that — we now get to put to the test from a leadership perspective. Obviously it's a massive responsibility as a leader, but I'm really excited about the prospect of what is ahead. We're very early in this process, but I think we can see pretty clearly based on our experience, what the road ahead will look like and how we need to deliver on that.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/lessons-for-del-monte-from-a-30-year-old-shell-crisis https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/lessons-for-del-monte-from-a-30-year-old-shell-crisis pholmes@provokemedia.com Paul HolmesCrisisShellNewsLongreadsDel MonteAnalysis Lessons For Del Monte From A 30-Year Old Shell Crisis The fallout from accusations that Del Monte security guards beat four people to death will resonate beyond Africa — and potentially for decades. Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:17:33 Z 2024-02-12T15:19:30Z It is now almost 30 years since protests against the environmental impact of Shell’s operations in Nigeria prompted a violent reaction that culminated in the execution of writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other men, who would become known collectively as the Ogoni Nine.

The fact that 30 years later, Shell is still feeling the reputational — and legal — fallout from those events should serve as a reminder to executives at Del Monte, which currently finds itself embroiled in a crisis that has some eerie echoes of the Shell Nigeria case, that stories of corporate complicity in murder and mayhem can be both global and long-lasting.

The History Lesson

Oil was first discovered in Ogoniland, a region in southern Nigeria, in 1957. The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People was founded in 1990 by Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni leaders in response to the degradation of the Ogoni land by the Shell Petroleum Development Company and the unequal distribution of oil revenues by the Nigerian government.

At the time, Shell was by far the largest multinational in Nigeria, pumping almost a million barrels of crude oil a day, about half of Nigeria’s total daily production. And oil exports made up more than 95% of the country’s foreign earnings. As a result, Shell wielded tremendous influence over the country’s military government.

So when MOSOP’s peaceful protests were met by violence of the military government, including numerous beatings, rapes, and killings, there were claims that Shell, which had urged the president to solve “the problem of the Ogonis and Ken Saro-Wiwa,” was complicit. As Amnesty International described in its report on Shell’s role: “Even after the men were jailed, suffering from mistreatment and facing an unfair trial and the likelihood of execution, Shell continued to discuss ways to deal with the ‘Ogoni problem’ with the government rather than expressing concern over the fate of the prisoners.”

The reputational issues for Shell have lingered for three decades. In 2009, on the eve of a trial in New York, the company agreed to pay more than $15 million to settle a legal action in which it was accused of having collaborated in the execution of the Ogoni nine — one of the largest payouts agreed by a company accused of human rights violations. And in 2017, Amnesty was still calling on Nigeria, the UK and the Netherlands to launch an investigation into Shell’s role in the killings.

On the environmental front, meanwhile, just three years ago France 24 reported: “The Ogoniland area of southern Nigeria is one of the most polluted places on Earth. The crops are burnt to a cinder, ash and tar smother the land and the wells are polluted with oil, making the water totally undrinkable. Entire communities have suffered as their way of life has been destroyed by the oil industry.” And just last year, the High Court in London ruled that Nigerian villagers can bring human rights claims against the company Shell over chronic pollution in the region.

In 2001, I spoke with Gavin Grant, then chairman of Burson-Marsteller, who talked about how the Saro-Wiwa case caused companies to rethink corporate social responsibility in emerging markets. “I think Shell took the view that internal politics in Nigeria had nothing to do with them,” he said. “I don’t think it was a cynical view. I think it was a very genuinely held view that they should stay out of issues that did not directly impact their business.”

Shell had been forced to recognize that such a view was untenable. In 2009,  I spoke with Bjorn Edlund, at the time head of the company’s external relations function, who conceded: “Our approach in Nigeria, making determined representations for clemency ‘behind closed doors,’ while not commenting publicly, was seen as the silence of complicity while human rights were being trampled.” As a result, he said, “structured, proactive stakeholder engagement became the job of senior business people in Shell.”

The Now Lesson

In December, a human rights group and community activists filed a lawsuit against the giant food company Del Monte after assaults and killings at a pineapple plantation near Nairobi, Kenya.

The company, which employs 6,000 people in Kenya, has been the target of attacks by the local community, which claim that Del Monte’s plantation is located on ancestral lands. The company has faced accusations of violence in the past, but the most recent involved the suspicious deaths of four men accused of trying to steal pineapples from the Del Monte plantation.

The lawsuit alleged that tensions between the company and the community had led “to conflicts with the security personnel deployed by Del Monte, who assault, beat, torture, maim, rape and/or kill the trespassers.”

A subsequent story in The Africa Report quoted a former Del Monte security guard who claimed: “The instructions [from the company] were very clear: when you see a thief, you chase him until you arrest him and you beat him up brutally.” The same report quoted a man who admitted that he had been attempting to steal pineapples and saw four other men attacked by guards: “After being beaten, it appears the guards thought they were dead. To hide the evidence, they threw their bodies into the river,” he said.

Del Monte’s response, at a hearing in Thika this week, was that it should not be held liable because it is domiciled in the Cayman Islands “outside the jurisdiction of this honorable court.”

Without commenting on the legal merits of that argument, I can say that from a public relations perspective, it’s the kind of response that can guarantee three decades of misery. The court of public opinion is likely to see it as an attempt to weasel out of legal responsibility — and a pretty clear admission of moral culpability.

I would suggest five lessons that Del Monte — and other companies doing business in developing markets — should learn from previous incidents:

1. Cultural relativism is no defense. There was, perhaps, a time when the expectations of corporate behavior in the developing world were different than they were in developing markets, which meant that companies could simply claim to be complying with local legal standards and expect a free ride. But we are now in a global news environment, and many consumers in America and Europe don’t want to do business with companies that still believe they can treat more vulnerable populations badly.

2. You can’t hide behind corporate structures. Shell spent years patiently explaining to people that Shell Petroleum Development Company was a subsidiary for which the parent company could not be responsible. Union Carbide did the same after Bhopal. Del Monte appears to be going down the same path. Whatever the merits of these arguments in a court of law, they have no feasible chance of success as a PR strategy. Your name is on the company. You’re responsible. End of story.

3. Rogue actors — or rogue governments — won’t protect you. Shell did not hang Ken Saro-Wiwa, the Nigerian government did. Perhaps it did so at the behest of the company; perhaps it was just trying to be “helpful.” The Del Monte security guards might have been following company orders or they might have been over-zealous employees. From a reputational standpoint, it doesn’t much matter: it was done for your benefit, and unless you are seen to be taking every possible step to discourage it and to punish those responsible, you will be blamed.

4. Other companies care about supply chains. More than ever before, consumer-facing businesses take an interest in the behavior of their suppliers. The British supermarket chain Tesco has already suspended purchases of Del Monte products as it worries that its reputation might suffer by association. Other companies have demanded an independent investigation. In this environment, companies involved in human rights abuses feel the business impact immediately.

5. Allowed to fester, the damage can last for decades. If you don’t take responsibility now, you will be facing questions about your role that persist for years. Every time a new legal action is filed, your name will be in the headlines again. Every time another company gets embroiled in a human rights controversy, your company will be held up as the object lesson.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/companies-need-to-decide-is-equality-worth-defending https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/companies-need-to-decide-is-equality-worth-defending pholmes@provokemedia.com LongreadsBoeingDEIAnalysisNews Companies Need To Decide: Is Equality Worth Defending? Will companies abandon their commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion because they’re intimidated by a right-wing backlash that is not even thinly disguised racism? Fri, 02 Feb 2024 11:01:00 Z 2024-02-02T11:01:00Z There are 100 different questions reporters should be asking Boeing in the wake of yet another crisis involving the airplane manufacturer’s perpetually troubled 737 Max. Not one of those questions should involve the company’s DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) initiatives.

When we first wrote about the problems with the 737 Max four years ago — it was number one on our list of the biggest corporate crises, in the wake of two crashes in Malaysia and Ethiopia — we talked about what crisis communications expert Rod Cartwright described as Boeing’s “cozy relationship with its key regulator, the FAA.”

A remarkably laissez-faire approach to customer safety had been revealed in March of 2019, via a blockbuster Seattle Times report, which suggested that the FAA functioned more like a business partner than a regulator. According to the report, FAA leadership “pushed the agency’s safety engineers to delegate safety assessments to Boeing itself, and to speedily approve the resulting analysis.”

A little more than a year later, The New Yorker followed up with another robust journalistic exercise, under the headline “How Boeing and the F.A.A. Created the 737 MAX Catastrophe.” In it, staff writer John Cassidy wrote: “With the connivance of the Federal Aviation Administration, Boeing developed, built, and delivered hundreds of passenger jets that were a potential danger to anyone who stepped onto them.”

The discussion about the 737 Max was reignited last month, during which it seemed as though the most important question for passengers to ask was whether pieces of the plane would start falling off in flight (as with the Alaska Airlines door “plug”) or while the plane was still on the runway (as with a Delta flight in Atlanta).

A sensible person might at least understand the relevance of asking whether essentially allowing an aircraft manufacturer to pinkie swear that its planes are safe — as opposed to insisting that an independent agency perform actual checks — might lead to a decline in safety that passengers ought to be concerned about.

And so naturally, the bulk of the recent discussion about the Boeing Max 737… has focused on Boeing’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Indeed, criticism of the company’s commitment to DEI and sustainability have been unescapable on Fox News and Fox Business. A few days after the door incident, The Big Money Show host Brian Brenberg went with the hacky “just asking questions” approach: “Boeing seemed to be particularly interested in sustainability and DEI…. Does that come at the cost of something?” Over on Fox News, Laura Ingraham had apparently received the same memo, wondering whether it was “worth asking at this point is excellence what we need in airline operation or is diversity the goal here?”

A couple of days later, Fox Business host Sean Duffy opined: “This is a dangerous business when you’re focused on DEI and maybe less focused on engineering and safety.”

It wasn’t long before the focus shifted from airplane manufacturing to the airlines themselves. That shifted the conversation neatly from an area of genuine concern — regulatory capture — to an area in which the concerns were almost entirely imagined: there have been two fatalities (not two fatal crashes, but two dead people total) since 2010.

In other words, not only is the link between DEI and a crisis in airline safety totally imaginary, the crisis in airline safety is totally, entirely, wholly imaginary. Such is the post-truth, post-reason, post-fact political climate in America today.

Needless to say, Twitter/X chief troll Elon Musk was in the forefront of the collective stupidity: “Do you want to fly in an airplane where they prioritized DEI hiring over your safety? That is actually happening.” (Obviously, there is zero evidence that anything of the kind was “actually happening.” And you should feel free to compare the safety record of the airline industry to the safety record of Tesla, which has the highest accident rate of any automaker in America.)

Some conservatives were more explicit in their complaints. “I’m sorry,” co-founder of far-right pressure group Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk said on his show. “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’” (Is that more reasonable than me wondering whether my white pilot is only in the cockpit because white privilege is still the most pervasive affirmative action program in America?)

And on its face, the charge is perplexing. There’s no attempt in any of these segments or stories to explain how a company’s commitment to expanding the talent pool from which it recruits engineers (or, in the case of airlines, pilots). It is simply taken as given that Black or female candidates in these professions must be inferior to their white, male counterparts — a notion at least partially refuted by the fact that the pilot who landed the door-less Alaska flight was a woman.

Still, as Vox points out in its analysis of the campaign against DEI: “Underneath the attack on DEI are racist, sexist, and anti-gay ideas that women, people of color, and those in the LGBTQ+ community do not have the qualifications, skills, or intelligence to participate in society through jobs, education, leadership, and more.”

But the speciousness and barely disguised racism of the anti-diversity argument notwithstanding, there are suggestions that companies are already backing away from DEI initiatives in the wake of a Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action on college campuses. There’s plenty of reason to believe that the commitment to providing more equal opportunities was never more than skin deep anyway — Boeing’s own latest diversity data suggests that the company is still some way short of its stated DEI goals.

“In the DEI space, there’s a myth of progress,” Lily Zheng, a DEI consultant, told The Washington Post, adding that the resistance facing corporate programs today is a “step-for-step echo of the reverse racism and anti-affirmative-action attacks that were very successful back in the 60s and 70s.”

The idea that companies adopted diversity, equity and inclusion policies because of some commitment to “woke” ideology is absurd. Most CEOs are no more committed to “wokeness” than they are to serving a particular flavor of Snapple in the office vending machine.

They invested in DEI firstly because it makes sense for companies to draw talent from the broader population rather than a narrow slice; secondly, to make sure than diverse talent did not suffer racism and bias in the workplace (an issue with potential legal implications); and thirdly because a significant number of stakeholders — and consumers in particular — care about basic fairness and are willing to punish companies that continue to discriminate.

At the same time, it should be clear that all decisions about issues like sustainability, social responsibility, and equality involve a degree of cost-benefit analysis. Anti-diversity forces understand this too, and so over the past 12 months they have been working to increase the cost, using everything from vitriolic social media to the threats of physical violence that persuaded some organizations to mute their support of Pride and other LGBTQ initiatives last year.

Obviously, public relations professionals need to be aware of the ways in which the campaign against DEI is impacting broader public opinion. It is possible that the onslaught of empty rhetoric will persuade ordinary people that providing equal opportunity to diverse populations (not that DEI on its own provides anything like equal opportunity) is somehow wrong.

Even if that happens, companies should make any decision on the basis of the same facts that led them to make DEI promises in the first place: are there business benefits to recruiting from a broader talent pool; does it make sense to create a welcoming workplace that treats everyone fairly; do diverse consumers matter?

But for now, public relations professionals need to do a better job of refuting the evidence-free claims that are being made about DEI. They need to do a better job of explaining what their DEI policies are designed to accomplish, and to be absolutely honest about what they have actually accomplished — and how far most organizations still have to go before they are genuinely diverse, equitable, and inclusive.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/analysis-burson's-welcome-return-should-not-overshadow-merger-risks https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/analysis-burson's-welcome-return-should-not-overshadow-merger-risks arun@provokemedia.com Arun SudhamanWPPNewsHill & KnowltonBCWBursonLongreadsAnalysis Analysis: Burson's Welcome Return Should Not Overshadow Merger Risks From a WPP perspective, the BCW and Hill & Knowlton integration probably seemed inevitable — but the biggest merger in PR history will be fraught with cultural and competitive risks. Sun, 28 Jan 2024 13:12:14 Z 2024-01-30T02:32:47Z We live in increasingly binary times. Thus the temptation, when faced with a move of the magnitude of BCW's merger with Hill & Knowlton, to deliver an instant verdict, one way or the other. Either it's the smartest decision since Shandwick, Weber and BSMG came together, or something more akin to the ill-fated attempt to combine Publicis and Omnicom.

In reality, a more nuanced reading reflects the importance of considering the various perspectives involved in the biggest merger in PR history. From WPP's perspective, the move not only makes financial sense, but almost seems inevitable, given the successive mergers of agencies that have taken place at the world's largest marketing services holding group.

Holding groups are hardly immune to the siren call of operational spreadsheets, and WPP's own performance in recent years has attracted plenty of scrutiny. Combining BCW and H&K will certainly reduce costs and complexity — in line with WPP CEO Mark Read's 'simplification' strategy — and mirroring WPP's various mergers of advertising, media, digital and design agencies under his watch.

It may be harder to discern why a significantly bigger entity will be more successful than the formerly separate agency brands of BCW and H&K, particularly when you consider the performance and innovation of midsize agencies over the past decade. Asking 'why now' is also pertinent, unless — of course — the two brands were not necessarily setting the market alight of their own accord.  

WPP's own rationale does not tell us all that much. Read, like Richard Edelman no doubt, contends that being the best is more important than the biggest. But if you are invested in the big agency model, then there are benefits to being the biggest of them all.

There's the advantage of being automatically added to pitch lists across the world, of having more capabilities in more places, and of having the scale to invest in key technology in the AI era.  Arguably, you can make the case that the expanded opportunities on offer improve Burson's status as a talent destination — although heightened employee churn may put paid to that notion in the short term at least.

Then there's the branding boost, which should not be underestimated, given how welcome the return of the Burson name is. The loss of the Hill & Knowlton brand, so soon after their rebranding too, will be keenly felt — but no one in the holding group game can credibly cling to the notion that their shingle is uniquely indispensable.

After all, as former H&K exec Josh Reynolds explains so well, holding groups are built for this model. They must optimize profits on a quarterly basis — even if that approach has, largely, seemed at odds with the strategies required to build a successful PR firm in the modern era.

It is a strategy that calls for efficiencies wherever they can be found. It may be telling that WPP's explanation for the deal does not reveal how this combination makes for a deeper, rather than broader offering. Unlike Cohn & Wolfe's takeover of Burson-Marsteller five years ago, BCW and H&K do not seem especially complementary, either from a servicing or geographic perspective.

Industry & competitors

Weighed down by a reputation for cost-cutting, restructuring and consolidation, holding groups have rarely seemed less relevant to growth and innovation across the global PR industry. From an industry perspective, it is tempting to view WPP's blockbuster decision to merge BCW and H&K as one last gasp from an agency model that has often appeared ill-suited to the demands of the 21st century communications business.

In this regard, the analyst response to WPP's blockbuster VML combination is enlightening, even if it focused largely on the benefits of back office consolidation, scale benefits and cost savings — hardly the stuff of which dreams are made.

Bank of America, for example, flagged three concerns with the VML merger, as detailed by Campaign.  First, "given its fairly surprising nature, it likely signals ongoing challenging trading"; second that the large scale of internal mergers "can be risky and disruptive on day-to-day operations, particularly in creative"; and third, that it will "entail additional restructuring charges".  

"So far, previous [mergers] have not paid dividends as WPP continues to lag industry growth," added BoA, flagging "deteriorating margins" and "higher restructuring charges".

Significantly, BoA also noted "higher staff churn and client loss" along with "managing client conflicts" — all of which are likely to prove challenging for the BCW-H&K combination too.

For bigger PR networks in general, low growth has been a prevailing trend in recent years. The model is less attractive than it was 20 years ago, with technology helping to shrink the world and clients in fast-maturing geographies increasingly opting for specialist players rather than the generalist juggernauts that sometimes appear difficult to distinguish from one another.

Those trends are exacerbated at publicly-held players — where margins are typically managed for the benefit of shareholders rather than clients and talent, and an expansive geographic footprint sometimes seems like more of a burden than a benefit.

As Burson CEO Corey duBrowa told us during his Google tenure, he values agencies for their strategic counsel and creativity. Yet, few major clients have consistently backed up these kinds of statements, creating a market where big firms are saddled with a model that prioritises execution over ideas.

In the AI era, that kind of offering carries considerable risk. Breaking out of that cul de sac requires investment, which is not something that holding groups have typically prioritised ahead of the curve at their PR firms.

That may change now that WPP has one major PR network rather than two, with Ogilvy PR continuing to operate as an integrated practice within Ogilvy. Yet, it remains hard to avoid the conclusion that the BCW/H&K merger was driven more by a quest for operational efficiencies.

The merger also reinforces the notion of a fragmenting market, broadly made up of full-service global players, specialty and midsize boutiques, and regional players. For now, at least, there is plenty of overlap — and rival agencies across the world will no doubt be targeting BCW and H&K's existing clients. But the consolidation suggests that this kind of fragmentation will continue.

Having another giant at the top of the table is no bad thing either, given Edelman's dominance of the airwaves for several years. Weber Shandwick might disagree, but the industry can only benefit from more competition among its biggest players.

How this impacts other holding group agencies will also be keenly observed, with M&A advisors predicting continued integration and divestitures. Omnicom has always remained steadfast in its support of individual brands, but there has been consolidation in specific markets among its individual PR players in recent years, while Porter Novelli's status is often the subject of speculation.

At Interpublic, Weber Shandwick and Golin have typically benefited from the kind of financial returns that have rendered them immune to too much top level tinkering, even as they have integrated various players under their respective banners. In holding group terms, it seems that Publicis may well have been ahead of its time — having already opted for one major network supported by a specialty corporate/financial firm several years ago. 

Talent & clients

Surely the talent perspective should have been considered first? After all, even amid the rise of AI, people remain a PR firm's primary — some would say only — asset. Yet, at holding groups, it has been clear for some time that the tension between optimizing profit and managing people has skewed towards the former, hastening the exit of many talented senior executives to the independent world.

For the two firms involved, there will be considerable churn ahead, a potential 'Hunger Games' scenario which ideally results in the best people remaining at Burson. This is something BCWers, at least, will know only too well from the Cohn & Wolfe takeover five years ago. In that case, Cohn & Wolfe's culture effectively led the way; in this one, it will be interesting to see how two relatively strong identities will mesh, and significant change management challenges can be expected. 

Even so, it is difficult to frame the merger in especially positive terms when considered from a cultural perspective. There will be many job losses, all of which will remind us that — at publicly-held players at least — investors always come ahead of talent.

That WPP announced this plan to coincide with its Capital Markets day tells us as much. Bereft of detail, there will be substantial uncertainty over the various leadership positions that remain to be filled. H&Kers are likely to feel under particular threat, as Read himself notes, although genuinely focusing on "Harold’s founding principles of honesty, transparency, integrity and excellence" will surely help.

Hill & Knowlton, lest we forget too soon, is the biggest PR firm in EMEA — PRovoke Media's 2020 Agency of the Decade in that region. EMEA aside, the last two decades have been less kind to the 96-year-old firm, but there will be plenty of sadness about the demise of a unique culture and brand.

And culture matters — to the extent that it must pose the biggest risk to the prospects of a successful agency merger. It is no coincidence that the Best Agencies to Work For tend to end up developing the best work and building successful brands. At a time when major networks seem ever more generic, an agency's ethos has become a critical differentiator in the war for talent.

Client conflicts, meanwhile, have always seemed to be the biggest obstacle to a merger on this scale, serving as the strongest argument for, at the very least, a dual agency structure. Burson will still be able to call on the H&K, Axicom and GCI Health brands and, in already merging numerous major agencies, it appears clear that Read does not necessarily view this as the hurdle that others might.

If the client conflicts at H&K and Burson can be successfully managed, in a manner that has yet to be seen within the PR industry, that will surely count as one of the most successful outcomes from this integration. 

Leadership & legacy

The creation of Weber Shandwick worked because the leadership team was largely led by BSMG, ensuring unity of purpose, and bringing considerable experience. This merger, meanwhile, represents a major bet on Corey duBrowa, who — like AnnaMaria DeSalva before him — is taking on an agency leadership role without a significant track record in this regard.

So, while few will publicly wager against the widely-respected former Google executive, his senior team will have their work cut out for them. DuBrowa has already installed impressive leaders in key roles; expect the Burson CEO to move similarly quickly as he attempts to build a new agency brand for a fast-changing world.

DeSalva's fate, after proving herself as a relatively effective CEO of H&K over the last four years, will also be the subject of much speculation. It is not surprising that Read has said that this must be a merger rather than a takeover. He is also justified in calling out duBrowa and DeSalva as "two extremely professional leaders" who will be committed to making this work. 

Ultimately, Harold Burson was one of the few genuine giants that the PR world has produced, and it befits the industry to have his name atop what is now its biggest PR firm. Yet, it remains open to question whether the legendary industry pioneer would celebrate moves like these. Time will tell if the new Burson can live up to his storied legacy.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/'i've-never-felt-such-a-heavy-burden'-davos-lessons-from-global-comms-leaders https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/'i've-never-felt-such-a-heavy-burden'-davos-lessons-from-global-comms-leaders arun@provokemedia.com Weber ShandwickTechnologyRoundtableNewsLongreadsLeadershipIn-HouseDavosData & AnalyticsCorporateChatGPTBig DataArun SudhamanAPACDAnalysis 'I've Never Felt Such A Heavy Burden': Davos Lessons From Global Comms Leaders PRovoke Media/Weber Shandwick Davos roundtable reveals a decline in corporate activism as AI concerns mount. Wed, 24 Jan 2024 13:16:49 Z 2024-01-24T13:16:49Z Despite a theme of "Rebuilding Trust", this year's World Economic Forum found many corporates on the back foot, wary of the many reputation risks that appear to have multiplied during a volatile economic and political period. 

The overwhelming focus on artificial intelligence reflected this state of affairs, offering the business world something of a respite from the increasingly thorny questions that are being asked of them in terms of culture wars and geopolitical polarization. 

Davos has long touted its ability to bring business, government and civil society together, but that nexus becomes increasingly fraught as stakeholder capitalism finds itself imperilled by anti-woke forces and geographic turbulence. After all, it is hard to "improve the state of the world" as WEF's tagline puts it, when CEOs are dialling down their ESG rhetoric and political leaders are amping up tribalism to win votes. 

Even so, there is no escaping the significant implications that these trends have for the communications function, colliding with a pivotal moment of transformation in terms of AI-fuelled disruption and disinformation.  

For communications chiefs, who have become an increasingly conspicuous constituency at the World Economic Forum, these issues get to the very heart of their role — not only in terms of shaping the Davos agenda, but determining the actions that need to follow. And that is no bad thing, given Davos' reputation for prioritising rhetoric above reality

To better understand the rapid change that is underway at in-house functions, PRovoke Media partnered with Weber Shandwick and Page to convene a panel of communications leaders from major companies across the globe, hosted by IBM. The following is an edited transcript of the 90-minute conversation.

Participants

  • Abhinav Kumar, global CMO, TCS
  • Bea Perez, SVP & chief communications, sustainability and strategic partnerships officer, The Coca-Cola Company
  • Brian Lott, CCO, Mubadala
  • Charlotte West, executive director, global corporate comms, Lenovo
  • Clare Conley, VP of communications, Qualcomm
  • Jim O'Leary, North America CEO, Weber Shandwick
  • Jonathan Adashek, CCO & SVP marketing/comms, IBM
  • Lauren Tilstra, chief of staff, AVP strategic communications, Verizon
  • Lynette Jackson, CCO, Siemens
  • Russell Dubner, MD & senior partner, CCO, BCG 
  • Sarah Campbell Donia, global corporate affairs leader, Randstad 
  • Arun Sudhaman, editor-in-chief, PRovoke Media (moderator) 


Essential lessons
"Question number one or question number two is still geopolitics" — Russell Dubner, BCG The Davos bubble does not always reflect the full spectrum of real world concerns, but it can be extremely useful when it comes to understanding what matters most, not just to business leaders, but to the many media in attendance. And while WEF's agenda skewed heavily towards the rise of AI this year, our communications leaders could not avoid the increasingly complex questions being asked of business in terms of geopolitics and corporate activism. 

Jim O'Leary (JOL): The delta between the mission of WEF and the reality of where the world's going is pretty significant. So there's all the conversation around dialogue, collaboration, multilateral engagement, but the reality is the world is heading in a different direction. 

Jonathan Adashek (JA): I think it's been more unified than I've seen in many years past: it is AI across the board. I think it's quite striking. The absence of geopolitics, though. You would never know that there are multiple wars and that Iran and Pakistan are escalating and all these other things happening. It's like a bubble here. It's pretty staggering.

Arun Sudhaman (AS): It's interesting because of that sense of detachment, not just geographically, but philosophically, between what's talked about here and how the real world is progressing. Page identified geopolitics as the biggest risk, and yet that hasn't necessarily come through in many conversations here.

Charlotte West (CW): Is that because it's become the status quo? I just see that as another business risk that every business is dealing with in a different way, depending on who you are. I wonder if we've just become immune to it.

JA: How many companies want to really take some aggressive stands on some of these key issues that are very divisive? You take a stand on an issue that is true to your company, but if you don't need to draw the attention to the company, I think we would all around this table say, "I don't need that spotlight on me weighing in."

Clare Conley (CC): I actually think the focus on AI has been helpful for all of us. When you do media interviews, it can get quickly to geopolitics. AI has actually been a good place for us all to go where I think there's comfort and where we can actually provide value versus weighing in on topics where you could take a position that corporations shouldn't take.

Russell Dubner (RD): Have you found that either question number one or question number two in interviews is still geopolitics? Even though we all want to talk about AI, the media still wants to understand how are we grappling with [geopolitics]. Even if you're not taking a stance, they want to understand how the dynamic has shifted because it's the biggest risk now. So — how you are planning against it is more the question set that we've seen.

Sarah Campbell Donia (SCD): I see the corporate activism trajectory going in a very different direction. And I can imagine myself in five years saying a company has a responsibility to speak out about geopolitical situations. And that's because our employees are demanding that we do something about it. I don't know how it is in the US context but, in Europe, our employees are still incredibly scared, the Russia-Ukraine conflict is causing a lot of anxiety and they want to know that their leader and their company finds peace important. I feel like ESG is going to be about peace. And that we may look back and go, "Gosh, we were so silly to think that we didn't have a role to play in that."

Lynette Jackson (LJ): What's difficult is our employees have been asking. With Russia and Ukraine, I found it a bit different because Russia was the aggressor. But with Israel and Hamas, that is so nuanced. I don't think any of us can make a statement that's going to comfort employees because it is so completely divisive.

And the other thing I would say is the questions that we've been getting have been more on a political level than geopolitics, asking our executives to comment, projecting what might happen in the US elections. There, I feel we have more of a role to play because you talk ecosystems in industry and business, but politics by its nature is polar. We're in a hiatus situation because there's so many major elections coming up and so big decisions aren't being taken at a time when there's all this uncertainty. It's frustrating that politics is not really moving things forward when there's so many challenges in our time. And that to me is my equal worry, I think on a par with geopolitics.

Lauren Tilstra (LT):  What I'm noticing, and I'm seeing it in a lot of American companies, is that people are looking internally first — is our code of conduct in the right place so that we can actually address these questions. The prediction might be a little different in that I think companies are first going to make sure that their house is in order and then talk through that to get to the message. I think it's going to be a little less about each individual crisis, but more how do we deal with it as a net whole as a company and preserve our own messaging and our own narrative and take hold and harness it. 

Abhinav Kumar (AK): Even if you don't believe as companies we have a role to play, I think the pressure from employees is only going to grow. Probably the most difficult thing, which we navigated from a comms point of view, was trying to forge the proper communication around the Israel-Hamas crisis. We saw the cautionary tales of anyone who got into trouble for making the most balanced and most humane of statements. We're still getting pressure from customers, from clients who are like, "You haven't said enough. You're not doing enough." I think that continues.

There's this numbness around all these huge geopolitical fissures and conflicts. It's almost normalized. And maybe there isn't the level of alarm which there should be with what's going on in the Middle East. We are going to enter soon the third year of the war in Europe. You can't walk two meters down the street without seeing AI. I think it represents this fundamental trend about technology becoming mainstream in the discussion at Davos. Even if you're talking about geopolitics, elections — I think the focus is really about misinformation and the role that technology platforms play in it.

Bea Perez (BP): It depends what audience you're talking to here, and if you're in a public or private forum. Privately I have found geopolitics is the conversation. And so I think it's really important that we distinguish that because I don't think any leader here or any convener here thinks it's any less important. I think it's a matter of what real conversations are taking place and do they want them on the record or not? If they're going to work to make meaningful change or solve problems, probably they don't want to let the world know yet because that could undo it.

Brian West (BW): I think there's maybe a healthy reconsideration of the role of business in the whole ESG debate as it goes through this political turmoil in the US. A couple of years ago it just felt like the expectations were that the CEO of Taco Bell had to be literate about the Oslo Accords. Business can contribute in ways that are important and core to that business. What can we as companies do in the appropriate context without feeling like your CEO has to also be a secretary for foreign affairs. Ultimately, I hope it allows companies to do what they do best and set our expectations with employees. To be a little more realistic about our role in contributing to progress and peace.

AI above all? "We've got a duty to explain it in ways that are not terrifying" — Lynette Jackson, Siemens As many of our participants noted, the focus on AI at this year's Davos sometimes seemed overwhelming — particularly given the range of complex challenges that also require urgent attention. But it also reflected how corporate communicators will need to start thinking about AI narratives in terms of their companies, and the challenges that will increase around ethics, bias and even "AI-washing."

LJ: The analogy that comes to mind is both of my children have played soccer and, when it's not a great standard, you know how everyone follows the ball. That's how it feels with these topics. As communicators, how do you make sure that you are differentiated? That's been my takeaway — I've got to go and do my homework and say, how do we, for my customers and stakeholders, talk about AI in a meaningful way. And also the responsibility we have as businesses to talk beyond our companies, beyond potential customers, potential employees. Because AI, people are scared about it. So I think we've got a duty to explain it in ways that are not terrifying. And also I'm reflecting on how can we join together in terms of educating, because otherwise every one of our companies will have some social impact program to educate on AI.

RD: I think the point about being specific on AI is a really good one. We had two flagship studies — one was on AI and one was on global trade. It was sort of 60:40 in terms of what the media cared about and what fit the dialogue. The global trade study looked at how global trade will shift over the next decade — US to China will be down almost $200 billion. And that got as much attention as research on the fact that almost 50% of employers are going to have to upskill their employees and make change.

CC: I think as technology companies, especially who are building and deploying AI, it is our responsibility to educate. The world is polarized and it's polarized on AI as with everything else. Last week we were at CES and talking about AI, but with people who are in the tech industry. And then you come here and you're like, okay, I've got to back up because I hear a very different way of communicating and my use cases have to be different. It's a good reminder to remember our audience and calibrate how we deliver the same messages. "The bit that worries me is the disinformation piece" — Charlotte West, Lenovo AS: A lot of the conversations around AI have been quite focused on explaining the technology. But there seems to be a lot of concern and fear of AI. I'm curious to know how all of you view that as a comms challenge. How do you see AI impacting your work both from a functional perspective and a reputational perspective this year?

CW: There's three distinct areas. The first one is, how does it change the way we do our job, the way we structure our teams, how we use agencies, all of those things. And I don't think it's perhaps as fundamental as people think. The second thing, particularly for us in tech, is being clear on our AI story, but also holding all of the comms team accountable to not AI wash stuff. So that we are not creating a problem that we've all then got to fix from a comms perspective in a few years time. The third element, and it's the bit that worries me and I don't have an answer for, is the disinformation piece. And we don't know what will happen in the future in terms of AI models being fed with misinformation about any of our companies and how we can actually navigate that. I don't think agencies are advising clients yet well enough on that disinformation piece.

BP: I think an opportunity here is to have a common set of guidelines and guardrails around it. And that's the gap that I see. Companies have been using AI, but generative AI is what's new. A company like Coke quickly signed up and said, we're going to use it, but engaged the consumer to do creative. And so we actually allowed the consumer to actually create our creative using our artifacts from our archive, and we put them up, Times Square, Piccadilly Circus. We also did holiday cards, and it was really engaging. The feedback we got from consumers was they loved it and they wanted more.

But then it was interesting because while we were doing that, our legal teams, everyone was working quickly to say, well, what are the guardrails? Who has frameworks? There was no real policy out there. And I think that's an opportunity for all of us to say, should we shape it? Should we really take a look at all the things that can go wrong? And then actually as an industry and as communicators, put together what those guardrails should be in a common framework. I know governments have to do that as well, but until they do, I think we need some sort of common set of principles and guardrails.

And I think about some of the work we do in water. We're using now technology, multiple sets of technology, feeding it into databases and actually having the AI give us analysis of whether there is a pending drought based off of what the data is telling us. It's very telling because what I have found in just some of the early data is that the things the AI was starting to predict happened. And I'm not going to go into details on the record here, but I think that's a very powerful way to use AI to help communities actually build resilience before these disasters occur. So, I'd also love to see all of us, whether it's comms side, corporate side, government side, use this technology to actually help society get better prepared for what's to come.

Disruption & talent "If we don't start figuring this out, comms is going to be playing catch up for a long, long time" — Jonathan Adashek, IBM The conversation on AI deepened to consider the technology's impact on the next generation of talent and the risk of losing skills and values that are deemed essential to the communications role. In addition, our participants discussed whether the comms function is being left behind by marketing advances in terms of AI. 

JA: I think [Charlotte] raised three points at the beginning. I think there's a fourth one to add, and that's skills. We have a responsibility to make sure that our teams are skilled on it, understand how to use the new tools and understand how to operate in that new world, as well. Because it's going to change the way they operate.

JOL: In terms of the skills, one of the areas that we're probably doing the most in this space for our clients is on that. We're creating custom AI sandboxes for a number of our clients now and helping train the teams on the usage. It's still very early days in terms of what's possible. 

CC:  Qualcomm, on my team, we're using a tool called Writer, which is awesome. It's a great tool — it is about the skills, but I think it's also about the habit. So I've had Writer on my computer, my whole team has, for a month now. We've been trained on it. But I am still, the team is still, going into Word first to write something, and not Writer. So I'm trying to think about ways of getting them to change their workflow habits in order to incorporate it from the beginning and it's not just an afterthought.

LJ: You mentioned guidelines and I think that there's a danger that each of us goes and [develops] guidelines internally for all of our communications teams, colleagues and anyone who has an external facing role. I think it is time to join forces. In terms of workflows and processes, it doesn't make sense for us all to do it 100, 1,000 times. It's much better to do it, iteratively, together.

CC: Maybe this is where Page can help. 

AK: Also, the quantity of things coming out. There are more than 1,000 generative AI tools coming out every month. Who has the bandwidth to examine and see? I see that Writer's the winning one. So your perspective and sharing it here is really useful. Any kind of platform which rallies people to share — each one of us uses different things — I think that will only help in making better choices. "Who preserves the integrity of what this function is?" — Lauren Tilstra, Verizon  RD: It's funny that one of the examples people use when they talk about the power of AI is to imagine how easy it's going to be for you to write your social posts. Just write social posts and that's going to solve everything. The bigger question is, let's look at the value chain of what we do across the board and where could it fit in next. On the consulting side of what BCG does, there's more opportunity, actually, in marketing right now than there is in comms for us — it really leans much harder into serving the needs of the CMO. There's so many elements that are just also about the visual creation and all the other component parts of it.

So we're dipping our toe in the water and looking for ways for it to have value. I think it's incremental, this isn't transformative technology. What I'm curious about is message testing — are there ways that you can use generative AI to understand how your message is going to be received by an audience? Because there's enough content out there that it can give you a proxy. And that's pretty cool. I haven't tested that out yet, but I like the idea of it and it makes sense that that would work.

JA: I think everybody in this room, I would bet at one point or another has been like "marketing is the evil sibling," right? They get the bigger budgets. There's always that tension between the two organizations. I'll tell you from a marketing perspective that we are putting this to use already in a very aggressive way. But I'm concerned that if we don't start figuring this out from a comms perspective, marketing is going to take off on this, and comms is going to be trying to play catch up for a long, long time. On the marketing side, my team used Firefly for an ad last year. We had 1,000 different selects in five minutes. It turned out our best performing ad for the entire year. If we don't start looking at it from a comms perspective in a much more serious way, I think there's a big problem.

CW: There has to be a balance. I think a lot of the stuff we talk about is AI helping us to be more efficient, quicker. Short term it's great, but I think long term — what is the impact of that on the core skill of a communicator? We've all been doing this job without the benefit of AI tools for our careers. Does it change the type of people we're employing? Somebody creating a summary, doing that as a human being, the critical thinking you go through to read something, analyze it from a journalist point of view — that skill might be lost if we're artificially speeding it up. I think we need to be really careful that we don't lose those, the human element.

LT: I'm also worried about the next generation. You think about how we all started in this industry. You started doing first drafts, letters to employees for CEOs, morning clips. I worry about the next generation, because I think there's already a lag in talent and especially in diverse talent. And I'm really concerned about what this is going to do. I think it's actually going to take all of us together saying, "what are the skills, to your point, worth preserving and worth cultivating in this next generation?" And how do we lean into those to make sure there's a table like this 20 years from now of really confident comms professionals, who are dealing with a whole new set of challenges that we can't even imagine right now, but who preserve the integrity of what this function is? Because I think that the integrity piece could be very easily lost in the skills development.

LJ: I'm sure that 20 or 30 years ago, people were having the same conversation about all this internet thing. What's that going to do? What's remarkable here is how quickly ChatGPT mushroomed. But I think it's down to us really having clear guidelines about when do you use it, how do you sense-check? And then I'm also optimistic that AI will probably give us the opportunity to check quality. There's some good companies that have made commitments about not issuing auto-generated content. I would say it should be used in the drafting process, but we've got guidelines. Nothing should go out of Siemens that has not been properly proofed by a human being and fact-checked as well. So I think it's about evolving technology and just making sure that we use it responsibly, and have good guidelines.

AK: I don't know if comms is really behind or not on the whole AI adoption wave, but it certainly feels it is. And maybe that's a consequence of that AI washing where everyone feels that everyone else is doing so much on it and you yourself are not. I'll tell you, we organized an event for CCOs in Paris last year around AI and using it inside communications. We got 40 people signed up for it. Then we ask them, would one of you want to talk about what you're doing and showcase a best practice? And we got silence in response.

I think we should take the pressure off it. We are still in the early stages of this tech. There are a lot of tools, a lot of capabilities, a lot of opportunity. But I think there is that perception individually inside automation, "Everyone is doing so much more than we are," — there is a perception gap.

RD: We did this scientific experiment with MIT and Harvard, where we looked at the uses of ChatGPT in different teams. And so we had 70 BCG-ers using it for different tasks, and what we found was that there was a 40% lift in creativity, or in effectiveness around creative tasks.

But there was actually a 10 or 15% drop for complex problem-solving. So what do you use it for? If you're trying to use it to set your strategy and do complex problem-solving, it's not the right tool. That's probably where you want to use predictive AI more. 
"I'm concerned about the foundational skills of being a communications professional being lost" — Clare Conley, Qualcomm LJ: And there's a massive issue in terms of using it, and it's not your mother tongue — it's harder, the nuance of language is harder. In terms of copy, it's challenging to make sure that people really sense-check, and I insist on native checks for all of the countries that we operate in. It's a superpower, but it's even more dangerous when you can't look at the nuance. It sounds great, but is it absolutely the right words to be using?

CC: I agree with Lauren that I'm concerned about the foundational skills of being a communications professional being lost. Equally, if I'm honest with my team — a lot of the work that we do, a lot of the reason why we're busy, is it's 'busy work'. I think a lot of these tools are going to be able to actually let the human use their brain more. I'm super excited. I have super smart people on my team, who are doing a lot of repetitive, quite frankly, boring tasks, that need to be done.

JOL: Someday, they'll be better at training AI than they will be at doing the repetitive tasks. We'll probably get to see it very soon.

LT: It's about the values, right? The core competency can evolve, but what is the overall ethos of what communications is about that you can preserve? I think that's so important.

JA: Those repetitive tasks. We took an HR department that was roughly 800 people down to 60 by going in and automating all the repetitive tasks. The ability to do that and to automate and augment that, and then take those people who were there and put them into more value-creating jobs. It is clearly something that we're looking at how we do.

BL: I worry about those skills being replaced by too much technology, because, ultimately, as communicators, our judgment and authenticity ought to be the hallmarks of what we do. And the generation of people on my team, it's a fairly young team who don't read a physical newspaper every day. For us to just always be in that central position of quality writing, quality editing, saying what is meant to be said, when it's just so easy to click in a few words and get something back — it's just boring copy.

Speak up or stay quiet? "As a communicator, I've never felt such a heavy burden in my whole career" — Sarah Campbell Donia, Randstad One of the dominant themes of Davos in recent years is the rising tide of populism and political polarization around the world, and the extent to which it troubles corporate leaders. Amid a fierce backlash against ESG and DEI in the US, it appears that business is becoming more reticent about taking a stand, following a period in which many spoke up on social and political issues. 

From a geopolitical perspective, the intense tribalism spurred by the Middle Eastern conflict has only elevated this sense of caution. Many might applaud the end of unfettered brand activism as a necessary correction to rampant virtue signalling, while others will decry anything that suggests the corporate world is turning its back on stakeholder capitalism. 

But not all our panellists agreed, with several arguing that companies cannot simply jettison their responsibilities to society in general, even as social and political forces call into question the principles of globalisation and economic consensus.  

LJ: As I said at the beginning, Russia, no question. There was a clear aggressor. I think we've got to really be cautious. Something goes wrong, and the first call is to our offices. I think you've got to look at all the different lenses. As a global company, think about your different stakeholders. And then, you're thinking in least worst context rather than the best. So, I don't think you can say out-and-out that the next issue we should or should not comment. And then having good processes internally and the discipline of looking at it from all the different lenses and not shying away. I completely agree; we have a role. 176 years, our founder believed in his role in society, and that's one of the reasons I like working for our company, because we do believe we have a role in society. But it doesn't mean that every time and word counts, and that's what's fascinating with Israel and Gaza. I was accused of bias on both sides.

CW: For me, the geopolitical debate is — how do we speak to our employees, what issues do we stand up for, given the geopolitical context in the world. But I think we need to look at something different now, if our job is to ensure that the businesses that we work for have a license to operate in the future. An element of that is driven by what you say publicly but it's much more about businesses possibly having to restructure in the future, possibly having to segregate their businesses in the future. If we look at globalization as a trend, and some people say we're now in a time where it's de-globalization, and we saw big multinationals created because they acquired businesses from around the world — is it going to go back to more siloed approaches?

For comms people, if any of our businesses choose to do that, that's massive — in a way, far more important. I'm not belittling the Ukraine or Russia situation or Israel-Hamas, that's change management. We've seen it with Sequoia Capital, I think was one last year that unpicked its business into very distinct entities to navigate the geopolitical challenges. That is what will be discussed by our leaders around the board table. That's the bit that we have to consult on now and ask questions of our leaders.

BP: It's more complex than maybe what people realize on the surface. Is this core to your company? What unintended consequences will you potentially create by having a position or not having a position? Could you put your employees in harm's way? And so, employees should always come first in terms of their safety. I think that those are some of the key questions before you even get to a statement. It's not as easy as people realize when people from the outside say, "Oh, that company spoke up."

CC: When asked these types of questions, you can always pivot to where it does impact you. It's the discipline of doing that. A number of years ago, we were pressured into having an opinion on all these social issues. It was never comfortable, but there was enough pressure that we fell for it, almost. I think, now, everyone's realized that we don't have a role there as a corporation. I know that every time something happens, there's always a really loud voice coming to me saying, "We've got to say something." I always ask, "Who are we saying it to?" The answer generally is our employees want it. Okay, we don't then need to tweet it. Now let's look at our employees. What do they want us to say? They're highly polarized. So, maybe, let's get back to a place of neutrality.

LJ: But also creating respect. That was my massive learning. I think that's interesting for communications professionals. I work hand-in-hand, as probably all of you do, with our chief compliance and chief human rights officers. We really took a backward step to learn lessons from Israel and Hamas. We've looked at our guidelines. We will not tolerate divisive content. And we've updated our policies to talk about respect. Within a company, it's not the place to be talking about politics or religion. There's no place for racism. Now I feel when, not if, the next situation comes up, I won't have to be phoning around colleagues to see. I think we're in a good shape. Everyone should be able to feel comfortable in their place of work. Having these divisive conversations is just not okay.

LT: When I said the trend is companies looking more inside first, it's because — if your value set matches what your business is trying to accomplish — if you look inside first and you talk through that, it's very easy. Can we take an action that actually yields impact in an unbiased way that ties back to what we're trying to accomplish as a business? And so, I do think that trend of looking inside first is going to be really critical for all of us, because this is going to be a consistent theme through the rest of the year. "The pushback against woke capitalism and the anti-ESG movement is very real" — Jim O'Leary, Weber Shandwick SCD: Companies have a role in peace. We're in a time where I don't think any of us can imagine what could happen in the next couple of years. We might be looking at what happened 100 years ago. Do you think companies sat back then and said, we're not going to be part of this? How do we provide social cohesion where there are no institutions doing that? As a communicator, I've never felt such a heavy burden in my whole career because I think we are the people that can convene these discussions and we can do it with structure and we can do it with clear-headedness. And what if we could take what we do in our companies and help our employees amplify that into their communities? How can we leverage our employees to be corporate citizens that are contributing to a more peaceful world? I think that's going to benefit everybody.

JOL: It's really a very US-centric thing in many ways right now. Certainly in the election years it's going to be more the case, but the pushback against woke capitalism and the anti-ESG movement is very real. And I see it across all of our clients. I don't feel like most companies are necessarily walking back sustainability commitments, but they'll talk about sustainability in different ways than they would have a year ago. I assume most of your companies probably do now. Even the terms ESG or DEI are a bit polarizing now in the US, It's only going to get more so this year with the election going on. So, it's very significant.


]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/crisis-review-the-top-21-crises-of-2023-(part-3-of-3) https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/crisis-review-the-top-21-crises-of-2023-(part-3-of-3) news@provokemedia.com APACDNewsLongreadsCrisis ReviewCrisisAnalysis2023 Review Crisis Review: The Top 21 Crises Of 2023 (Part 3 Of 3) Our annual Crisis Review concludes with Del Monte, CNN, Disney/Trian, Web Summit, Bigmotor, Lufthansa/Etihad, and the QSR boycott in MENA. Mon, 22 Jan 2024 17:18:35 Z 2024-01-23T07:54:33Z Crisis Review:
Read Part One | Part Two

15. Suspected killings on Del Monte Kenya farm

Last year, a joint investigation by Britain's Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the Guardian newspaper presented evidence that they claimed showed security guards working for Del Monte had killed and brutally assaulted villagers suspected of trespassing on the multinational food company's Kenyan pineapple farm. 

Shortly afterwards, Del Monte commissioned a human rights impact assessment of its Kenyan operations. According to the Guardian, "the report describes an intense conflict between loosely organised groups of pineapple thieves and Del Monte security staff, causing casualties on both sides, including injuries and death. It concludes that the Kenyan farm is causing major human rights harms across multiple areas to its staff and those living in communities surrounding it."

The situation has continued to escalate since the initial reports. A new report by social auditor Partner Africa was sent to UK supermarkets last month, alleging major human rights violations — resulting in heightened pressure and product withdrawals from some of these supermarkets (including Tesco and Waitrose), the Guardian reports.

In addition, Kenyan police have been investigating another four deaths of suspected pineapple thieves.

"All too often brands and companies make the mistake of thinking they can communicate themselves into a reputation" says Dustin Chick, MD at Razor PR. "This is either the misguided belief that consumers and stakeholders won’t connect the dots, or is a serious case of naivety. Realistically you can’t divorce yourself from the realities much further down your supply chain — ignorance is not the right defense."

"Doing the right thing is always the right thing," adds Chick. "And serious allegations of human rights violations require the firmest of responses, and it is only in your actions that you will address the failings of your reputation." — Arun Sudhaman

16. CNN’s meltdown 

The first six months of 2023 went from bad to worse for CNN under Chris Licht, the CEO who the previous May took over for longtime boss Jeff Zucker who resigned under a cloud after not disclosing a romantic relationship with a top exec.

Going into the year, staff morale had already tanked. Since arriving, Licht nixed CNN’s month-old subscription service, CNN+, and the channel’s longest-running show, Reliable Sources. The show’s host, media reporter Brian Stelter, used his final episode to chide his new boss and his effort to make the channel’s coverage more politically neutral. In December, hundreds of staffers got their pink slips as part of larger cost-cutting measures by parent Warner Bros. Discovery.

In a memo to remaining employees, Licht announced restructuring and programming changes he said “are necessary and will make us stronger and better positioned to place big bets going forward without fear of failure.”

The drama carried into to 2023. Longtime host Don Lemon, part of a new morning show team, was canned two months after saying that Nikki Haley was past her prime — comments widely seen as sexist. Lemon, who didn’t go quietly, said he was blindsided by the move. Then came  the channel’s disastrous town hall with Donald Trump — “a spectacle of lies” during which Trump steamrolled anchor Kaitlin Collins, sparking a backlash from critics who blasted CNN for giving the former president the platform in the first place.

“CNN's crises last year, particularly around staff turmoil after the network's controversial town hall with Donald Trump, are prime examples of leaders — whether of major corporations or boutique small businesses — sitting in their ivory towers and failing to have the pulse of their rank and file,” said Bryson Gillette’s Kevin Liao.

But, as BerlinRosen executive VP Andrew Friedman, who leads the firm’s crisis comms practice, said, CNN’s “defining moment of 2023” came on the first Friday in June, when The Atlantic posted Tim Alberta’s deep-dive profile of Licht under the headline “Inside the Meltdown at CNN.”

“Within hours of the story posting, CNN had become the story once again, rarely a good position for any news brand to find itself. Alberta’s well-reported story kickstarted a feeding frenzy of hot takes about CNN’s leadership, its problems and its future. By the following Wednesday, Chris Licht and CNN parted ways. In late August, respected former New York Times executive Mark Thompson was named the network’s new chief executive,” said Friedman, who has a background in broadcast journalism.

Some of the tumult at CNN, however, reflected challenges bigger than Licht — notably the existential crisis facing traditional news organizations going into what promises to be a politicized — and polarizing — year.

“CNN’s most pressing challenge (and the network is not alone in this regard) is that the very definition of what constitutes news has become, at best, a debate. No one has really figured out how to bring viewers into the story — as CNN famously did during the first Persian Gulf War, proving it was ‘perfectly suited for the hour-after-hour, you are there narrative,’ as the Associated Press’ Frazier Moore wrote in 2001 — without becoming the story,” Friedman said.

“What is not in dispute is that presidential election years put a magnifying glass on news organizations just as they do candidates. While that means missteps can be costly, presidential elections also offer news outlets the chance to (re)define a brand. Coming off a tough year, CNN has the opportunity to put its head down and redirect focus back to its core mission: helping people better understand the world around them.

“In this moment though, CNN may do better to let its work be the story, which seems to be a large part of the strategy Thompson laid out this week. Just as any campaign embed is one big scoop away from becoming the next household-name journalist, so too is CNN one strong election cycle away from shifting the focus back to its roots,” Friedman said. “For CNN in 2024, the goal must be to tell the story, not be the story.” — Diana Marszalek 

17. Disney vs activist investor 

While generations of Magic Kingdom-goers may forever equate Disney with the Happiest Place on Earth, it seems the Walt Disney Company that oversees the entertainment empire just can’t muster that kind of good feeling.

In last year’s crisis review, we wrote about Disney’s deafening silence on a Ron DeSantis-backed Florida law designed to limit discussion of LGBTQ issues in the state’s schools. When then-CEO Bob Chapek finally came out against the bill the backlash from the right was swift and severe, with DeSantis retaliating by removing the company’s special tax district.

This year’s Disney crisis — a corporate power play — is not as sexy a controversy for most Americans, but it is not necessarily detrimental to the company’s well-being.

Last fall, activist investor Nelson Peltz, whose Trian Fund Management owns about $3 billion in Disney stock, launched his second proxy fight against Disney with the aim of securing seats on the company board. Peltz is eyeing for himself and another for former Disney CFO Jay Rasulo.

Peltz’s reason: Disney’s underperformance, which he sees as being too closely tied to current CEO Bob Iger and disconnected from shareholders’ interest.

“Trian believes Disney is the world’s greatest entertainment company, BUT it hasn’t performed for shareholders. We want this beloved company to live up to its potential for shareholders and generations of Disney fans, Trian wrote on its website, Restore the Magic. “Trian beneficially owns a ~$3B stake and believes the board needs new, truly independent directors. Trian’s board nominees, Nelson Peltz and Jay Rasulo, want to #RestoreTheMagic.”

Which is a 180 degree change from where Peltz was last February, when he dropped his first proxy battle after Iger — who led the company for 15 years before returning with Chapek’s ouster — announced a restructuring that included $5.5 billion in cost-cutting measures and the elimination of about 7,000 jobs.

And it’s not like 2023 was a big bust for Disney. The company beat Wall Street expectations, with revenues rising 7% during the fiscal year, thanks to its theme parks offsetting losses from the likes of Disney+ and Hulu.

But Peltz’s reignition of his power play shows that Iger, for all the adoration he garnered during his first run at Disney, is missing something in trying to convince investors that he has the company and its future interests covered, said Bryant Madden, MikeWorldWide’s VP of corporate reputation.

“Iger’s return to Disney after the brief tenure of his supposed successor was tangible proof for investors that Disney doesn’t have a coherent plan to shift its business model. While his return may have caused a short-lived period of nostalgia for investors, hoping the long-time chief had a silver bullet solution, but 2023 proved that not to be the case. Instead of expecting, preparing and communicating about the obvious question: ‘What’s the plan, Bob?’ Disney has announced half-measure after half-measure,” Madden said.

At the same time, Iger isn’t doing himself any favors by repudiating Peltz, who blamed the board for “self-inflicted wounds” resulting from major gaffes like resisting change and not having a succession plan.

“With the rejection of Peltz’s bid, a major proxy fight will likely ensue. It may also make the company a further target of the political right who can look to leverage its board and leadership with its social and public policy stances. “Disney has become a punching bag and proxy for all that is wrong with corporate America for right wing politicians, most notably Florida Governor DeSantis and its board fight with Peltz may only increase the target on its back,” Madden said.

“Iger has fought back publicly and in court in relation to Disney’s social and public policy stance and now is battling on a potentially more treacherous front — his business strategy, management style and corporate goals. If Disney has a plan, it needs to communicate it with stakeholders quickly, clearly and convincingly. Otherwise, an alternative path with Peltz at the helm will begin looking quite appealing,” Madden said. — Diana Marszalek 

18. Web Summit CEO resigns 

The divisive nature of the Israel-Hamas conflict has meant that most CEOs are opting to play it safe when it comes to public commentary. Not Web Summit co-founder and CEO Paddy Cosgrave, who suggested Israel was guilty of war crimes in its response to Hamas' terrorist attacks.

The backlash against Cosgrave's comments was swift, forcing him to resign as CEO of one of the world's biggest tech conferences, following a second post in which he said he would not "relent" in calling out Israel. Despite Cosgrave's decision to step down and install a new CEO in Katherine Maher, most high-profile speakers from major tech companies withdrew — including Amazon, Meta, Intel, IBM and Stripe, along with European Union officials and celebrity speakers Amy Poehler and Gillian Anderson.

Cosgrave remains the majority shareholder, owning 81% of the company, but it is clear that the exodus of US companies has put long-term sponsorship money and relationships at risk — what Axios describes as an "existential crisis."

While the corporate world has become increasingly comfortable sharing political views in recent years, the Web Summit crisis reflects how fraught these issues can be. "Today's environment is extremely divisive," explains Sway Effect founder and president Jen Risi. "Based on the current state of the world, companies are reconsidering when, how and why their leadership should speak out and on what topics."

Indeed, Risi believes that "senior leaders should never share their political perspectives," because it "risks alienating a brand's core audiences who might share different perspectives."

Meanwhile, Cosgrave's comments are not Web Summit's only issues. The three shareholders, including Cosgrave, remain in place — in a relationship described as "irremediably toxic". — Arun Sudhaman

19. Bigmotor inflates insurance claims

Japan's biggest used car dealership, repair and insurance brand, a family-owned concern that traded on honesty in a business known for dishonesty, lost its reputation overnight when it was found to have engaged in systematic fraud.  

In short: staff at the company deliberately damaged cars using implements such as golf clubs to lodge inflated insurance claims and overcharge customers to meet unrealistic sales targets. Insurance giant Sompo, a supposed victim, was also implicated as being in on the scam. Close to 1,300 cases came to light. Investigations also uncovered toxicity in the workplace, with abusive power harassment a fact of life for some employees.

"As is the norm in Japan, the founder, Hiroyuki Kaneshige, tendered a tearful resignation but claimed the incidents were down to rogue employees," says Hoffman Agency content director David Blecken. "He also apologised to golfers for casting a shadow on their sport — but not to those the company had defrauded."

"To be sure, he had to go and could have bowed out more gracefully," continues Blecken. "But some observers argued unfair financial regulations contributed to the malfeasance and have implications beyond the used car industry. This at least warrants examination and suggests the Bigmotor issue is unlikely to be the last of its kind to surface."

"Reputations, once lost, are hard to recover," adds Stephen Givens, a partner at law firm JLX Partners, writing in Nikkei Asia. "Mental images of body shop workers deliberately exacerbating dents with golf balls will be hard to erase. Bigmotor's national television commercials caricaturing its competitors as crooked and untrustworthy will now inspire giggles."

Givens adds that Bigmotor's woes also reflect the difficulties of getting regulation right. The company's relationship with Sompo benefited from under-regulation of conflicts of interest, but "overregulation of insurance agency commissions pushed Sompo to find other ways to reward Bigmotor."

Either way, Blecken questions whether Kaneshige's resignation truly serves as the best response to the scandal.  

"More broadly, it is worth asking whether resignation is always the answer to a scandal," says Blecken. "There are times when accepting responsibility but working to redress the problem would be more honourable. If external factors are truly at play, redemption may not be out of the question. In this case though, short of gutting the entire company, rebuilding reputation is likely to be equally difficult with or without the founder." — Arun Sudhaman

20. Greenwashing airlines fall foul of advertising watchdogs 

Corporate communicators know better than most that the rise of ESG as a business imperative is proving to be a reputational minefield, in which companies are having to carefully tread the line of underlining their sustainability credentials while avoiding the very real risk that they will be accused of greenwashing.

Two airlines on opposite sides of the globe found this out to their cost in March last year, in separate cases where advertising watchdogs in the UK and Australia were called upon to flex their regulatory muscle against environmental claims by first German flagcarrier Lufthansa and then Etihad, one of the two big UAE carriers.

After pledging in 2021 that it would come down hard on environmental pronouncements, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned an ad campaign by Lufthansa, saying it was misleading consumers about the environmental impact of flying. The poster campaign featured a head-on shot of a plane with its undercarriage depicted as Earth, and the strapline “Connecting the world. Protecting its future”.

Lufthansa said the tag line was “open to interpretation” and consumers would not see it as an “absolute promise” relating to the environment or that its planes did not cause harm; rather, its claims were based on “aspirations” of becoming carbon neutral by 2050 and halving carbon emissions by 2030.

In its ruling, however, the ASA said consumers would view the ad as a claim that Lufthansa had already taken “significant mitigating steps” to ensure that the net environmental impact of its business was not harmful, despite there being no environmental initiatives or commercially viable technologies in the aviation industry which would substantiate the absolute green claim ‘protecting its future’, as we considered consumers would interpret it.

The ASA told Lufthansa to make clearer and better substantiated environmental claims in the future and to not give a misleading impression of the impact caused by flying with the airline. Lufthansa appeared to learn little from its tussle with the ASA, however, because just four months later, in July, it received a second rap on the knuckles from the watchdog, after a Google ad used the phrase “fly more sustainably”. The ASA considered that consumers would understand this to mean that Lufthansa offered a way to travel by air that had a lower environmental impact than alternative airlines, and told the airline not to use the phrase again.

Boldt partner Steve Earl says Lufthansa won’t be the last firm to fall foul of the UK’s advertising watchdog on environmental grounds: “You can sense what Lufthansa was trying to communicate, and why it was allowed to do so in other countries, but the decision highlighted why advertising in the UK about environmental factors now amounts to walking on eggshells. This time, the airline simply overstepped the mark.”

As the ASA made clear when the rulings were announced, ads cannot give a misleading impression about environmental credentials, and also cannot make claims unless they’re substantiated with robust evidence. “This puts brands in a tight spot,” says Earl. “While there has long been a need for substantiation, the need to couple that proof with a clear and unequivocal view of broadscale, positive environmental progress and still meet regulatory stipulations can be a recipe for very dull and factual advertising.”

Earl says the additional difficulty with such rulings is that there is now a real risk of legitimate attempts to bring the facts to life being decried as greenwashing, because so much can be open to interpretation: “Where companies have invested in long-term decarbonisation, are tracking genuine achievements and want to share that transparently through paid platforms, they are going to have to come up with new ways to make their point emotively. Just as we’re going to need new forms of language and new written techniques for reporting on sustainable change programmes, advertising is going to need to evolve similarly.”

On the other side of the world, the second airline greenwashing accusation was directed at Etihad by aviation emissions advocacy group Free Flight Australia, which complained to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) that two Etihad ads shown on digital banners during a football match between Melbourne City and Adelaide United were false or misleading. The ad copy on one ran “net zero emissions by 2050” next to Etihad’s logo, and another said “Flying shouldn’t cost the Earth.”

The pressure group said the airline had no credible path to net zero emissions by 2050 as it was not “technologically, practically, or economically feasible” to reach net zero through current industry reduction initiatives, and its claims not only lacked integrity (and overstated its own emissions progress) but also undermined trust in climate action.

The complaint came after the ACCC, like the ASA, had announced it would focus on environmental claims after it found that 57% of 247 brands surveyed had made misleading statements. The ACCC has not yet announced its ruling on the complaint.

In its statement in response to the complaint filing, Etihad said it runs “a comprehensive research, development, and innovation programme to address aviation decarbonisation, and is committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, in line with IATA’s declared industry-wide net zero ambition for 2050”.

“Our ambition is to reduce the impact of aviation on the environment, and we continue to explore and test all possible ways to decarbonise – from research into sustainable aviation fuels and contrail avoidance to offsets and reforestation." 

Craig Badings, partner and head of reputation at SenateSHJ in Sydney, says many companies are stepping into the ESG minefield “ill equipped or they are purposefully and, in some cases, cynically paying lip service to it. In Etihad’s greenwashing case before the Australian Competitor and Consumer Commission, it would appear to be the latter.

“Given government, regulator, supply chain and consumer focus on company’s ESG performance, companies cannot merely state what they intend doing about ESG targets, instead they must set and publish those targets, monitor them and provide robust, verifiable and updated reports on progress. Etihad failed on all these counts. Companies doing the same will also fall foul of the regulator as they are held to account by consumers, competitors, employees and activists alike.”

Badings adds that Etihad is just one of many cases which highlight that “reputation risk is not the sole domain of legal and compliance. Instead, it requires a coordinated lens across every facet of the business. The challenge for companies is how they align creative outputs and activations with their values.”

At Four Communications, which was Etihad’s PR agency in the UAE for several years, group MD Ray Eglington says “the easiest moles to whack are the ones that stick their heads out of the hole. I can’t help feeling that’s Etihad here.”

He says while most communications professionals would look at the net zero section on the Etihad website and feel there were some strong measures in place, and would be happy to be putting that story out there, it was also easy for detractors to “forget the new (lower-emissions) fleet; the partnerships with global innovators; the clear, published strategy to get to net zero; the reporting of results against that strategy. It’s easier (and gets more column inches) to assume it is all green-washing by an airline based in an oil-producing nation.”

Eglington concludes: “We absolutely should whack the moles that deserve it. Green-washing should be discouraged. But we should be careful not to dismiss real efforts too quickly. Without ambitious goals, we achieve nothing. And too much mole-whacking means none put their head up in future.” — Maja Pawinska Sims 

21. Boycott campaigns against Western fast-food brands

Barely three months old, the Israel-Hamas conflict has already reared its head in this year's Crisis Review. In this case, Western fast-food chains became the subject of boycott campaigns across Middle Eastern and North African countries, because of their perceived pro-Israeli stances, or (as for McDonald's) supplying meals to the Israel Defence Forces.

With protests in these countries tightly restricted, Reuters reports that boycotts like these are often viewed as one of the few ways for people to make their voices heard. 

McDonald's, which has admitted a "meaningful business impact" from the boycotts, has responded by blaming disinformation, and pledging millions of dollars in Gaza aid. Starbucks has also faced vandalism and boycotts across the Islamic world.

Babar Khan Javed, chief communications officer at MENA and Pakistan venture accelerator Z2C Limited, believes that claims of the boycott's success should be taken with a grain of salt — given McDonald's operating model of local franchisees.

Indeed, Khan Javed argues that those brands which stayed silent probably benefited the most. 

"The lesson that QSR brands need to learn from this is to stay silent while preparing their content and messaging as early as possible when needed," he explains. "No content creator in the GCC region or Pakistan was willing to push the factual counter-narrative regarding MNC QSRs being represented by local owner-operators who support their communities and employ thousands of their fellow citizens." 

That is just one of several lessons that Khan Javed thinks MNCs need to learn when it comes to operating in the broader MENA region, including a better understanding of each region's "cultural sensitivities, political dynamics, and media landscape."

"Responding directly to boycotts and online outrage can give them undue attention and legitimacy," says Khan Javed. "You can focus on communicating with your core audience and stakeholders, showing your values and positive contributions to the community."

"When facing criticism, consider amplifying the voices of local franchisees and employees who can effectively address community concerns and demonstrate the positive impact of the CPGs and QSRs on the local economy and workforce," he adds.

These steps, which include "prioritizing facts over hasty reactions", become even more important in an online environment that is dominated by misinformation. — Arun Sudhaman

]]>
 

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/davos-2024-four-key-takeaways-for-communicators https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/davos-2024-four-key-takeaways-for-communicators arun@provokemedia.com Premium ContentWorld Economic ForumWeber ShandwickRuder FinnNewsLongreadsH/AdvisorsFTI ConsultingEdelmanDavosAPACDAnalysis Davos 2024: Four Key Takeaways For Communicators A volatile political environment points to several significant issues for the public relations world during the year ahead. Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:13:00 Z 2024-01-24T13:17:55Z Rhetoric is rarely in short supply in Davos. The World Economic Forum sometimes appears to subsist solely on a diet of soundbites, but translating these well-intentioned conversations into real world realities often appears like a more elusive goal.

That equation is further complicated by the various bubbles that persist during a weeklong event at which younger voices and the Global South, in general, are conspicuously absent. Politicians engage in earnest discussions about trade patterns inside the Congress centre, while corporate chiefs spend much of their time striking deals — emerging intermittently to proclaim the virtues of purpose while rubbing shoulders with a mystifying array of celebrities. 

None of which seems particularly helpful when it comes to the World Economic Forum's own reputation, during a populist era when its relevance — and ability to solve the world's most pressing problems — comes under increasing scrutiny.

The sheer concentration of political, business and civil society leaders certainly makes for plenty of noise, or 'thought leadership', to use more popular Davos terminology. While that can be an exhilarating experience for participants, it can also contribute to a sense of detachment from the urgent problems that are facing the planet in 2024. 

The truth, as ever, probably lies somewhere in between. Davos is neither a panacea for the world's ills nor the source of all its troubles. For the public relations world, with one foot on Main Street and one in the C-suite, it continues to shine a remarkably useful spotlight on the issues that matter to the business world — helping to frame corporate concerns amid cautious economic optimism and heightened political uncertainty.

As usual, we have sounded out various industry figures to come up with four themes that resonated most among the many communications and marketing leaders that made this year’s pilgrimage.

1. AI's probability of doom

There was no mistaking the most popular topic on the Davos agenda this year, with AI serving as the subject of far too many sessions. Most of these focused on the technology's utility and impact, without necessarily taking into account the rising distrust of innovation revealed by Edelman's Trust Barometer.

"Two-thirds told us the system is biased to the wealthy," said Edelman CEO Richard Edelman. "It should all be a big warning sign — you're going too fast, I don't feel heard. We're charging ahead as if it's all assumed to be good, and it's not by a lot of people. They are scared for their jobs."

Very little discussion, furthermore, considered AI's potential as a source of a reputation risk, which is likely to become increasingly pronounced as corporates find themselves deploying the technologies across all aspects of their services. 

"Davos 2024 was obsessed with AI in a way I have not seen before, which is a problem," says FTI Consulting global head of TMT Charles Palmer, who notes that the climate crisis was afforded far less attention compared to previous years. "Greater balance is needed and AI is, after all, just a powerful enabler of digital transformation which we have talked about for years."

Much of the discussion, according to Ruder Finn CEO Kathy Bloomgarden, revolved instead around tech doomerism — or the p(doom) score as it referred to. "The prevailing opinion is optimistic that AI will unlock productivity and prosperity," says Bloomgarden. "But good AI needs a sound data infrastructure, labor force flexibility and training, sustained innovation and strong ethics and governance. We need to be intentional about these four factors. Today we are not prepared, but we can get there."

For communicators, says Bloomgarden, the accelerated pace of change means they cannot avoid a period of intense disruption — either for themselves, or for their companies and colleagues. "To stay ahead of the curve, it’s important to remain open to learning and transforming how we work with AI – from developing AI and digital literacy skills, to using creativity to our advantage, to ensuring we have an ethical mindset for using these tools," she explains.

"We need to form partnerships that benefit all and show that they create enterprise value.  At the center of this, communicators and business leaders must focus on an inspiring vision of the future and an optimistic belief in what is possible."

2. Disinformation and division

Taking top spot in WEF's annual risk report, the perils of fake news — amplified by social media and AI — continue to vex minds, especially in a year when 2bn people are set to vote. Washington Post CEO William Lewis described the threat as "very significant", while Meta oversight board member Helle Thorning-Schmidt admitted that social media giants must do more to tackle mis and disinformation on private messaging platforms like WhatsApp.

Meanwhile, an MIT professor offered personalised deepfakes to anyone willing to be filmed for a 15-second video — highlighting the ease with which digital lies can be developed and amplified. 

While improved media and civic literacy would undoubtedly help, that seems like a distant dream in many countries. Many at Davos would probably prefer that any regulation remains a similarly elusive goal — so it is hard to see how disinformation, whether state-sponsored or not, can be effectively tackled in today's online media environment.

While all of the major players, such as Google and OpenAI, reiterated their commitment to stopping political misuse of their tools, YouTube CEO Neal Mohan conceded that, in the hands of bad actors, generative AI can be easily used to produce deepfakes. Mohan added that YouTube would be "bold and responsible" in terms of policing AI-generated content. 

Whether deepfakes are banned or not, websites hosting AI-created fake news have increased by more than 1,000% since May, increasing from 49 sites to more than 600, according to NewsGuard, an organization that tracks misinformation. Needless to say, whatever works in the political environment will be employed in the corporate realm.

That so many people are willing to believe and share this content also reflects the more fundamental disconnect that is as relevant for the business world as it is for the state of global democracy. 

"We mustn't forget that to a certain extent, this is about equity," explains Thorning-Schmidt. "It's also about everyone having a fair chance to participate in society — education, jobs, having a fair chance of keeping themselves informed. If you don't have a stake in this, why would you vote?"

3. Culture wars make for cautious corporates

One of the dominant themes of Davos in recent years is the rising tide of populism and political polarization around the world, and the extent to which it troubles corporate leaders. 

A year ago, pretty much every major corporation in America considered these two issues to be important, not because CEOs are “woke” (a nonsense idea, unless you have never met a CEO), but because running a company that behaves responsibly and treats all customers and employees with respect is simply sound business. And to be fair, both DEI and sustainability were on the agenda at Davos this year.

The backlash against ESG and DEI has escalated over the past couple of years: first there was the attack on corporate free speech launched by the governor of Florida after Disney opposed attacks on the LGBTQ community; then there were the violent protests that followed efforts by Anheuser-Busch’s Bud Light brand to include all Americans in its marketing campaign; and the threat of physical violence against employees of Starbucks and Twitter and others that supported Pride month.

It’s not surprising that CEOs are reluctant to face the kind of social media outrage and threats of physical violence that are triggered these days by efforts to do the right thing, to say nothing of the intense tribalism spurred by the Israel-Gaza conflict. 

That goes for their communications heads too. At two roundtables last week — PRovoke Media's own event with Weber Shandwick and the S30 gathering at Goals House — I heard from communications and sustainability leaders who are increasingly dialling down their ESG rhetoric as 'green-hushing' takes hold. 

"A lot of companies are pulling back because ESG is seen as a dirty word," said the marketing head at one of the world's biggest consumer companies, on condition of anonymity. "Business leaders are backing away from the language of inclusion," said Vista Equity CEO Robert Smith at a separate Fast Company/Verizon event. 

Many might applaud the end of unfettered brand activism as a necessary correction to rampant virtue signalling. But it also hard to avoid the conclusion that companies are simply less willing to accommodate the discomfort associated with efforts to tackle societal issues. Framing these initiatives in terms of economic growth and empowerment may help. 

4. Geopolitics looms large 

You could be forgiven for assuming that the world is completely at peace, given the paucity of official WEF sessions devoted to the various geopolitical conflicts and tensions around the world. But these topics were impossible to avoid across the Davos fringe, reflecting rising anxiety despite an improving economic picture compared to 12 months ago.

"What's not going the right way is all this uncertainty with geopolitics," said Bloomberg TV anchor Francine Lacqua, speaking to Mubadala CCO Brian Lott at a Page reception. "The world is shifting, and geopolitics is probably a symptom of that."

Indeed, a new survey of comms leaders by Page identified geopolitics as the primary risk to business for the year ahead, closely followed by concerns about polarization. Among the surveyed CCOs, a notable 45% highlighted international conflicts and elections as the paramount critical risk demanding businesses’ attention in 2024. 

Amid wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and a potentially destabilising year of elections, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen described an era of “conflict and confrontation, of fragmentation and fear”. Those attitudes also underpin increasing geoeconomic fragmentation, as countries prioritise national security and resilience over economic efficiency.

While these trends will make the business environment more challenging for multinational corporations and agencies alike, they also have a significant real-world impact on public affairs and communications decisions. Companies are increasingly required to strengthen their government relations and public policy efforts, while walking a tightrope between stakeholder concerns that can vary wildly according to geographic provenance.

All of which, of course, does not necessarily spell bad news for public affairs and communications specialists that are being called on to provide counsel, even if the problems under consideration become ever more complex. But it does sound a cautionary note for the various challenges of our time — including climate change, disinformation, AI and security — that do require meaningful collaboration. 

Additional reporting by Paul Holmes and Zhao Lu. 

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/crisis-review-the-top-21-crises-of-2023-(part-2-of-3) https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/crisis-review-the-top-21-crises-of-2023-(part-2-of-3) news@provokemedia.com APACDNewsLongreadsCrisis ReviewCrisisAnalysis2023 Review Crisis Review: The Top 21 Crises Of 2023 (Part 2 Of 3) Our annual Crisis Review continues with Target, Johnny & Associates, the CBI, Adani Group, Zara, the BBC and Coutts. Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:47:10 Z 2024-01-23T07:55:01Z Crisis Review: Read Part One

8. Target caves to anti-Pride forces

Target had long enjoyed a good relationship with the LGBTQ community, which unfortunately went to pot last spring, when the chain caved to a small but virulent (and potentially violent) cadre of homophobes who wanted its Pride Month merch off the floor. 

The whole thing started in May, when Target stores started receiving threats from ultra-conversative anti-LGBTQ groups who launched an aggressive campaign to have the retailer — the sixth largest in the country — remove its Pride-themed wares, including “tuck-friendly” bathing suits the rabblerousers falsely claimed were being sold to children. The collection also included the array of stuff (hoodies and T-shirts, as well as children’s books about transgender issues) that, after more than a decade of annual sales, has, for the most part, become pretty mainstream.

But while competitors, including Walmart, stuck by their Pride Month promotions, Target yielded to some of its angry customers’ demands, saying that the “volatile circumstances” warranted doing so to ensure its employee’s safety and well-being. In some communities, Pride displays were moved from the fronts to the backs of stores; The  chain also removed items “at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior.”

LGBTQ advocates, however, didn’t buy Target’s defense of its actions, which executives continued to stand by months after the fact (never mind that the right-wing backlash was a contributor to a Q2 sales slump). The rift between Target and LGBTQ consumers — who increasingly have the spending and political sway retailers want — grew wider.

“Quite simply, Target gave into terrorism,” said Bospar principal Curtis Sparrer. “Some coward threatened the safety of Target employees if Target maintained their Pride display and instead of standing their ground, they caved.”

RenewPR president Ben Finzel, who is a founding partner of The Change Agencies network, agrees.

“The Target Pride merchandise debacle was a brand failure that didn’t need to happen,” Finzel said, noting that Target had a long track record of being consistently LGBTQ-inclusive until 2023. “It was a challenging situation with a simple solution: stand up for your values, especially in times of struggle. By deciding to back down from long-standing support for LGBTQ people, they made everyone mad. Their actions weren’t enough for the vocal minority of people who claimed they were being offensive, and they were too much for pretty much everyone else. It’s a classic example of trying to please everyone and disappointing everyone instead.”

LaTricia Woods, founder and CEO of Mahogany Xan Communications, called Target’s decision to remove Pride items under the “guise” of employee safety disheartening.

“Additional security measures could’ve been employed to send a clear message that violence and violent behavior towards staff would not be tolerated in its stores. By giving in to the mob mentality, I believe Target may have impacted its employees' well-being in a different and much deeper way. The company showed that it is not willing to stand up and protect the rights of its employees, and when push comes to shove, it will instead empower the bullies by caving to their demands and their vitriol,” Woods said. “The problem with that kind of allyship is that it is a fair-weather type of allyship… one that touts how supportive they can be to a marginalized community when times are good, but the real test of the power of an ally comes during times that are difficult.”

With Pride 2024 just a few months away, Target has some serious soul searching to do when it comes to charting the course of its relationship with LGBTQ consumers and where it goes from here. “All eyes will be on Target for 2024 Pride, but it won’t be an enviable position. The retailer will have to thread an unforgiving needle, in an effort to make both critics on the left and right happy,” Sparrer said.

Whatever Target’s next moves are, however, the store has its work cut out if the goal is truly restoring its once-fruitful relationship with LGBTQ shoppers — and that includes more than rolling out the Pride merch once a year.

Said Finzel, “This isn’t about checking a box or waving a Pride flag only in June, it’s about taking what you do and why you believe it and bringing it back to your brand and why all that makes sense. Consumers understand that and appreciate it and it’s why they like brands such as Target. Target needs to understand that when you forget that and react badly to a threat, you lose. It’s about doing what you said you would do, even, or especially, when it’s difficult. To quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, ‘The time is always right to do what is right.’” — Diana Marszalek

9. The secret scandal of J-pop

Johnny & Associates is not just Japan’s pre-eminent talent agency but something akin to a force of nature in the country’s enormous entertainment industry. So, when close to 500 people claimed to have suffered sexual abuse at the company over a period of decades, it plunged Johnny into a crisis from which it has yet to fully recover.

The allegations center around founder Johnny Kitagawa, who founded the firm in 1962, commanding a near-monopoly on male talent until his death in 2019. Rumours of Kitagawa abusing boys first surfaced in the 1960s, but were largely unreported until the BBC released a documentary in March of last year.

Soon after, singer Kauan Okamoto came forward with fresh abuse claims, triggering a wave of further allegations from former stars. Johnny responded by appointing a committee, which concluded that Kitagawa had abused hundreds of boys, and that the agency had covered up the issue. Many corporates have cut ties with the firm, while Kitagawa’s niece and president was forced to quit. 

The company compounded its woes by opting for the usual crisis PR playbook in Japan. “There is a prevailing sense in corporate Japan that when a scandal hits, tearful contrition, deep bows at a press conference and possibly a resignation or two will make everything right again,” says Hoffman Agency content editor David Blecken. “Clearly, stock apologies were never going to be enough to wish away years of abuse and cover-ups, and to onlookers it seemed the sorrow was due to having been exposed, not introspection and recognition of having been party to deep injustice.”

Indeed, says Blecken, acknowledgment came much too slowly at a company that found itself unable to continue hiding and covering up its past misdeeds. “The foot-dragging was made worse by an ambiguous response from the new president, who said he could not remember whether or not he had participated in harassment.”

Johnny’s eventual restructure and rebranding, designed to draw a line under the scandal, was similarly “tone-deaf” says Blecken. 

“First, the company was defiant, insisting it would not change its name and continue business as usual,” explains Blecken. “Eventually giving into pressure, it decided to split into two entities, one dedicated to providing compensation to victims and one that would operate as a new talent agency. Bizarrely, it settled on the name Smile-Up for the former, which many took as an insult. It is hard to imagine more poorly construed branding.”

The crisis also highlights significant shortcomings in both the Japanese media and its wider culture of corporate governance. “Many outside Japan found it strange that it took a foreign media organisation to bring the scandal to light,” points out Blecken. “But this is in keeping with the reticence of the local press when it comes to investigating domestic institutions. Despite years of rumours, neither the media nor corporate clients made any serious inquiry nor voiced concerns. 

“One hopes the gravity of this episode will result in greater vigilance, accountability and rigour from the entertainment industry, advertisers and the media, but then again, traditions do not change easily.” — Arun Sudhaman 

10. The voice of UK business stutters in addressing sexual misconduct

Bad boardroom behaviour is often a theme in crisis case studies, but it struck a particularly galling note at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) last spring, after it became clear that the organisation – which lobbies the government on behalf of the UK businesses who make up its membership – had failed to keep its own house in order while positioning itself as a positive driver of change.

The unravelling started in March, when the Guardian newspaper dropped the bombshell that it had approached the CBI to ask about a formal complaint made by a female employee in January about “unwanted verbal contact” from director general Tony Danker that she defined as sexual harassment, as well as other informal allegations about his behaviour. These included concerns that he had viewed employees’ personal Instagram profiles.

The CBI confirmed it had not considered that the complaint merited a disciplinary process, but as soon as it was contacted by the Guardian, it mounted an independent investigation and Danker stepped aside pending the result.

Within weeks, the heat on the CBI stepped up significantly when more than a dozen other women came forward citing various forms of sexual misconduct by other senior figures at the 300-strong organisation, including one who alleged she was raped at a staff party, and a “toxic culture”. These claims were unconnected to Danker and the original allegation, but the damage was done: on 11 April the director general was dismissed with immediate effect.

Danker got on the front foot with his response and a qualified apology, saying in a statement on Twitter: “I recognise the intense publicity the CBI has suffered following the revelations of awful events that occurred before my time in office. I was appalled to learn about them for the first time last week… I was nevertheless shocked to learn this morning that I had been dismissed from the CBI, instead of being invited to put my position forward as was originally confirmed.

“Many of the allegations against me have been distorted, but … I recognise that I unintentionally made a number of colleagues feel uncomfortable and I am truly sorry about that.”

He then took the risk of an interview with the BBC after his dismissal, saying he had been made “the fall guy” for the wider crisis and denied using sexual language or having physical contact with employees.

In the meantime, the government and the opposition Labour Party suspended engagement with the lobbying group, the allegations triggered an exodus of members including Meta, John Lewis, Aviva, AstraZeneca, PwC, Virgin Media, National Grid, NatWest, BT, BMW, ITV and Unilever, and the CBI halted all policy and membership activity. There were mutterings about the CBI having to change its name; since that hasn’t yet happened, there’s no telling whether that would be enough to distance a “refreshed” organisation from the unsavoury legacy of recent times.

The fallout continued: in September the CBI’s annual general meeting was cancelled as a £3m cashflow shortfall prevented the body from presenting its financial statements to its remaining members. The rearranged AGM, in December, was deeply uncomfortable, with concerns raised about the CBI’s governance and a lack of transparency, despite president Brian McBride saying new HR policies and procedures had been introduced and the CBI had taken “decisive action to strengthen our culture, recommitting to our mission to ensure sustainable growth for the benefit of society.”

Simon Neville, head of media strategy at SEC Newgate UK, says the difference between McBride’s and Danker’s approaches was notable: “From a comms perspective, Danker was quick to speak out and gained some sympathy as a “fall guy” for the far more serious allegations that he was not linked to. However, chairman McBride faced greater criticism over his failure to speak publicly once the allegations were public.

“He eventually granted an interview to the FT – a newspaper likely to be read by CBI members but not the broader public – making it clear he wanted his message to be seen by those businesses that had quit, rather than the wider public and staff who felt workplaces must improve.”

The CBI scandal is far from over. As well as the as-yet unresolved sexual misconduct allegations, this case goes beyond cultural, leadership and financial issues at a previously-deeply respected organisation that was established by Royal Charter in 1965 and has always had close links with the government and the opposition, not to mention a membership that included almost every major business in the UK. For the CBI, this is a true existential crisis. — Maja Pawinska Sims

11. Adani’s Hindenberg moment

One of India’s biggest companies, apples-to-airports conglomerate Adani, found itself facing an immense crisis when US investment firm Hindenburg Research published a forensic report alleging fraud and malpractice at the company, which boasts close political ties to the Indian central government.

Adani’s firms lost $110 billion in value in a matter of days, with the eponymous founder’s own wealth halved to little more than $61 billion. 

Adani denied all the allegations, publishing a 400-page rebuttal that described it as a “calculated attack” on India. But he also calmed jittery investors by diluting the family’s shareholding, consolidating operations and paying off loans backed by stock. 

"The Adani Group publicly did two things," says Promise Foundation founder Amith Prabhu. "They responded to the report with a 413-page response in which Adani Group said the report was driven by 'an ulterior motive' to 'create a false market' to allow the US firm to make financial gains. They also released a 90-second video of the Adani Group CFO Jugeshinder Singh refuting the details in the report."

The comeback strategy appears to have worked. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court dismissed a demand for a special investigation into the alleged wrongdoings. Adani stocks have rallied, while a $5 billion share raise is enabling further investment and growth.

"Time will tell how things shape up but for now things are better than they were last January," says Prabhu. "The three lessons for PR professionals from this crisis are:
1. You never know where a crisis can come from. Always be prepared
2. Using emotional symbols like the national flag as the backdrop in the CFO video are smart methods to evoke general support and also deflect
3. A general rule of crisis communication is to accept or deny. In this case the choice was made to Deny, Deflect, Defy and Deviate, which worked for it." — Arun Sudhaman

12. Zara’s Gaza-themed display

At a time of war, amid an unfolding humanitarian crisis in Gaza, fashion major Zara decided it would be a good idea to launch an advertising campaign that appeared to draw heavily on the Middle East conflict.

Once the outrage began, it seemed relatively clear that Zara was unprepared for the backlash, despite operating in a highly-politicised environment in which current events are increasingly divisive. “Companies need to prioritise preparation to protect perception,” says Tamara Littleton, CEO at The Social Element. “More than anything, this means having diverse points of view in advertising and marketing production and in the review process. I appreciate that campaigns are developed months in advance, but having a diverse team who are empowered to challenge the direction leads to people asking the question ‘is this still ok?’”

“Of course, Zara didn’t intend to cause offence with its recent campaign, but with tens of thousands of comments and many official complaints later, it has,” points out Littleton. “What the business does after that becomes critical. If people perceive offensive content within a campaign, the brand must live with that, accept it, remove the offending image, and apologise.”

Instead, Zara probably made things worse by claiming the image did not depict war, and implicitly blaming those who were offended. The company’s statement — “we reaffirm our deep respect for everyone” — did not exactly mollify matters, described by Littleton as a “very woolly line that means nothing.”

The lessons, accordingly, are clear. When things do go wrong, brands take further risks by prevaricating rather than expressing genuine contrition and taking matters seriously

“Critically, backlash needs to be built into any communications plan,” says Littleton. “This means incorporating crisis and scenario planning, monitoring tools and even simulations into your strategy. Sometimes it’s also a case of prioritising long-term brand building by taking a short-term hit. Losing money on a campaign that’s going to cause offence is a better outcome than losing your reputation. And if it does go wrong, be empathetic, be human and be quick. Own up to your mistakes and be serious and genuine in how you can do better.” — Arun Sudhaman

13. The BBC’s two-footed tackle of top talent

The 101-year-old BBC is the oldest, biggest and still one of the most respected broadcasting institutions in the world. Last year, however, its credibility was repeatedly called into question, not just because of perennial accusations of political bias (in both directions) or the annual debate of whether it is worth the licence fee paid by viewers, but because it spectacularly failed in its handling of two separate incidents concerning its top-tier talent.

The first, in March, involved its highest-paid presenter, Gary Lineker: former England football player and long-time host of the ‘Match of the Day’ Premier League highlights show on Saturdays, which routinely attracts 4m viewers. Lineker – a prolific and often outspoken user of Twitter (now X) on themes beyond sports commentary – had criticised the Conservative government’s controversial asylum policies in a tweet to nearly 9m followers, likening the language used by ministers about asylum seekers to “that used by Germany in the 30s”. In turn, he was attacked by MPs, including home secretary Suella Braverman, and the right-wing media.

The situation quickly escalated: after initially saying it would have a “frank conversation” about its star’s use of social media, two days later the BBC very publicly suspended Lineker on the grounds that he had broken its impartiality guidelines. In solidarity with Lineker, his co-hosts Ian Wright and Alan Shearer announced they would not show up to present Match of the Day either, leaving the BBC in the embarrassing position of having no hosts for its flagship sports show. Faced with an effective strike and with no-one else willing to step in, the organisation then said the show would go ahead that weekend with no presenters or commentary. By Monday, it had U-turned and reinstated Lineker without requiring him to make any concessions in his use of social media, which enraged the haters even more.

The second incident came in July, when The Sun tabloid newspaper alleged that an unnamed “senior BBC news presenter” had paid a young person for sexually-explicit photos, instigating a social media rumour frenzy about the identity of the mystery broadcaster. Days later, the wife of Huw Edwards – the lead BBC news anchor and its best-paid journalist, a man who was so much of a national treasure that he had been selected to announce the death of the Queen to the world just months earlier – had confirmed he was the man concerned and said he was having hospital treatment for mental illness.

Edwards had quietly disappeared from the airwaves the previous week, when he was due to host a BBC Proms programme, and has not returned. Lawyers on behalf of the young person concerned rubbished The Sun’s explosive story, saying there was no illegal behaviour involved. The BBC itself covered the story in minimal fashion, and has been quiet since, pending the results of an internal inquiry which has only highlighted questions about its own governance and whether a blind eye was turned to other behaviour by Edwards. To date, there has been no announcement about Edwards’ status at the corporation.

Andy Barr, founder and CEO of digital and crisis specialist agency 10Yetis, says both scandals showed how “achingly slow” the BBC is to react to stories that involve itself. “Not only were we faced with baffling television pictures of BBC journalists stood outside the – checks notes – BBC HQ saying that no comment was being made by the people inside, but we also saw just how much the BBC bosses don’t learn from the media training that their own journalists often tout as freelance gigs.”

Indeed, Craig Oliver, the former BBC news executive and former prime minister David Cameron’s communications chief, described the reinstatement of Lineker at the time as a “capitulation” by the corporation: “I think what’s happened here is Gary Lineker 1; BBC credibility 0,” he said. “The reality is the BBC today has announced it will have a review of its social media guidelines. In fact, it needs a review of how it handles crises like these.” And writing about the Edwards incident, former head of BBC news Roger Mosey said the coverage of scandals involving its own celebrities was “the BBC’s editorial blindspot”.

Barr says: “In crisis communications terms, when working with global brands of this size and stature, we always talk about the importance of creating ‘wiggle room’ and the value of not backing yourself into a corner. With both of these stories, the BBC failed to do this. I think all of us in the industry were really taken aback by just how on the back foot the BBC was.”

One defensive tangent that Barr was surprised did not emerge from the BBC during these moments was highlighting how some of its biggest detractors had a vested interest in criticising it. “People like Alistair Campbell set the benchmark many moons ago about the importance of a rebuttal team to set the record straight on fake news and the BBC seemed to drop the ball on this part too,” he says.

In conclusion, Barr says: “I think, most importantly, the BBC may have lost sight of the fact that real people, with real feelings and real issues, were involved in these stories and when this gets lost in the narrative, it is always hard to recover, no matter which crisis comms expert you have in your corner.” — Maja Pawinska Sims

14. A private bank and a very public individual

Coutts, the UK-based private bank for the very wealthy, probably has serious regrets about picking a battle with Nigel Farage, the vocal, publicity-loving former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and cheerleader-in-chief for Brexit. When Farage publicly called the bank out last July for closing his accounts with no explanation, the action – and a clear clash of values and communication styles – resulted in immense reputational, leadership and fiscal damage for the 325-year-old bank.

Initially, Coutts said Farage had been ‘debanked’ because he had fallen below the financial threshold required by Coutts to hold an account: £1 million in borrowing or investment, or £3 million in savings. However, an information request by Farage uncovered internal documents calling Farage racist and xenophobic, implying the accounts were closed for political reasons.

The unfolding situation is described as “one of the most divisive brand crises of the year” by Kate Hartley, the co-founder of crisis simulation company Polpeo. “Farage’s views were at odds with Coutts’ position as ‘an inclusive organisation’ (inclusive, presumably, as long as you have a few million quid in the bank). Cue endless media articles debating whether banks can close accounts for no reason, and mostly missing two critical points: it’s a private bank for wealthy individuals and can do more or less what it wants; and Farage was offered an alternative bank account with NatWest, Coutts’ parent company,” she says.

Hartley says that while Farage was “hardly thrown to the dogs”, he used the situation fully to his own advantage. It wasn’t helped that Coutts’ crisis machine was practically non-existent: “It did a terrible job of telling anyone what was happening. Dame Alison Rose, who was then the head of NatWest, told a BBC journalist his bank account was closed for ‘commercial reasons’, implying he didn’t have enough money to be a Coutts customer, which is clearly a breach of privacy.”

The debacle cost Rose her job and NatWest around £1 billion in market value. Coutts then did a complete U-turn and offered Farage his accounts back, which rather undermined its argument for debanking him in the first place. Peter Flavel, head of Coutts, resigned 48 hours later, while Farage – always up for more drama – called for the resignation of the entire board, and then threatened to sue.

A review by Coutts, conducted by Travers Smith and with findings published in two phases in October and December, prolonged the mess even longer and gave Farage even more air time, as he proclaimed the report was “mealy-mouthed”. The report found that Farage had been treated unfairly – leading to a sort-of apology from Natwest Group chair Sir Howard Davies – although it concluded that the closing of his account was lawful and predominantly commercial.

“So was this a scandal about values and discrimination, as Rishi Sunak said it was? I think the real question is why do we care?” says Hartley. “Coutts’ whole set up is about discrimination – it’s a private bank for the very rich. This was a publicity machine for Farage ahead of his appearance on ‘I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here’ that took out the head of two banks, damaged NatWest’s share price and has kept Farage on the front pages every time there’s a banking story. The only winner here is Farage.” – Maja Pawinska Sims

]]>
 

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/crisis-review-the-top-21-crises-of-2023-(part-1-of-3) https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/crisis-review-the-top-21-crises-of-2023-(part-1-of-3) news@provokemedia.com APACDNewsLongreadsCrisis ReviewCrisisAnalysis2023 Review Crisis Review: The Top 21 Crises Of 2023 (Part 1 Of 3) This year's Crisis Review weighs in at 21 cases. PRovoke Media editors kick things off with Open AI, Silicon Valley Bank, Bud Light, the Spanish FA, X, Country Garden/Evergande, and Ivy League universities. Mon, 15 Jan 2024 10:01:40 Z 2024-01-23T07:55:25Z 1. OpenAI axes its CEO...for less than a week

Talk about a debacle. On Nov. 17, OpenAI’s board made the bewildering move of firing founder and CEO Sam Altman, a beloved Silicon Valley luminary often compared to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

Acting a year after the launch of ChatGPT, which has 100 million weekly users, the board offered veiled reasoning for Altman’s ouster. A review by the board concluded that Altman “was not consistently candid in his communications with the board, hindering its ability to exercise its responsibilities.” The board no longer had confidence in Altman’s ability to lead the company, it said.

A blindsided tech industry, from OpenAI employees to Silicon Valley superstars, rushed to Altman’s defense.

OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman resigned in protest of Altman being axed. Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt called Altman a “hero.”  

Microsoft, OpenAI’s largest investor, offered Altman a job and to match pay of any OpenAI staffer who’d come with him. Most of OpenAI’s roughly 770 employees signed a letter saying they’d take Microsoft up on the offer if board members didn’t resign. 

Less than a week later, Altman had his job back.

Which begs the question: How did OpenAI’s board get it all so utterly wrong?

“Now that we’ve had a couple of months to process the upheaval at OpenAI in mid-November, you can see there were several reasons Sam Altman’s ouster backfired so spectacularly for OpenAI’s board. But maybe the most significant among them was how poorly the plan was conceived and then justified to the public,” said Jordan Rittenberry, Weber Shandwick West president and North America tech lead.

The board’s unraveling started with one of its first moves, issuing the vaguely worded statement attacking Altman’s integrity without backing it up, starting a process that could have tarnished the company’s reputation, Rittenberry said.

“It was a very serious accusation that they never really substantiated. As a result, the board quickly lost control of their narrative, as Microsoft swooped in and hired Altman, OpenAI employees threatened to leave the organization, and some board members even expressed remorse for pushing Altman out. In essence, the board went nuclear, then went dark while people rushed to Altman’s defense,” Rittenberry said.  

The board buried itself further in its handling of the communications around Altman’s firing, said The Hoffman Agency president and CEO Lou Hoffman.

“Even if the OpenAI Board believed that Altman would go quietly into the night, their first mistake was not bringing PR to the table for counsel. How else do you explain the absence of scenario planning?” Hoffman said.

“No one on the board thought to ask the question, ‘What if Altman changes his mind and makes a play to remain as CEO? And if such a scenario does occur, what will this likely look like?’ These are the questions that PR would have asked and guided the board to potential responses,” Hoffman said. “This way, they have a plan locked and loaded and ready to respond depending on Altman’s actions. Instead, Altman’s decision to fight to remain as CEO completely blindsides the board which triggers panic, never a helpful quality when addressing a crisis.”

The board’s decision to issue its announcement in a Friday news dump also showed how “clueless” the board was when it came to communications, he said. “The board essentially telegraphed to journalists that they were trying to hide this news which only amplified the media’s determination to deep dive into the story.”

OpenAI also had vulnerabilities apart from the board’s actions.

“You’ve got the overarching structure of OpenAI as a non-profit with a board governed by the altruistic objective to benefit humanity and this same board overseeing the for-profit entity. And, oh by the way, OpenAI competes in an area that is literally reshaping society right before our eyes. What could possibly go wrong?” Hoffman said. “The real shocker is the OpenAI-fires-Sam-Altman debacle explosion didn’t happen sooner.” — Diana Marszalek

2. The Silicon Valley Bank run

In December 2022, Silicon Valley Bank was flush with assets of $209 billion, making it the 16th largest bank in the US. Some three months later, over the course of a mere two days, the bank collapsed — the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis, and the second largest in US history after Washington Mutual's closure roughly 15 years before.

Pundits have cited a number of reasons for SVB’s failure including the value of its investments tanking and a surge in tech startups (among SVB’s primary customers) withdrawing their deposits amid larger financial concerns, resulting in a bank run that put customer faith in regional banking systems, and therefore their future, at risk.

In a report, the Federal Reserve said fault also rests heavily with SVB management, who failed to manage the bank’s risks and, according to comms leaders, didn’t play by the rules when it came to abiding by their own principles.

“Beyond financial missteps, SVB likely did not stick to its own company values,” said Ethan McCarty, CEO of comms and employee experience consultancy Integral. “SVB proudly states that their values, including taking responsibility, guide their actions. However, it seems that SVB’s leaders did not do so.

“SVB also declared that empowering others is one of their core imperatives. The Federal Reserve ultimately attributed blame for the bank’s failure to SVB’s senior management team for mismanaging risk and its board of directors for not performing its duty as a check on senior leaders,” he said. “The tsunami of finger-pointing in the midst of the collapse was telling. True accountability and empowerment would have not only helped the dust to settle faster on the reputational aspect but might have led to better oversight that would have mitigated or avoided the disaster altogether. If SVB truly empowered others, it would have had more people using better controls to fend off declining market conditions and valuations of its investments.”

The Fed also cited social media’s role in fueling the financial panic, which included SVB depositors urging others to get their money out before the bank went belly up.

“SVB is such a fascinating case study, since it underscores both the centrality and limitations of communications,” said Dan Simon, chairman of financial comms firm Vested. “Limitations because the bank’s problem was fundamentally a financial one, not one of messaging: concentrated overexposure to government bonds against an unexpected and sharply rising interest rate environment. As the credit markets tightened, this set SVB on an unavoidable path of bad news announcements. It’s hard to convince people the ship you’re captaining is seaworthy if everyone can see it sinking beneath you.

“Centrality because so much of what drove the run on SVB was in the realm of ‘communications’: negative word of mouth, social media, even the mobile apps to enable seamless transfer of customers’ deposits — all represented communications challenges for SVB,” he said.

Ultimately, it wasn’t SVB that mopped up its mess but rather the federal government which stepped in to control literal and figurative damage. The government took the dramatic step of making sure that all depositors in SVB (as well as Signature Bank, another failed institution) got their money back in full; In addition to thwarting huge financial ramifications of the bank’s collapse was also a lesson in crisis communications.

“The actions were meant to send a message to America: There is no reason to pull your money out of the banking system, because your deposits are safe and funding is plentiful,” the New York Times wrote. “The point was to avert a bank run that could tank the financial system and broader economy.” — Diana Marszalek 

3. Bud Light and a nation drunk on culture wars

It hardly seemed like an especially controversial move for Bud Light to send a personalized beer can to trans social media star Dylan Mulvaney. The brand has been in a multi-year decline, particularly in terms of its appeal to younger consumers. The short giveaway, devised by two Bud Light VPs and influencer marketing firm Captiv8, aimed to demonstrate why Bud Light is for everyone, including the TikTok generation.

And yet, the move backfired so spectacularly that it stands as the perfect emblem of America’s culture wars. Sales plunged by 28% and Anheuser-Busch’s stock price dropped significantly after the marketing ploy attracted the ire of “anti-woke” Americans including, memorably, the likes of Kid Rock firing his gun at Bud Light cans. According to figures from SenateSHJ’s Crisis Value Erosion Index, Bud Light’s share price dropped 16.3%, and took 245 days to recover.

“For marketers tasked with building new audiences while keeping old ones and balancing product promotion with ESG, Bud Light’s crisis hasn’t just been a PR worst nightmare,” say Bospar CEO Curtis Sparrer and senior content director Racquel Yerbury. “The magnitude of crisis and its stubborn refusal to fade away mirror America’s extreme polarization.”

“Bud Light was dragged into the morass of oppositional politics and culture, and that’s nearly impossible to navigate unscathed, especially at this precarious time when the next election cycle looms large,” add Sparrer and Yerbury. “What do you do when a massive part of your audience is so critical of a transgender life that they rant, shoot and boycott? When their objection is rooted in unmalleable ideology and carries religious fervor? What do you do when that audience is crucial for the company’s revenue, jobs and even its existence?”

In Bud Light’s case, it took 11 days for Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth to release a statement. Not only did that provide plenty of time for others to shape the narrative, but Whitworth’s letter appeared to further annoy all sides in this battle. By June, Whitworth was making the case for the company’s employees that were being hurt by the conservative backlash.

“The brand needed smart, fast and extensive action on multiple fronts to contain the crisis,” say Sparrer and Yerbury. “Its slow-burn response to focus on its employees and friend-and-family fun wasn’t a bad idea and, in a less volatile environment, it might have worked better. But instead, it landed flat in the pivotal months.”

Not only was Anheuser-Busch’s eventual response neither immediate nor multi-faceted, but the company was also hurt by a lack of pre-emptive steps. “Predicting what will go viral is close to sorcery, but you can reliably predict that social media responses will be unfiltered and often vicious,” say Sparrer and Yerbury.

Accordingly, the following steps are advised, starting with a clear understanding of the brand and its core audience. Also required, say Sparrer and Yerbury, is similar clarity around America’s temperature amid heated societal debates. “Pay close attention to what’s happening in the news, what stories are getting traction across channels, and how divisive the climate is. If the nation is at a boiling point, more subtle, moderate and unifying tactics may be necessary. If audiences consider each other “enemies,” campaigns must be optimistic, funny, friendly, and focus on big, relatable life themes that bring humanity together. Big-hearted humor can disarm angry people.”

Finally, vet the idea thoroughly with the worst case scenario in mind. “Was March Madness really the right time and environment for this particular activation?” ask Sparrer and Yerbury. “It’s true that, morally, any time should be right. But is Dylan Mulvaney a sports maven? Since this was an influencer campaign, did the Bud Light team chart out worst outcomes amid the known viciousness and bipartisan cancel culture that plagues social media? A plan must account for that environment’s unpredictable nature.”

Bud Light’s longer term strategy has perhaps been more successful — providing relief funds to distributors and wholesalers, and launching a massive Super Bowl campaign that even has Fox talking about a brand comeback. 

But the situation also begs the question — should Anheuser-Busch have done more to defend Mulvaney from all of the toxicity and hate that she attracted as a result of their campaign? “They didn’t reach out to her, even privately,” note Sparrer and Yerbury. “Mulvaney is an adult who knows the score with society, but she executed her contract for Bud Light in good faith and was left to the wolves. Resilient, Mulvaney was shining like a diamond as she strode the red carpet at the Golden Globes, while Anheuser-Busch’s US CMO Benoit Garbe announced he was moving on at the end of 2023.
 
“Bud Light’s team might have leveraged key truths about human psychology to lead against hate and support Mulvaney. Consider the well-known look-each-other-in-the-eyes experiment brought to life by a Polish ad agency in 2016. Exceptional PR and marketing teams will always recall the power of real emotion and the good that happens when we act with basic human decency.” — Arun Sudhaman

4. The Spanish FA scores an own goal

Keeping your best players happy and motivated to turn out for their country is one of the most important and most challenging aspects of running a national football association. So if you’re the boss and your entire national team refuses to play for you, you have a far bigger problem than just working out who will be in the squad or who the opposition is.

It started with a (non-consensual) kiss: when Spain’s women’s team beat England to win the World Cup last August, Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) president Luis Rubiales (also a vice president of the European football union UEFA), grabbed forward Jenni Hermoso on both sides of her head, on stage, and kissed her on the lips during the post-match ceremony. Hermoso said on a live stream afterwards that she “didn’t like it”, but Rubiales brushed off accusations and global social media outrage that his actions were at best inappropriate, saying it was “spontaneous” and “mutual”.

As soon as 81 Spanish players, including all of the 23 women who had just won the World Cup, released a joint open statement the following week saying that they would not play for their country until Rubiales stood down, it was clear there was no way back. The hashtag that sprang up nailed it: #SeAcabó (it’s over).

The former president not only lost his jobs, he faces a three-year ban by international football association FIFA and, following Hermoso’s complaint, is currently going through court proceedings pertaining to the alleged sexual assault and coercion in Spain’s highest criminal court.

MHP Group deputy CEO Nick Barron – who began his career at the Football Association and Wembley Stadium – says: “It’s hard to see how any communications strategy could have saved Rubiales’ job, but his aggressive stance after the incident escalated tensions and turned it into a totemic issue in a country and a sport where equality, representation and consent are hotly debated issues. By dragging out the inevitable and refusing to demonstrate contrition or accountability, he ensured a wide set of stakeholders had to take a position.”

Barron said the crisis has also exposed flaws in the governance of the RFEF, who “allowed their president to set the agenda for three weeks and completely overshadow the stunning achievement of the women’s team”, before Rubiales finally resigned in September. “They needed to move quickly to show that Rubiales’ fate was not his to determine, setting out a clear disciplinary process and wrestling back control of communications from their president.”

Crisis communications veteran Rod Cartwright describes the Rubiales own goal as a “disasterclass” that was also “a shameful example of individual and institutional misogyny, which largely overshadowed a remarkable sporting performance by an amazing team of athletes.”

Cartwright also outlines broader lessons from the scandal, saying it provides “a salutary reminder of two simple, all-important truths of good (and bad) crisis communication and reputation management.”

He says: “The first is that there is rarely (if ever) any such thing as a ‘PR crisis’ caused solely by poor communication. In reality, reputational crises invariably stem from a combination of operational, leadership, structural, governance, decision-making, behavioural and cultural factors. In this case, it was all of those and more.

“Secondly – and crucially – organisations are defined not by the values they promote, but by the attitudes and behaviours they tolerate or even celebrate. The Spanish Football Federation’s stated values include transparency, respect and integrity. Those were hardly the hallmarks of an institutional approach to the crisis that tolerated gaslighting and victim blaming.”

Cartwright concludes that if there is one lesson to be drawn from the Rubiales affair, it is that “a surefire way of creating a self-imposed crisis is to tolerate the very behaviours that your values should render unimaginable. Culturally a fish may rot from the head down, but it can also erode from the bottom up. It is for you to decide how much of either you are prepared to countenance and to live with the consequences.” — Maja Pawinska Sims

5. Musk deals a near-fatal blow to the bird site

It’s incredibly rare for a corporate brand to so pervade everyday discourse that it becomes a verb, but after millions of users had been tweeting for 17 years, Elon Musk’s rebrand of Twitter to X last summer helped continue the iconic brand's downward spiral.

As we noted in our crisis review last January, Musk buying Twitter for $44 billion in October 2022 sparked a series of self-inflicted crises, not least a mass exodus of advertisers that led to a 50% drop in ad revenue by May 2023, but the sudden and clumsily-rolled-out rebrand in July was far and away the most dramatic development in a saga of chaos at the social media platform.

It was a risky gamble that hasn’t, so far, come close to paying off. The erasure of the familiar blue bird – which had become one of the most recognised logos in the world – looked to many observers to be completely irrational, even narcissistic, from a brand and business point of view; as our op-ed at the time on the obvious lack of love Musk had for the Twitter brand said, “there’s a difference between disruption, and moving fast and actually breaking things.”

When set alongside the reinstatement of previously-banned users from Donald Trump to misogynist influencer Andrew Tate, the September disbanding of the platform’s election integrity team ahead of major elections around the world in the coming year, and the amplifying of extremist views that turned X from a go-to premier digital platform for corporates to the dark alleyway of brand safety, it’s no surprise that the commercials look even worse six months after the rebrand.

By September, year-on-year revenue decrease had reached 60% and monthly active users were also down by something like 15%; X's 2023 ad sales, which make up between 70% and 75% of the platform's revenue, are estimated to have fallen to about $2.5 billion, far short of the $3 billion target.

None of which was helped by Musk's memorable appearance at the New York Times' DealBook Summit, where he told advertisers to "go fuck yourself".

Brand value is complex to measure, but there’s no doubt the destruction of the Twitter name, logo and associated terms “tweet” and “tweeting” also significantly damaged brand recognition and equity, even if negative sentiment had already risen sharply; according to Brand Finance, by the time of the rebrand, Twitter’s brand value had dropped to just $3.9 billion.

When brand tracking company Tracksuit surveyed consumers in Australia, the UK and US in October, it found that 31% of respondents had a negative reaction to the rebrand, compared to 22% with positive views, and 23% of participants said they would use the platform less, versus 10% who anticipated using it more.

George Hutchinson, CEO and co-founder of reputation risk advisory firm River Effra, says events at Twitter and then X are probably the best example to date of “masterful bias” – the idea that the leader is essentially a genius and therefore can’t be wrong – and this is “one of the most difficult biases to break when dealing with an incident or crisis.”

Hutchinson says the biggest problem is Musk’s long-term strategy and whether the X rebrand is a help or a hindrance in terms of brand trust: “Twitter was one of the most trusted social media platforms and the rebrand has massively damaged that trust. And that damage has continued over the course of 18 months as the elements that built that trust have been cut away.”

But he points out that the bigger prize is Musk’s “genius plan” to build the “everything” app, and go into banking and payments, as well as many other areas: “To my mind there are few markets where tech newcomers have failed more in truly challenging the dominance of the incumbents than in banking. The public have voted, saying that trust in their longstanding, traditional banks matters most. This is where the best question in incident management and crisis response comes in – what is your objective?

“I can only see a conflict between Musk’s long-held ambition to brand something X, and the corporate objective for the company formerly known as Twitter to become a super-trusted everything app.”

At Bully Pulpit International, president Andrew Bleeker sums up the position in which X now finds itself: “Ultimately, a confusing rebrand is just one of many examples of Musk’s chaotic leadership: mass layoffs, the check mark debacle, reactivating controversial users’ accounts, allowing disinformation and antisemitism to go unchecked. Add it all up and it’s not surprising users and advertisers alike are turning away.”

And he adds that, like previously-banned user Trump, Musk is testing the idea that all news is good news, but “unlike an election, both users and advertisers get to vote every day. As the platform has deteriorated under Musk’s leadership, users voted with their feet. And advertisers with their dollars. If the goal was always to be king of his own castle, the X rebrand was a smashing success — it’s clearly something different. But if the goal is to build a valuable property, X doesn’t yet mark the spot.” — Maja Pawinska Sims

6. Evergrande, Country Garden and China’s ‘ticking time bomb’

Perhaps nothing is more illustrative of China’s current economic malaise than the explosive financial woes of the country’s two biggest property developers: China Evergrande Group and Country Garden. The two companies’ financial issues, linked to huge levels of debt, raise questions about China’s economic sustainability, putting trust in the entire property sector under significant scrutiny.

“Coverage in international financial media linked the debt defaults and legal problems within China’s two biggest property companies to wider structural issues in China’s economy,” points out Epic Communications founder Ray Rudowski. “Namely, suggestions of an over-reliance on the property sector to boost wealth and maintain the living standards of its growing middle class.”

In August, Country Garden announced a USD$6.7bn loss in the first half of 2023 and warned of defaulting on its debt. At Evergrande, things were not much better, even if Chinese media retracted stories that the company’s chairman Xu Jiayin had committed suicide. By September of last year, Xu’s career remained on life support, with Evergrande’s share price tanking after authorities put the company’s chairman under police surveillance and detained senior staff.

According to the SenateSHJ Crisis Value Erosion Index, the Evergrande Group, listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKSE), first started its financial troubles in September 2021. At the start of the crisis, Evergrande’s share price was HKD $2.360. It currently sits at HKD $0.203 – a 91.39% drop with no recovery in sight. It suspended trading of its shares in September 2023 and then a few months later, the Hong Kong High Court gave it until the end of this month (January 2024) to finalise a debt restructuring deal which, if successful, could save it from liquidation.

Country Garden’s share price drop was 76.25% at its worst and it is yet to recover.

Said SenateSHJ partner and head of reputation, Craig Badings: “In the four years we have tabulated the Crisis Value Erosion Index, this is the highest share price drop for any company crisis we have measured globally. The next highest is Country Garden’s at 76.25% followed by the BP Deep Water Horizon explosion and oil spill after which BP experienced a share price drop of 50.4%.

Unsurprisingly, mainland media were more restrained in their coverage of the crisis than their international counterparts. “In a highly polarized global political environment where the collective West is framing China as the latest threat to global security, a story about two floundering property giants takes on much greater significance,” says Rudowski.

The heightened significance, accordingly, requires specific crisis PR measures — none of which appear to have registered with either company. “All key stakeholders must take a broad view to recognize that in a highly politicized global operating environment the fate of two property giants could have repercussions beyond China’s own borders,” explains Rudowski. “This is where the parties involved need to take a much more proactive stance.”

“The companies involved must act transparently and make addressing governance issues a top priority,” continues Rudowski. “Instead of passing these issues off as business-related or relying on the central government to police the industry, these companies themselves must take a more enlightened view to ensure what happened to them does not happen to others.”

In addition, notes Rudowski, China’s regulators and authorities must also accept responsibility to “rebuild trust in the Chinese growth story and put these defaults and the fallout surrounding them into perspective. Investors, analysts and consumers need reassurance.” Arun Sudhaman

7. Congress vs the Ivy League

As three of the US’s top-ranking academics, you’d think the heads of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and MIT would, at the very least, have the wherewithal to read a room — particularly a congressional one.

But, more than a month after Claudine Gay, Elizabeth Magill and Sally Kornbluth were drilled by a US House committee on antisemitism on university campuses, it’s still hard to fathom how the university presidents' testimony was so mind-boggling bad.

Their stilted and evasive responses to whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate school conduct policies drove intense backlash, inflaming existing concerns about student safety associated with an increase in antisemitic and Islamophobic events after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s response.

Neither Magill nor Gay would give a yes or no answer no matter how hard pressed. Kornbluth was not more forthcoming, but she emerged from the probe in better shape than Magill and Gay, both who went into the hearing already under scrutiny. Magill had infuriated Jewish donors in September by allowing the Palestine Writes Literature Festival to take place on campus despite the event including speakers with histories of making antisemitic remarks. Gay, who became Harvard’s president in July, faced allegations of plagiarism.  

All of which came back to bite Magill and Gay with dire consequences, at least as far as their careers go. Under pressure from politicians on both sides of the aisle, as well as big-money donors, Magill resigned four days after her Washington appearance. Gay stepped down from her role at the start of January, capping the shortest presidential tenure in Harvard history.

“It is stunning,” said Group Gordon chief strategy officer Andrew Jarrell, who works with clients in higher education.

The way Jarrell sees it, the university presidents totally missed the mark by offering up “over-lawyerly responses” that failed to properly address the very nuanced topic of tolerance. “The mistake was forgetting that they really just needed to convey some basic, widely accepted values that the university is operating with and that, as a society, most reasonable people believe in and support,” he said.

It's really a larger blow, too. Here were women, including Harvard’s first Black woman president, who could have advanced their institutions not just academically but culturally, too, given the Ivy League’s history of exclusivity and elitism.

And while universities are rightly built to be bastions of free expression and students testing limits, it also is key to remember that schools prep students to function in civil society, which does not include propagating hate and instilling fear in others.

“I understand how they may have been in a room with many, many advisors and lots of lawyers and overly complicated what was a fundamental and basic question that was really an opportunity for leadership and an opportunity to assert their values at a time when people were looking for that leadership and guidance,” Jarrell said. “They really failed at that test.” — Diana Marszalek

]]>
 

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/creativity-in-pr-study-welcome-to-the-earned-era https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/creativity-in-pr-study-welcome-to-the-earned-era arun@provokemedia.com ResearchNewsLongreadsFleishmanHillardCreativity in PRCreativity Creativity In PR Study: Welcome To The Earned Era The ninth edition of the Creativity In PR study finds that earned media is leading the way, but raises concerns about whether the PR industry is always in pole position. Mon, 08 Jan 2024 10:25:34 Z 2024-01-08T10:25:34Z 57% of PR firms report that earned media has become more important in the current economic climate, but more than half (53%) think that their agencies are not viewed as the best option by clients to lead earned-first creative ideas. 

These are some of the headline findings from the ninth edition of the Creativity in PR study, which explores the sector's creative evolution at a time of immense competitive pressure from other disciplines.

The 2023 Report, co-authored by PRovoke Media and Now Go Create, in partnership with FleishmanHillard, is based on a survey of more than 200 agency and in-house executives from across the world, which took place in the second and third quarters of last year.

This year's study brought a particular focus to the development of earned-first creative ideas, with only 47% of respondents believing that PR firms are viewed by clients as the best agency option to lead these. 

2023 Creativity in PR Global Study revised
“We seem to be at an inflection point for PR agencies, now in competition with ad and digital agencies for their very heartland in earned," said co-author and Now Go Create founder Claire Bridges. "Successful marketing campaigns have PR ‘baked-in’ — with creative concepts, wherever they originate, designed for earned media."

2023 Creativity in PR Global Study revised_Page_12
Instead, the largest proportion (37%) find that clients are sourcing earned creative ideas from an open agency briefing. PR firms rank second (26%), narrowly ahead of ad agencies (24%).

2023 Creativity in PR Global Study revised_Page_10
That finding is further reflected by the 51% who find advertising agencies as the biggest source of competition for earned-first creative and ideas. Integrated agency teams, furthermore, are largely deemed effective, by more than half (57%) of respondents.

FleishmanHillard head of global strategy and planning Lesley Backus believes the results reinforce that "PR is the most powerful discipline in the marketing mix."

"Earned has always been the go-to for building credibility, but companies and brands simply can’t compete today without the third-party endorsement and validation that earned provides," she said. "But we’ve got to hold our ground as the earned experts. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen PR ideas bolted on from ad agencies in the past year, and I get it – it’s the work everyone wants to be doing. But the truth is that there’s no one more qualified to do earned work than earned agencies. Inherent in our work are ideas with meaning that build a story, deepen a conversation, lift reputation. It’s in our DNA."

2023 Creativity in PR Global Study revised_Page_03
A continued feature of the study, since it launched a decade ago, has been its efforts to examine whether PR firms are actually leading creative on behalf of their clients. Encouragingly, despite a more difficult economic climate, clients are still more likely to approach their PR firm for lead creative duties than they were 12 months ago, according to almost two-thirds (64%) of respondents.

2023 Creativity in PR Global Study revised_Page_05
Also encouraging is the proportion of agency respondents who confirm that their firm has been designated as lead creative agency, which remains steady at 88%, even if that includes 63% who report it as an occasional occurrence.

2023 Creativity in PR Global Study revised_Page_14
To better understand the factors in play, we asked how PR firms can secure lead creative duties. Storytelling and content creation emerge as the most important capabilities that can help PR firms lead earned creative, cited by 88% of respondents, ahead of influencer/thought leader relationships (67%), collaboration with owned, shared and paid media (63%), and media relations (53%).

This consensus offers important strategic guidance in terms of how public relations can secure lead creative duties. Furthermore, CMOs or marketing heads (50%) remain seen as the best type of client for this particular equation, with 23% preferring to engage the CCO first as a means of reaching the CMO. 

2023 Creativity in PR Global Study revised_Page_15
When it comes to the barriers that PR firms face in their quest to become lead creative agency, there are some notable changes compared to last year. Client perception and expecations (70%) is cited as the most common barrier, followed by the PR industry’s creative reputation (59%), and client budgets or lack of resources (53%).

"AI, AR, and VR can turn imagination into reality and in this world of 'pure imagination,’ anything is possible and PR creatives should be thriving," says Bridges. "But some of 2023's most discussed, written about, and shared earned-media ‘activations' — like Maybelline's giant mascara, Jacquemus bags on wheels and Dubai’s giant Barbie — were all created by non-PR agencies. 53% of our respondents cite client budgets or lack of resources as a barrier but these kinds of unexpected virtual ideas are not limited budgets so perhaps this mindset needs challenging in this brave new world.

"Ahead of last year’s World Cup, Orange’s ’The Bleues’ support for the women’s game was another brilliant use of technology, this time VFX, to challenge bias and perceptions - core competencies for PR agencies.

"Since 88% of our respondents said that ‘storytelling and content creation’ are the two most important capabilities that can help PR firms lead earned creative, then continuing to develop these skills, as well as embracing emerging tech must be priorities for agencies wanting to lead the creative charge."

2023 Creativity in PR Global Study revised_Page_08
"Year over year, respondents to the study have cited 'courage' as the most important driver in producing strong earned work," points out FleishmanHillard global ECD Joel Rodriguez. "Compared to 12 months ago, clients are more likely to approach PR agencies for creative work. But our ideas are not always winning. So, the onus is on us to take bigger swings. Within PR agencies, there’s always a healthy awareness of risk. This is only natural when our crisis colleagues sit right next to our creative ones. We must be fearless. We must be known as the agencies bringing our clients the most courageous, boldest ideas to drive business."

2023 Creativity in PR Global Study revised_Page_18
This year's study also looks at the fate of creative ideas presented during the new business process. 50% of respondents say that the ideas they present in the pitch are only useful for winning the pitch, with 27% saying they are required to drive subsequent campaigns.

"With half of respondents admitting their pitch ideas are only useful for winning pitches, it's clear the process needs a makeover as it seems neither fair nor effective," said Bridges. "The survey results signal the need for change, questioning the sanity of the unpaid, time-consuming, and stressful process agencies endure."

"No creative team – or clients – want to see this work gathering dust in the pages of a slide deck, so how can we better live up to the promise of a pitch?" asks FleishmanHillard global ECD Ellie Tuck. "For agencies, finding a client who matches your creative ambition is vital. Over half of respondents believe engaging a CMO or head of marketing from the outset is the best way to secure buy-in on ideas, over and above a CCO or head of comms. But what you’re talking about is just as important as with whom you’re talking. Are you asking the right questions when the brief lands to get a sense of their appetite for earned creative work?"

"A good sign is their understanding of what earned ideas are expected to deliver for the business," continues Tuck. "For clients, it’s about scrutinizing the creative tasks you set at pitch. Avoid generic creative challenges that test an agency’s thinking. These are a waste of everyone’s time. Instead, focus on real and present business problems that are keeping you awake at night, and get agreement from other stakeholders on a response to a brief that you could all buy tomorrow."

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/edelman-unilever-top-2023-global-creative-index https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/edelman-unilever-top-2023-global-creative-index arun@provokemedia.com WPPWeber ShandwickSABRE AwardsOgilvyNewsLongreadsInterpublic GroupImage MerchantsGlobal Creative IndexEdelmanDentsuCreativityBCWAnalysis Edelman & Unilever Top 2023 Global Creative Index HP Streetcode named top campaign, as Edelman takes top spot on PRovoke Media's annual ranking of creative excellence in PR, which also highlights firms on a weighted and regional basis. Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:47:18 Z 2023-12-14T11:47:18Z Edelman has taken top spot in the 2023 edition of the Global Creative Index, the first time in seven years that the world's biggest firm has ranked first in PRovoke Media's annual benchmark of creativity in the public relations world.

The 12th edition of the Global Creative Index analyses entries and winners from more than 25 PR, digital and marketing awards programmes from around the world over a 12-month period, up to and including the 2023 Global SABRE Awards. The formula takes into account the expansion of 'public relations' work across multiple categories at advertising-oriented shows such as the Cannes Lions.

Edelman's performance was led by the HP Streetcode initiative to address Indonesia's digital divide, which also took top spot on the 2023 Campaigns table. Numerous Unilever campaigns from across the globe also boosted Edelman's score, notably Dove's #LetHerGrow and #Keep the Grey initiatives, along with Vaseline's See My Skin effort.

Weber Shandwick took second place, after ranking first for five of the past six years, bolstered by significant campaigns for AB InBev, Ancestry, Expedia, Mars Wrigley and Unesco. The IPG firm narrowly outscored Ogilvy, which ranked third after placing second in 2022. 

MSL jumps from 19th to fourth, ahead of Ketchum, which retained fifth spot. In sixth place, Golin moves up from seventh, while Hill & Knowlton, Zeno and LLYC all enter the top 10 in 2023. 

Top 10 2023 new

Once again, the top of the overall agency table is dominated by global PR networks, thanks to their volume of awards.

However, an alternative measure of agency creativity comes from weighting agency scores according to their staff size. Accordingly, PRovoke Media has again used a points per head calculation to identify which are, ‘pound for pound’, the most creative PR agencies in the world.

Top 15 Weighted 2023 final

In 2023, this title is taken by South Africa's Retroviral, thanks in large part to its 'Be You. Period' campaign for Lil-Lets, which ranked as the fifth most awarded PR campaign of the year. Retroviral leads a clean sweep by EMEA agencies of the top six positions, ahead of two Eastern European firms — Hungary's Uniomedia and Croatia's Abeceda in second and third, respectively.

In fourth place, Dubai's Matrix makes its first ever appearance on this ranking, ahead of Clue PR from Poland and Lynn from Wales. 

While EMEA firms dominate the weighted ranking, accounting for 12 of the top 15, there is still considerable geographic diversity in play. In addition to the top six, there are also firms from Australia (Campaign Lab and History Will Be Kind), UK (The Romans and Hope & Glory), Finland (Kurio), Nigeria (Image Merchants), Latvia (Komunikacijas agentura), and Brazil (Latam Intersect). Like last year, a US firm does not make the weighted table. 

To better rank agencies against their peers, the weighted table is also segmented along regional lines, producing top five rankings for North America, EMEA and Asia-Pacific, as follows: 

Weighted North America 2023
Weighted EMEA 2023 final
Weighted Asia-Pacific 2023

'HP Streetcode' tops Campaign Ranking

'HP Streetcode', which tackled Indonesia's digital divide through street art, emerged as the most-awarded PR program of the past 12 months according to PRovoke Media's 2023 Global Creative Index. The campaign from HP and Edelman also ranked first among Global SABRE winners.

The Index analysed entries and winners from more than 25 PR award programmes from around the world, over a 12-month period, using the 2022 Global SABRE Awards as a cut-off point. Scores were weighted according to a PRovoke Media formula that placed particular emphasis on Best in Show winners, while also taking into account the expansion of 'public relations' work across multiple categories at advertising-oriented shows such as the Cannes Lions.

Top 20 campaigns 2023

HP Streetcode ranked ahead of CALM's 'The Last Photo' suicide prevention effort with Hope & Glory and Adam&Eve DDB, while Dove's #LetHerGrow came in third, supporting Thai schoolgirls in their quest to end the practice of forced haircuts.  

The results, which rank the top 20 PR campaigns as determined by award shows, suggest that reports of the demise of purpose are somewhat exaggerated. Instead, the best performing campaigns are demonstrating a tangible impact on such issues as the digital divide, gender inequality, mental health and wellness, the cost of living and DEI.  

Unilever tops Company Ranking

Unilever retains top spot in the Global Creative Index's ranking of companies, according to the performance of the company's campaigns in the various award shows that are tracked around the world. FMCG rival P&G, which slipped to sixth last year, jumps to second, ahead of Pepsico (up 12 places), AB InBev (+4) and new entrant HP.  

Top 15 Companies 2023

Unilever's haul was led by award-winning efforts such as Dove's '#LetHerGrow', along with the same brand's #KeepTheGrey initiative, and campaigns for Vaseline, Lifebuoy and Wall's. 

The Global Creative Index analyses entries and winners from more than 25 PR award programmes from around the world, over a 12 month period, using the 2022 Global SABRE Awards as a cut-off point. Scores were weighted according to a PRovoke Media formula that placed particular emphasis on Best in Show winners.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/latest/article/2023-review-top-10-podcasts https://www.provokemedia.com/latest/article/2023-review-top-10-podcasts maja@provokemedia.com 2023 ReviewYouTubeWorld Economic ForumThe Change AgenciesStarbucksPodcastsPCB PartnersNewsMubadalamarkettiersMaja Pawinska SimsLuminateLongreadsLippe TaylorInternational Women’s DayIn-HouseGoogleFight or FlightDavosCannes LionsAIIBAgencyAAR Group 2023 Review: Top 10 Podcasts The PRovoke Media Podcast’s most popular episodes of the year, with conversations ranging from creativity to geopolitics, and from DE&I to M&A. Fri, 08 Dec 2023 08:00:00 Z 2023-12-11T11:24:08Z This year we’ve published 48 PRovoke Media podcasts, including content with our partners, with agency, corporate and NGO guests from around the world joining our editors to talk about big topics from creativity to geopolitics, diversity to mergers and acquisitions. Here are the 10 episodes that were most listened to this year; half of the podcasts on the list feature conversations with in-house communications and strategy leaders, while the other five are focused on agencies.

Remember, you can subscribe to the show via Apple PodcastsSpotify or the direct feed. And a big thank you, as ever, to our friends and partners at Markettiers, who produce and edit each show.

1.     Google’s all-female comms leadership team
To mark International Women’s Day and Women’s History Month in March, four members of Google’s all-female communications leadership team in the UK and EMEA joined Maja Pawinska Sims for the most-listened-to PRovoke podcast of the year – as well as being one of the longest. The quartet – Laura Wheeler, head of communications for Google Cloud, UKI and META; Jo Ogunleye, who runs B2B communications at Google and YouTube and is responsible for developing DEI networks across EMEA; corporate communications manager Delia Williams-Falokun; and Sarah Rowley, head of PR and communications for YouTube in the UK – had a conversation that was by turns frank, funny, thoughtful and inspiring, covering their professional paths, their personal challenges and choices, and the policies and campaigns they admire and are inspired by.

2.     Former Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank comms chief Bob Pickard
In October, former Edelman and Burson-Marsteller Asia leader Bob Pickard joined the PRovoke podcast to discuss his dramatic exit from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) this summer – having spent a year as director general of communications – after he accused the bank of being overly influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. In conversation with Arun Sudhaman, Pickard responded to a subsequent AIIB report that dismissed his allegations, and instead claimed his tenure was marked by “managerial shortcomings”. He also discussed the geopolitical environment for Western companies in China, and explains why he took on the AIIB role in the first place.

3.     Maureen Lippe On Radical Reinvention
In a moving and inspiring conversation in August, Lippe Taylor founder and chairman Maureen Lippe joined Diana Marszalek on the PRovoke podcast to discuss her new book, ‘Radical Reinvention — Reimagine, Reset, Reinvent in a Disruptive World’. Lippe, who was Vogue’s fashion editor and then beauty and health editor of Harper's Bazaar before founding her agency in 1989, shared her emotional and professional recovery during the height of the pandemic, during which she saw her company double in size but lost her husband of nearly 40 years to Covid. The book – the writing of which Lippe describes as therapeutic and cathartic – coaches readers through an eight-step reinvention toolkit that Lippe personally created, tested, and verified with therapists and firestarters who are also featured in the conversation.

4.     Cannes review and market update
It’s rare that PRovoke Media editors Arun Sudhaman, previously based in Hong Kong and now in India, and Maja Pawinska Sims, based in the UK, are able to be in the same room together for a chat, but in July, after returning from PRovoke Media’s annual trip to Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, they both sat down at the Markettiers studio in London to review the 2023 Cannes Lions winners. In a lively discussion, the duo addressed PR’s performance and influence at the festival this year and since the inception of the PR Lions in 2009 – including reference to our annual CEO roundtable and PR Lions jury roundtable in Cannes – and also analysed the beginnings of the market and pipeline slowdown in the industry.

5.     Why creativity is exploding in B2B comms
B2B communications hasn’t always been seen as the most creative segment of the PR industry, but with more and more B2B agencies recruiting creative directors – and Cannes Lions introducing a B2B creativity category last year – that perception is changing. In May, Maja Pawinska Sims was joined on the PRovoke podcast by a trio of guests from B2B technology specialist Fight or Flight, launched in 2020 by Weber Shandwick UK technology practice leaders Joe Walton, David Woodward and Charlie Meredith-Hardy and named by PRovoke Media as one of the top 10 fastest-growing agencies in the world this year. Woodward, alongside the agency’s first head of creative, former Weber Shandwick consumer lead Kate Sarginson, and Lauren Payne McLeod, associate director of strategy and creative, talked about the growing opportunities for creativity in B2B brand marketing.

6.     AJ Jones on Starbucks, DEI & employee partners
Starbucks has had a challenging time, reputationally, in recent years, having been targeted by employee rights organizations for its aggressive union-busting tactics and being accused of backing away from its commitment to LGBTQ issues in the “woke” debate. In January, Aranthan “AJ” Jones II, who has been head of global communications and public affairs at Starbucks since 2021, joined the PRovoke podcast to tell Diana Marszalek how he has not only re-established the company as a leader on DEI issues, but has rallied his counterparts in other high-profile companies to diversify their communications departments, as well as requiring the same of agency partners. Jones also talked about his advocacy of corporate America banding together to address DEI, and the coffee giant’s relationship with its employees and recent efforts to unionize.

7.     Andrew Bloch on clients, new business and agency M&A
Andrew Bloch, co-founder of iconic UK agency Frank, joined Arun Sudhaman on the PRovoke podcast in July to discuss his new career direction since stepping back from the agency in 2020. He talked about his new era, involving roles focusing on agency selection, as a consultant with AAR Group, and working on mergers and acquisitions with PCB Partners, as well as various board and advisory positions, and continuing to work as Lord Sugar’s spokesman. In their conversation, Bloch explored challenges in the client-agency relationship, the evolution of new business and pitch processes, and the current state of play when it comes to buying and selling PR firms.

8.     Davos voices 2023
In this podcast from January, Arun Sudhaman curated three separate conversations with prominent chief communications and marketing officers while he was in sub-zero Davos. Each conversation brought different experiences and a different lens on which to view the World Economic Forum. In the first, TCS global markets CMO/CCO Abhinav Kumar weighed up the benefits of Davos against its reputation issues, before Mubadala CCO Brian Lott discussed the geopolitical media environment, particularly as it applies to his experiences in the Middle East. In the third recording on the podcast, HCLTech global CMO Jill Kouri revealed her progress and lessons in terms of repositioning the Indian technology brand.

9.     The Change Agencies on inclusive communications
Founded in 2019, The Change Agencies is a US network of 13 independent multicultural and LGBTQ communications and public affairs firms owned and operated by people in the communities they serve. In this edition of the PRovoke podcast from April, Diana Marszalek was joined by The Change Agencies founding principal Ben Finzel, president of RenewPR, and network member Kristelle Siarza, founder and CEO of Siarza, based in New Mexico and California. The duo outlined the evolving work of the network at a time when DEI consciousness is high on the agenda of business, and discussed their various approaches to truly inclusive communications programmes that help clients more authentically reach and engage those multicultural and LGBTQ audiences.

10.  The power of strategic comms for social impact
Sometimes, the best PRovoke podcast guests aren’t actually comms professionals themselves, but bring a valuable, fresh new way of looking at the world. In this episode from July, Stan Getui, the then-Africa director of Luminate – a global foundation that aims to increase the participation of underrepresented groups in civic and political life – joined Maja Pawinska Sims to talk about the global philanthropy organization’s ‘Winning Hearts and Minds’ report, in a fascinating conversation on how nonprofits, activists, community groups, funders and creative agencies can harness the power of strategic communications for greater social impact, as well as looking at the barriers to collaboration between strategic communications firms and these change agents.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/latest/article/2023-review-top-10-thought-leadership https://www.provokemedia.com/latest/article/2023-review-top-10-thought-leadership pholmes@provokemedia.com BHMEdelmanHanoverBoldTSEC NewgateAllison+PartnersGlobal Strategy GroupGolinFleishmanHillardSandpiper2023 ReviewAnalysisLongreadsResearchTrends 2023 Review: Top 10 Thought Leadership Research into the impact of AI and the backlash against ESG dominated the year's thought leadership, but other studies looked at the capacity of business to solve societal problems and provided new insight into the African PR profession. Wed, 06 Dec 2023 10:02:04 Z 2023-12-06T10:02:04Z Thought leadership remains the most mainstream form of marketing for most professional service firms, so it’s no surprise that the PR industry produces a wealth of surveys and studies.

Excluding our own research, and emphasizing new initiatives or new findings over well-established pieces of intellectual property (particularly those that have made this list in previous years), we have selected the most important thought leadership studies of the past 12 months, to launch our 2023 Review.

It’s a top 10 list, but we’ve taken the liberty of grouping some studies together to capture the wide spectrum of research we saw over the course of the year, and we added one piece of bonus thought leadership we believed to be important.

1-3: AI comes of age

This review is (for now at least) still being written by an actual human, but by early 2023 the public relations business was being consumed by concerns about the growing power of artificial intelligence and the likelihood that one day, a substantial part of the PR professional’s job might be outsourced to a piece of software.

In April, the “AI in Communications: Industry Opportunities and Risks” study conducted by PRovoke Media and Sandpiper found surprising optimism, with 86% of communications professionals globally viewing artificial intelligence as an opportunity rather than a risk, with fewer than one third (29%) expressing concern that the rise of generative AI will see a reduction or replacement of their roles in the future.

By October, FleishmanHillard had produced its own research, with the agency’s report, ‘Will gen AI change the game?, addressing the hopes, fears and expectations of UK professionals and finding that 70% of decision-makers are now using generative AI and/or business process automation at work, with 86% saying that they know “a lot” or at least “something” about the technology. Its use is currently largely in research and efficiency-based tasks: gathering market intelligence (44%) and streamlining workflows (44%) being the most popular applications.

But in November, a note of caution was being sounded by Golin, which conducted its “AI Issues Trap” research in the UK and found that nearly 60% of communicators are yet to adjust their reputation management approach to AI, with two-thirds unsure how to do so — and 97% being concerned about the threat of AI to organisation or brand reputation.

4-8: A retreat from ESG?

After several years of research into the benefits of corporate purpose, sustainability, and political involvement, 2023 saw the backlash against this approach to “stakeholder capitalism” raise questions on the client side of the business about whether the risk of taking “controversial” positions on issues ranging from race to the environment was really worth the trouble — especially after right-wing critics began to use physical violence against the property and people of companies they deemed “woke.”

The first of several studies to address this issue came in February, when GSG issued its “2023 Business and Politics Report,” which found most Americans don’t support ongoing attacks against “woke capitalism,” with 77% of respondents saying companies should promote social change and 88% approving of those that have a positive impact on their communities.

Those results were echoed by Allison+Partners research released in May, which found that more than half of Americans (56%) said they have positive views of the term ESG and nearly two-thirds (65%) want companies to continue their environmental, social and governance action. The results skew even higher for millennials; 71% have positive viewpoints on ESG and 75% want companies to continue making progress.

SEC Newgate’s third annual ESG Monitor, released in October, took a more global view and found even more resounding support for corporate activism: a survey of consumers in 12 countries found a significant surge in community interest regarding ESG issues, with 67% of respondents rating their interest at seven or more out of 10, a rise from 56% in 2022. Moreover, an overwhelming 77% of respondents agreed that it is crucial for companies to take tangible actions on ESG issues, and 71% emphasised the significance of companies speaking out on issues vital to their employees and customers — suggesting that American conservatives are no more than a vocal minority.

A report by FleishmanHillard UK suggested that companies should be more interested in how to do ESG communications better, rather than whether to do it at all: the “Sustainability, Communications & Climate Confusion” report found that while 55% of UK consumers feel environmental sustainability is important when shopping, only 41% understand the term ‘certified carbon neutral’, for instance, on product packaging. Greater clarity and more context should be the priority.

Around the same time, European business strategy, communications and political engagement firm Boldt was unveiling its new report, “Does a Woke Reputation Increase Business Value?”, which found that for many companies so-called “woke” words and actions had a greater impact on reputation (with regulators, policymakers and NGOs) than it did on trust (with consumers), introducing some nuance to the debate about such activities.

9. Solving big problems

A deeper dive into the whole topic of stakeholder engagement was provided in November, when new research from Headland showed businesses that work more deeply with stakeholders can tackle the “grand challenges” facing society and reap financial and reputational value. The “Collaborative Corporate” study with systems specialist and behavioral scientist Dr. Ben Shenoy — my personal favorite out of all the new thought leadership this year  — suggests that tackling systemic challenges such the climate crisis, the rise of AI and social polarisation in partnership with other businesses and organisations can lead to improved relationships, reputations and, ultimately, revenue.
 
10. More with less

Edelman is, of course, best known for its Trust Barometer research, which has featured on this list many times, but its annual “Future of Corporate Communications” study provides equally interesting data, and this year’s iteration took the temperature of the industry, finding that half of respondents said they view themselves as strategic advisors or partners to their company’s top management — up from just one-third two years ago. The study also found, though, that expansion of the CCO role comes with challenges, as comms leaders are being asked to do more with less.

Bonus Thought Leadership: Africa

The first ”Africa PR & Communications Report,” developed by Nigeria-based agency BHM in partnership with industry bodies, raised concerns about a continental “brain drain,” with concerns over the emigration of African PR practitioners dominating issues relating to talent recruitment, development and retention. Nearly all PR practitioners (90%) believe that more professionals are willing to leave the African country in which they operate while 80% are convinced that even entry-level staff are already considering their exit from their countries. A lack of access to tools and resources, training and development and poor compensation are cited as critical factors driving the exodus of professionals and young talent in the industry.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/innovator-25-2023's-leading-changemakers-across-asia-pacific https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/innovator-25-2023's-leading-changemakers-across-asia-pacific arun@provokemedia.com ResearchLongreadsInterviewsInnovator 25In2Analysis Innovator 25: 2023's Leading Changemakers Across Asia-Pacific PRovoke Media's annual study identifies 25 professionals reshaping marketing and comms in Asia-Pacific, and finds out their inspiration, advice and learnings, along with favourite brands, books and movies. Fri, 20 Oct 2023 02:24:02 Z 2023-10-20T02:24:02Z ]]>
]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/south-africa-roundtable-the-way-media-is-consumed-has-changed https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/south-africa-roundtable-the-way-media-is-consumed-has-changed pholmes@provokemedia.com RoundtableSouth AfricaNissanNewsMTNMastercard FoundationLongreadsEdelmanAfrica South Africa Roundtable: “The Way Media Is Consumed Has Changed” PRovoke Media hosted a roundtable of senior South African communicators, who discussed the ways in which the pandemic changed the status of PR and the tools available to PR people. Wed, 28 Jun 2023 10:01:30 Z 2023-06-28T10:49:54Z JOHANNESBURG—Last month, in partnership with Edelman South Africa, PRovoke Media invited some of the most experienced and respected communicators in South Africa to a roundtable discussion, where we talked about the state of public relations in South Africa, the new atmosphere of perma-crisis, the importance of values, new metrics, and new kinds of storytelling.

Participants were:

  • Karena Crerar, CEO of Edelman Africa
  • Paul Holmes, founder, PRovoke Media
  • Nonye Mpho Omotola, head of health, programme communications at Mastercard Foundation
  • Jacqui O’Sullivan, chief sustainability and corporate affairs at MTN
  • Vuyokazi Quphe, communications lead at Nissan

The discussion has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Paul Holmes
: Let’s start with a broad question: How has public relations evolved and changed in this market over the past few years, since the pre-pandemic period? What changes have there been in the kind of work you are doing and the level within the organization at which you are operating?

Jacqui O’Sullivan: I have always had a rather visceral nervous twitch when it comes to the phrase public relations because I think the concept has always been misunderstood, so I have always positioned myself as a communicator, and I think that positioning has helped over the last few years because the line between what we would have called PR and marketing and activations and the kind of crisis communications we have to deal with has become quite blurred. So we have had to become quite clear about what we are doing and what we are trying to achieve and who we are trying to speak to.

So much has changed in the way people receive information, entering into the post-truth era, where fact and opinion seem to be interchangeable, and the impact that had during the Covid era, that the idea of truth and authenticity and credibility became so incredibly potent that the world of public relations became so much more powerful, because buying your publicity—which marketers had relied on for so long—became so widely distrusted. That gave us an opportunity to really shine, and also we saw a lot of mediocre PR people just collapse. The last five years have really separated the wheat from the chaff.

Vuyokazi Quphe: We have moved along to really be considered as strategic counsellors, as people who understand what is needed by not just the business but also the audience and the community at large. And I see that happening, because Covid forced us to stop and consider not only what businesses should be doing, and in our case the business of building cars needed all of us to be side by side at a time when Covid was demanding of us something else, so what happened was that we really needed to pull out that communicator’s seat at the table to understand what was needed for us to keep the doors open but also to allay the fears of our people.

We have also seen, I think, the way that media and communications are consumed change. Perhaps it’s a generational thing, but not many people now sit with newspapers, but instead they consume their news by hopping between channels and understanding what’s trending. And that means we have to look beyond “let’s just get a press release together” and think differently about how we deliver information. In some ways, I see it as a return to a more natural way of communicating.

Nonye Mpho Omotola: I would say that technology obviously has been a disruptor in the past couple of years, particularly during Covid. For us, the big change is about the impact of what we are doing, how has it impacted the recipient and the community, and who are the influencers in the community who can help us tell the story. And if you talk about storytelling, audio-visual is becoming much more important, telling the story in a short audio-visual format.

And also we have had to look at the culture of the organization, and the values. We engage with partners, and so it’s also about the culture of the internal team and the values and how we live our values of humility and respect and impact.  If your partner is not seeing that from you, it’s difficult to develop a good partnership.

PH: So I am hearing three separate strands: one is that the issues we are dealing with are more complex and critical; another is that the channels we are using are much broader than they used to be because people are consuming information differently; and the other is that we need to constantly address the issue of impact so everything we do is having an impact in the world.

Karena Crerar: I agree with all of that. The other thing I would add is that what came out of Covid—and I think it’s correct to treat Covid as a turning point, I saw a study that 75% of people thought the perception of PR has improved across the continent because of Covid—we as an agency have never worked more closely with our clients. I remember sitting in war rooms and every day we were working with them, because there were so many things that all of a sudden we were needed for, in reputation and trust-building.

The thing I would add is the importance of the employer as a communicator to employees. I think in the past that was often just stick something on the wall and hope that they read it and then companies realized they had to be the voice of authority and leaders realized that they had to be the source of trustworthy information in a time of crisis.

PH: One change is that it’s about action now, just about words. It’s about being part of the policy discussion, not just how do we communicate it.

JO: The way I have always approached communications, there are two non-negotiables I have when I join a company: one is that I only report to CEOs, which is a requirement because if you report to the CEO you are always on the executive committee, which means you are able to keep your finger on the pulse. And the second thing is that internal communications has to sit with me, for all the reasons that have already been discussed.

The third thing that I have always tried to do—I haven’t always made it non-negotiable—but I have tried to make my team’s description about communication and reputation management. We make the most impact when we are guiding discussions and setting policy and stopping executives getting into trouble before they get into trouble, that is where the power really lies.

PH: That’s particularly relevant in the past few years, because it’s been a perma-crisis for a lot of companies.

VQ: Only last week I reached out to a number of ex co members to find out what they believe was impactful PR and all of the answers were altruistic. None of them talked about shareholders and none of them talked about stories on the front pages or the morning TV. All of them talked about people understanding the business, and the sustainable nature of the sector.

These are leaders who understand the crisis mode and the importance—particularly in the auto sector where Africa is the last frontier of growth, where there is so much potential—to make sure that we have a voice that speaks externally to the policy makers and to the consumer, but also to the employees, to ensure that we use PR to drive a very economically successful and profitable sector. And so it’s about what are the key levers we can use to make sure the stories we tell do resonate with a greater purpose than just selling a vehicle.

NMO: Where we start is to understand the Foundation’s reason for being, and its reason for being is to alleviate poverty, is financial inclusion, to concentrate on youth finding dignified and fulfilling work. How we go about that is by working on different programs and we work in partnership with people who provide the expertise on these programs. Our leadership is very clear in terms of the values that the Foundation has and that influences everything we do, internally and externally. From a reputation point view, those values stand us in good stead.

An example of what we do is Covid. Before Covid we were not involved in health. But when Covid struck we thought about how it impacted dignified and fulfilling work. We felt we had to get involved. We partnered with health organizations, and we let them lead because they are the experts, and we could support them in various ways. And that would ensure that the workforce across the continent could continue.

Those are the things that influence the work that I do, that's what encourages me to do my work. It also encourages us to think, okay, how do you want to be relevant from a thought leader point of view? As a Foundation, how do you want to be relevant? What are the things that will position us as thought leaders? How do we show up? How do we engage?

PH: That focus on values really resonates with me, because helping an organization live its values is is right there at the top of the list of what good communicators do. But I also want to stay with this idea of impact and whether you have found a metric or a system of an approach to measurement that works for you and resonates with the leadership of your organizations.

JO: So, firstly, just a comment on what you said previously about crisis being of value to us. I really would agree with that, and from a South African context, we are just stumbling from one crisis to the next. In fact, we're not stumbling from one to the next because we're constantly in a maelstrom of crises. So whether it's the fact that we don't have enough electricity and the roads of rubbish. The country as a whole is in this massive food scarcity situation. So you literally have a situation where the richest city in Africa literally has people starving to death.

So we have this incredible crisis, the state of crisis. Many years ago when I was the spokesman for South African Airways it was so hard to actually get foundation stories told. Really hard, absolutely impossible, nobody was interested. Now, we really do lovely stuff at the MTA Foundation, my people run it, they're much better than I am, but it's really not hard to get coverage. Because of this constant flood of crises, and the understanding that this concept of values and purpose have become so much resonant with people, because they actually feel they need a break. They need some sense of hope.

On the question of metrics, what I really wish is that there was one silver bullet to this, because it would be great. But what I have found, and it's not a perfect solution, is working really closely with my colleagues across the business, with the marketing team, with the social media team, is putting together a list of a set of measurements that kind of collaborate. So we've got our own PR measures, we've got brand health, we've got NPS. We've got our group culture audits, and then we have these monthly measures, which we call our “senti-meters.” So what we've tried to do is we've tried to cross-reference all these different measures so that we have the same sorts of questions referencing each other.

PH: So it's really an ecosystem of measures rather than...

VO: We found that probably the most effective way is an ecosystem that requires a high degree of maintenance and oversight. Constantly looking at what's happening within the ecosystem, how do questions need to be tweaked, what sort of base are you looking at, and that seems to be working for us. Collaboration is key.

One thing that works for us is the good old-fashioned human focus group. It's one thing for us to rely on the dashboard. However, if you're not listening and having that dialogue, then you're not able to do what is actually needed. And therefore, your impact, once again, is kind of hindered. So for us, we are using technology, but good old-fashioned chatting about it is important too. What is it that you like? Talk about it.

PH: Edelman, obviously, has invested quite a lot of thought leadership equity over the last few years in the idea of trust. And I wonder at the extent to which that informs how you're measuring the impact of public relations for your clients. Are there ways of measuring both the value of trust and fluctuations in trust? Or are you still using a much wider dashboard of different tools?

KC: We work with our clients to determine what they want to see. And we do have some great conversations about measuring properly. But unfortunately, we still come up against some of those old school ways of thinking/ And we find not enough time is spent right up front identifying what success looks like, really, for an organization. And then it becomes about internal stakeholders and where they want to see themselves. Are we going to get impact out of this action we're taking? Or do we just want coverage out of it?

We know that action drives trust. And the challenge with trust is that if we're not working with an organization on specifically building that trust, it's very hard to measure it. So if you're not working actively every day towards building trust, but then you want to measure it at the end of a 12-month period, that's just not helpful to anybody. You have to be working actively every day to say, are we really driving the dimensions of trust? Are we leading from a position of integrity? Are we showing up in the right way about what we can offer to our audiences? Are we contributing to society in a more meaningful way than just, you know, a CSR initiative here and there.

JO: I feel like I've wasted years of my life trying to explain to CEOs the difference between buying the cover of an industry magazine and earning you a front page Business Day piece, or an op-ed.

But I actually think that some of the most exciting work is actually coming from the rest of the continent because those markets are perhaps a little less rigid and a little less staid. I'm often really just delighted by the freshness and the energy. And when I see what some of the work that my colleagues in Nigeria have done…. And the media is more flexible, more open, less restrictive. Journalists tend to be a little bit more less cynical. I find in South Africa, journalists are highly cynical.

VO: We are moving to a place where there's more African optimism versus pessimism. And so therefore, we find that many of us are wanting to show and express ourselves as Africans, and so what you see is that a lot of the work that you do has to reflect what is happening.

If we're speaking about technology and innovation, navigation has always been in European languages: we would have Susie who would speak in a beautiful British accent. But one of the things we do now is that we have education done in vernacular. That's important because it didn't just speak about product, but it really spoke about showing the people who ultimately consume this. And so from a PR perspective, what you're going to find is that by showing me, I therefore own this.

PH: One of the things we have noticed in SABRE is just how much more inclusive campaigns have become, and that relevant in Africa where obviously that term means something different. And of course we are seeing people using a much broader range of channels and media to get their messages out.

NMO: You have, of course, the social media channels and our stories get amplified on social media. There are podcasts. We engage with our partners. So it's not the Foundation telling the stories, we are helping to tell the story of the beneficiary, so that it becomes authentic, and we're not making noise pr blowing our horns.

There's always the ripple effect that when you do help someone in a community, when a student gets a Mastercard Foundation scholarship, what then happens to her or him, and what's the impact in the community? That child obviously gets a good education, and then comes back to either community or country, and then what happens? And then how many people benefit from that one scholarship? How is that story told?

VO: I forgot to add the internal audience. The internal audience is also very critical and a platform to amplify the stories. Whatever we're doing, the internal audience has to know.

In 2017, in Saudi Arabia, we know that the Royal Decree was passed allowing women to drive for the very first time. And so in 2018, we saw many women being able to drive. But for us to tell that story, it wasn't good enough that you just showed the customers driving. It was key that our women employees were part of the story. With that came a great deal of enablement and empowerment in the telling of that story internally.

Here in South Africa, our leaders take time out to walk to each of the different plant shops and to engage, to really understand what's happening. And oftentimes, it's not the big issues, it may be just the three-ply toilet paper. But they still need to listen to those.

JO: I've long since stopped hoping that we would be given more resources. Because I've never worked in a company where I've thought, I have a great amount of people. I have never had enough people. I've kind of become to accept I'll have a small number of in-house people as long as I've got a really great, strong agency.

But what means is we create once and use everywhere. So I've really pushed my team and my agency to become quite comfortable repurposing content. I don't want anyone to be a super specialist. I want everyone to be able to write a LinkedIn or a Facebook or an Instagram post. I don't want anyone saying, oh, but that's the social media team's job. Everybody's got to be able to muck in and help out.

We also have kind of leveraged, sadly, the decline of journalism in South Africa. I think it's reflected elsewhere in the world, the reduction in the size of newsrooms. A few weeks ago, we did a big feature on the vandalism of our towers. It's just a problem facing all our operators and the SABC arrived without a camera. There's no cameras. The national broadcaster. So we guarantee that for every one of our activities, we provide not just the media release, but we provide B-roll. We provide pre-recorded package interviews. We provide sound bites. We do podcasts. And we make this available to all media, and they can expect that now.

KC: There are great writers, there are great content creators, there are great videographers. They're all different kinds of storytelling, and they're all legitimate. You must have all those talents represented in Edelman. But as Jackie says, I think the sweet spot is the integration of all of those and the ability to pull it all together. And I think this is the challenge.

Unfortunately, when I think about educational institutions, they are largely siloed in what they are teaching and educating. So you find people that come through who have studied corporate communications, so they know how to do corporate PR but they have no idea what to do when you ask them to write a social post.

I think in this day and age, we need more people to know how to bring the mix together and who understand that it's about the core story, and it's also about understanding each of the channels and how to use that differently to sell that story. And that's the part that I think requires a lot of the on-the-job training

 

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/latest/article/cannes-ranking-the-2023-gold-pr-lions-winners https://www.provokemedia.com/latest/article/cannes-ranking-the-2023-gold-pr-lions-winners pholmes@provokemedia.com Premium ContentZikaron BaSalonWieden+KennedyWeber ShandwickSkittlesPRovoke CannesNikeNewsMcCannMasterCardMars WrigleyLongreadsLALCECGUT AgencyGreyFCBDoordashDDBCannes LionsCannes 2023CannesAdidas Cannes: Ranking The 2023 Gold PR Lions Winners Don't be fooled by a mediocre Grand Prix winner: there was plenty of great work recognized among this year's crop of Gold PR Lions. Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:06:31 Z 2023-06-26T11:06:31Z Over the years, I have come to believe that the public relations jury at Cannes defines our discipline very differently than I do — and defines PR success even more differently.

When I saw this year’s Grand Prix winner — a campaign called “Self Love Bouquet” for online food delivery service Doordash, created by the Los Angeles office of GUT — I assumed that this year’s jury had fallen prey to the same biases I talked about this year, most notably, an over-fondness to stunts with, at best, transient impact.

I still don’t understand how the Doordash campaign fits the stated priorities of the jury, but looking through the rest of the Gold winners, with one notable exception the focus was on earned-first work with a real societal and business impact. This was a much stronger crop of winners than those I reviewed last year.

The top five on my list below were all excellent campaigns that met the stated criteria: they were driven by earned ideas and earned media, and they had real, measurable, and lasting impact. In most cases on the societies in which they took place, and in a couple of cases on the relationship between the brands involved and their customers.

Yes, Cannes still likes stunts. It still likes non-profit and pro-bono and purpose driven work. But it broadened its horizons this year — even if it did continue to reinforce the impression that all the best earned ideas are generated by advertising agencies.

7. Home — Nike with Wieden+Kennedy

I live in England, where the 1996 song “It’s Coming Home” (referring to any major football trophy being won by the nation that supposedly invented the sport) has been optimistically — and erroneously — sung for 25 years. Until 2022… when a major trophy did in fact make its way to these shores after the England women’s team won the World Cup.

Sponsor Nike celebrated with a line of shirts and sportswear featuring the word “Home” and the brand’s ubiquitous swoosh. The campaign generated £25 million in earned media (Cannes is the last place on earth where advertising equivalency refuses to die) and the brand was included in more than 3,000 media articles, generating 2.4 billion impressions.

If you’d prefer actual results, the campaign also led to a 160% increase in traffic to Nike.com.

It felt one-dimensional and fleeting to me, compared to the other campaigns on this list, but the judges liked it well enough to award not one but two Gold Lions: “à chacun son goût” as they say in this part of the world.

6. Self Love Bouquet — Doordash with GUT

After years of complaining that awards competitions in general (and Cannes in particular) over-index on purpose-driven work, I suppose I should be cheering a campaign that shows no interest in causes or issues and just wants to have fun. But this year’s PR Grand Prix winner just left me thoroughly underwhelmed.

At heart (pun intended), Doordash’s Valentine’s Day “Self Love Bouquet” is an old-fashioned promotion: buy 11 of these, get one of these free. And… that’s it.

I have looked at this from every angle, trying to figure out what the judges liked so much, and I am at a loss. The only thing I can come up with is that the judges thought that making the freebie a sex toy was somehow edgy. But surely it has been decades since sex toys were taboo or since there was any stigma around the topic of female “self-love.” Sex toys have been a staple of female stand-up for decades and on primetime network sitcoms for years. You can buy them in Wal-Mart, where the Rose is on their list of “top-rated adult toys” (I looked it up so you don’t have to). It’s hard to be any more mainstream than that.

Was this idea “earned at the core” (an oft-heard phrase among PR people in these parts)? Not really, It’s a promotion that generated some media coverage. Did it start a conversation? Not really. It maybe inserted (again, no pun intended) Doordash into the conversation about feminine masturbation for a few days, but to what end? Is that really a strategic priority for a food delivery service?

5. Fighting to Remember — Zikaron BaSalon and McCann

In truth the next three campaigns could be equal in third place — I liked them all a lot — but that seemed like a copout, so I’ve ranked them anyway.

Research showing that half of American Gen Zs don’t know that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust is shocking — the fact that 25% of Dutch Gen Zs think the Holocaust is a myth that never happened is even more so. Even among Israeli Gen Zs, 38% have never met a Holocaust survivor and think the topic is boring.

If those who don’t remember history are indeed doomed to repeat it, keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive is critically important, and that’s what led Zikaron BaSalon and McCann to create a campaign that would bring survivors’ recollections of the Holocaust to a place where Gen Z live, including the world of gaming.

Survivors talked with gaming influencers on National Holocaust Memorial Day, providing context to popular video games with a World War II setting, while the gamers played and broadcast live to their 3.5 million followers — a strategically smart and creative way to get the message through to a hard-to-reach audience.

As always with non-profit work, the importance of the message can sometimes be more affecting than the campaign itself is effective, but this one was pretty close to perfect.

4. Runner 321 — adidas with FCB Toronto

There has been more and more focus in neurodiversity in the workplace over the past few years, but relatively few public relations campaigns have tackled the issue in a high-profile way, so the “Runner 321” effort, from adidas with FCB Toronto, stood out among the plethora of cause-related, issues driven work in this year’s Lions competition.

The “321” in the title of the campaign signifies the Trisomy 21 chromosome, believed to be responsible for Down Syndrome, and adidas worked with a Down Syndrome runner to increase representation in running, “the world’s most accessible sport.” Race organizers around the world were urged to set aside the number 321 for an athlete with Down Syndrome.

It sparked a massive online movement, and the world’s six largest marathons — many of them sponsored by Adidas competitors — announced that they would hold the number for a neurodivergent athlete. Much favorable media coverage ensued. What set this effort apart, though, was the lasting impact it will have in years to come.

3. Apologize the Rainbow — Mars Wrigley’s Skittles brand with DDB Chicago (PR support from Weber Shandwick)

Okay, it would be stretching the definition a little to describe this campaign as crisis management, but there is no doubt that when Skittles made the decision to change its green skittles from lime flavor to green apple, a lot of the brand’s biggest fans were less than overjoyed. In fact, 130,000 of them were less than overjoyed — which led the Mars Wrigley brand to a rethink, nine years later.

To apologize, the company held a live press conference on Twitch, during which an admirably straight-faced spokesperson acknowledged the brand’s error, reading out some of the more extreme complaints (“green skittles are the physical manifestation of sadness”) and apologizing to each of the complainants in turn. The company then took its apology tour to Twitter, a billboard in Times Square and a post that included the names of every single person who complained. Oh, and all of those people received a free pack of skittles (with lime flavored green).

Tonally perfect, the press conference earned 5 million viewing minutes on Twitch and generated a 1000% increase in searches for lime Skittles. Sales were up 21%.

This was just an elegant solution to a real business issue, delivered with the right combination of contrition and humor, and delivering measurable sales impact. A worthy Gold Lion.

2. Where to Settle — Mastercard with McCann

Historically, during catastrophe, companies have drawn on their resources to help out. In the past, that meant water companies shipping bottles to disaster zones. But in the modern era, companies have different strengths that they can draw on. In the case of credit card company Mastercard, that means a vast trove of data that could help Ukrainian refugees find places to settle in Poland, which opened its borders to more of them than any other country.

The “Where To Settle” platform enabled users to check the cost of living and income opportunities in selected cities and towns across the country, and later expanded to include information about current job and apartment rental offers in those locations. It also partnered with local officials, many of whom were keen to showcase the benefits their towns had to offer.

The campaign was a perfect fit for Mastercard’s positioning, which in recent years has focused on economic inclusion. It showcased the company’s sophisticated data and analytics technologies. And the company was also able to make the case that the flood of immigrants would boost Poland’s GDP. All in all, high marks for lasting social impact.

1. The Postponed Day — LALCEC with Grey Argentina

In Argentina, research shows that 70% of women postpone their mammograms repeatedly, an insight which led Liga Argentina de Lucha Contra el Cáncer (LALCEC) and 30 other NGOs to create “The Postponed Day,” which delayed World Breast Cancer Day day after day for two weeks — with each delay providing an opportunity to talk about the importance of screening.

Like “Home,” this campaign won two Gold Lions. I’m not sure how it missed out on the Grand Prix in a jury room where “earned at the core” was apparently a major consideration, because this was unarguably a PR idea that worked across multiple channels over a period of two weeks to deliver a consistent message with significant societal impact.

In addition to the massive media coverage (260% more than in previous years) and the social media conversations, private health providers in Argentina offered free screenings for the duration of the campaign, ensuring that the effort had real-world impact (a 300% increase in mammograms over previous years).

For me, this was the best campaign among this year’s winners.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/ceo-roundtable-we-don-t-have-to-compromise-integrity-of-pr-to-be-creative https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/ceo-roundtable-we-don-t-have-to-compromise-integrity-of-pr-to-be-creative pholmes@provokemedia.com Premium ContentWeber ShandwickW CommunicationsRoundtablesOmnicom Public Relations GroupNewsMSLLongreadsKetchumEventsEdelmanCreativityCannes LionsCannes 2023CannesBCWAnalysis CEO Roundtable: “We Don’t Have To Compromise Integrity Of PR To Be Creative” An upbeat panel of PR agency CEOs found creative inspiration and lessons to be learned at this year’s Festival of Creativity, even if PR agencies aren’t taking home all the Lions. Mon, 26 Jun 2023 10:46:30 Z 2023-07-03T11:27:31Z On the morning after the winners of the PR Lions were announced at the Palais des Festivals in Cannes, PRovoke Media sat down at the beach with eight PR agency chief executives for a wide-ranging discussion about this year’s Festival of Creativity, elevating the role of creativity in our discipline, and what we can learn from the work on display in the south of France. In attendance were:

  • AnnaMaria DeSalva, CEO of Hill+Knowlton Strategies
  • Mike Doyle, CEO of Ketchum
  • Richard Edelman, CEO of Edelman
  • Chris Foster, CEO of Omnicom Public Relations Group
  • Rebecca Grant, UK CEO for BCW
  • Paul Holmes, founder of PRovoke Media
  • Susan Howe, president of Weber Shandwick
  • Warren Johnson, founder of W Communications
  • Diana Littman, CEO of MSL US
  • Arun Sudhaman, CEO of PRovoke Media

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Paul Holmes: I don’t want to start by talking about the lack of success of public relations firms in the PR Lions, because that seems to be the story every year. So can anyone suggest a more optimistic narrative?

Richard Edelman: I’d say stop looking at the PR category exclusively. Edelman has 29 shortlists. And we already have a gold, two silvers, and a bronze. I mean, we need to spread our wings into other categories because the other guys have figured out our category, and they can jimmy the results. So we need to game the thing and go for other categories. We got two awards for effectiveness. I just think we have to be clever.

Warren Johnson: I think a great starting point we have is that every single winning entry across the board, the output is measured in PR terms. So given the fact that the benchmark success is PR, I think we've got a pretty good starting point to capitalize on.

Chris Foster: I think we get lost in the results, in terms of who wins what. I mean, it's a creative festival, and it's to celebrate the work. And I think we need to lean into the work. I think, to Richard's point, I do agree, branching outside of PR is smart. And, you know, we've all been judges. And you know how you feel when you see an award-winning submission and the creative is spectacular. It makes you feel great. Focus on the work and the results will come. And I think that's where I feel like we're getting lost as an industry.

RE: One other thing, Paul, is we started to enter things in other competitions leading up to Cannes. That helps because if you've won Effie or whatever, then you can come in with some street cred. We're not competing the way the other guys are competing. You don’t just come here and win.

Susan Howe: I refuse to lament the results because I think our work, our collective work, is making an impact for our clients and society. I come to Cannes every year to learn and there's a lot to be learned, but I also think a lot as an industry we should celebrate.

Diana Littman: Let me ask everyone a question. How many clients do you have that give you a brief to win at Cannes? That's a huge difference with other industries. How many clients do you go and say do you want to win a Cannes Lion. Because if a client wants to win at Cannes it's very obvious and you create a Cannes brief. Every other industry does that, so our starting point is in the wrong place.

PH: I would say our starting point is in the right place. But the right place for our clients, not necessarily for Cannes.

AnnaMaria DeSalva: To pick up on Diana's point, I've spent more than half my career as a client. And as a client, you're focused on other things, right? Like, you want powerful, creative ideas, but you're really focused on value creation, it's about solving important business problems and you're not necessarily thinking that Cannes is my destination.

We were trying to reflect, a few of us at dinner last night, on what could or should be different and it just feels as though, you know, the awards programs that have come out of our industry in many respects are more comprehensive. You know, they consider, I think, the total end-to-end strategy and impact in a different way. But Cannes is all about creative excellence and about the creative ideas and the power of the creative ideas.

Mike Doyle: I actually think last night's Grand Prix winner, with respect to the good people who celebrated it, it struck me as an example of a checklist. I think that's the risk of focusing first on get me a Lion because then it becomes “okay what's the sort of bold provocation that will cause a reaction”. But forget last night's award. My concern is that it starts to then look like, “okay, well what's this year's thing going to be?”

CF: I think we're being precious about our industry. There's a formula for winning a Lion. And if you want to win a Lion, then go win a Lion. It doesn't necessarily interfere with the integrity of the work we do as practitioners. Our work is diverse and it is precise and it's intentional. It can also be spectacular and creative. The point is, we can do this great work and do it at a high level of creativity.

Arun Sudhaman: Last year when we had this conversation I thought it was really interesting because everyone made similar points and they sort of said it's Cannes and in a way it's a little bit of a sideshow because the work we're doing is creating value and especially during the pandemic we all saw the power and effectiveness of PR. But the problem is, is it creating this perception that PR industry and PR agencies are not creative and are not able to lead in terms of idea development on behalf of clients? And is that a problem for the industry?

WJ: I think so. I think a lot of the creatives in the industry are not programmed to go out and win awards, the same way they are in the ad industry. We have a blend of creatives, some of whom are PR creatives, some of whom are cultural creatives, but neither of those things are like Cannes-winning, ad agency creatives. I think the makeup of our creative department might need to change if we're going to really win here, because they're like hardwired in their DNA to win, and to focus on that and be obsessive about it.

ADS: Isn't it a tremendous investment though? I mean I think some of the really big creative networks can show up at Cannes with tremendous resources, you know, and show up well in multiple categories, take a big idea and have customized entries across an array of categories and high production values. It's a different level of investment.

PH: But to Arun's point, isn’t being the lead creative on a winning campaign what really matters? Clients pay attention to that. And if the people who are winning as lead creative continue to be advertising agencies, there is nothing to motivate clients to go to PR firms and ask them to come up with a great big creative platform idea for the brand? And so they will continue to go to ad agencies and ad agencies will continue to get the credit as lead creative, and it will just perpetuate itself?

RE: But Paul, I think we're at the point still where we have to, as PR, go to clients with creative directly and say, you should do this. We're not going to get a brief necessarily. The briefs will go to the ad agencies. So we just have to be aggressive in presenting ideas of our own.

MD: We have had some success in this in allowing creatives some time, some resources, to actually not even think about the brief, but actually go to the client with an idea. We got some love on the stage yesterday from our PepsiCo and Frito-Lay clients for Cracker Jill. That was not an answer to a brief. That was actually an amazing creative hit.

SH: And most of the time that happens because we have a trusted partnership built on context, relationship, strategic, deep thinking along the way with them, and then the door is wide open to welcome ideas.

MD: It also comes down to, who's the client? Many of us are working with the chief communications officer, and not the CMO, and that’s a different emphasis in terms of creativity, and in terms of budget. I think some of it is, who's actually funding and helping us approve our creative ideas. We have to come with the idea, but we've got to think differently about who's on the inside, on the client side, that's actually endorsing it, supporting it, funding it.

SH: I've never seen a time when the CCO and the CMO have to be closer aligned than they are today, and so I think that gives us both opportunity and access to change what we do.

Rebecca Grant: I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with being credited with a supporting role. I think clients want their teams to be collaborative. So I don't think we should dismiss a name check even if it's not the lead creative idea. I do still think it counts.

WJ: I agree 100%. We picked up six for Unilever and it was all as a sort of best supporting role and our clients are just sending me gushing emails. I have no problem with that at all. It's an advertising festival. I'm not an ad agency. If we can play a role in delivering, being the final amplification, touch paper that actually turns a great idea into an amazing idea, then I'm fine with that. We're not going to beat ad agencies out of here. So I think playing a role in the integration piece is really critical. There's no shame in it at all.

DL: I like integration. I obviously like integration, considering where I work.

PH: I like integration too. I just think we should be leading it. At the risk of being precious.

RG: If the ad agencies are beating us, it’s on the quality of the entry rather than the quality of the work that we're delivering. I think we're unsung heroes. We know that ad agencies treat the award entry like a campaign.

CF: Here's an opportunity that I think will represent a significant change in the way we lean into creative. It's influencer. We're all getting more involved in working with influencers as creatives, as channels, as audiences, and the work we've started to do, we have the opportunity to create the campaign. I think that's starting to happen, but I do think we get ourselves twisted on the brief that the client's asking for and what we give them.

We're all here because obviously Cannes is important. So we're going to strive for award-winning Cannes work. It doesn't mean we're not going to do good issues and corporate reputation strategy work, or it's not going to blend and meet in the middle. We don't have to compromise the integrity of what we do and the seriousness of public relations in order to be creative and have fun.

PH: I think that’s a good note on which to end the industry navel-gazing. What else has struck you about Cannes this year?

SH: I actually feel that compared to last year, the work that has been shortlisted, the mood has lifted and there are stories that are being told that are lighter. I think there's a lot this year where the value is being delivered through humor.

ADS: I think so much of the value of coming to Cannes is to build and strengthen our creative muscle, moving our creatives and the creative process upstream and putting it more at the center of all the types of strategy that we deliver to clients. When I think about my work as a client, some of the most important, critical work I did had that creative element because it had to do with corporate brand and how to really build a corporate brand through a time of challenge and transformation.

It was the creatives working at my brand agency that brought me that thinking. And then we moved it through the other disciplines, including financial communications and the non-commercial stakeholders that were important to the company. So I think that a wonderful outcome of time spent at Cannes is to really think about the role of creativity in business transformation and how to be better at it, how to be stronger at it.

PH: I have been scornful in the past of Cannes as a learning experience. I feel like most of the content in the Palais is self-indulgent.

DL: Every main stage speech seems to be a sales presentation wrapped in something else.

CF: The main stage has become a little bit skewed towards celebrity. But I do get lost in the work in the basement of the Palais. I could go down there and it can easily be three hours in with the headphones just trying to see it and understand it. I do find that to be inspirational. Wherever the inspiration comes from, whether it's an ad agency, creative, media, I don't really care. I just love the work. So to see the work helps me see where we're not reflected in the work, where my clients are not reflected, where we are, how I may need to think differently and try to inspire our agencies.

SH: I would quote our global creative officer Tom Beckman, who always says you should be terrified of other people's work and you should be studying it to learn and find opportunities. So I've been coming with Tom Beckman for a long time and that is one thing we say to our people.

CF: I think that comes back to Richard’s point about spending more time in the other categories. We do too much navel-gazing on our own entries. You know, it's fascinating to walk through the commercial categories…

DL: And the data categories.

SH: I think B2B is an area to watch. We have one entry for Husqvarna, the whole purpose was to get dealers to look at a lawnmower robot company. It’s another area where creativity is coming through.

RE: But I disagree with Paul about the Palais. I saw a presentation by BBDO and Mars about Dove Bars and the evolution of the Dove Girl and how women are treated in China and how western features are valued. I haven't been to China for three years because of Covid but this was an important picture for me.

I think we have to spend more time over there. It's like going to class a bit as opposed to going to parties and whatever. But it’s important to learn what they do better so we can be better.

ADS: The other powerful experience for me this week was we brought 18 creatives here from all around the world. I've met with them a couple of times, and I've asked them to share with me their learnings and insights. And when you try to look at this experience through the eyes and through the lens of young, up-and-coming, emerging, creative talent, you get a whole other dimension of insight and observation. And that's been invaluable for me. It makes me more connected to that really important cohort in our company.

RE: I also think in terms of the conversation, Cannes is moving towards us and what we do. The issues of brands and politics, Target, and so on, and the criticisms of ESG because of the anti-woke backlash. That's what we do. So, I don't know, I take it differently than you guys. Everybody's asking about our opinions. Clients are asking our opinions.

PH: There wasn’t a lot of that on the main stage, though. Those are conversations that are taking place in the background?

RE: But what happens between us and the clients is what matters.

CF: I don't think that work sort of lends itself always to main stage creative, other than when you get a great campaign. I'm thinking about the MasterCard “True Name,” that was an example of a big societal issue, a heavy moment in time, an organization that took a risk and was not afraid to promote it and talk about it. But we don't get those often.

I do think we can be more assertive in trying to put ideas in front of clients. Not necessarily because we want to win an award. Winning an award would be great but I think we should be bolder in presenting creative ideas. And we have to find a way to allow our ECDs to survive and thrive in agencies. And I haven't found the magic formula yet across all of the OPRG companies, but we're trying.

AS: What's the issue?

CF: The account leads are rarely creative directors. They tend to be your traditional PR practitioners and with a love and respect for the trade. And they don't always lead with the creative mindset. They're also often very resistant to the process, right? Before we even land on an idea, we have to do planning, we have to do strategy, and we get impatient as practitioners with that process where we have to sit around and wait for a creative team to come back and give us ideas. That's where we're trying to experiment at OPRG to bring the account people and the creative process closer together.

WJ: Things have changed in recent years as we've moved toward the ad agency model. I don't think it works. Most people in our profession started out being relatively creative, not expert, but creative enough to be able to sell an idea in a room quickly. I think we're losing that and I'm trying to get that back into my business. And I don't think our creative departments are good enough, well-funded enough. We don't have the right sophistication of the art director and copywriter model.

RG: I think we need to be careful about the talent coming into the industry too because if I look back at when I first got into PR and advertising, it was because PR offered the ability to be creative and a jack of all trades. As we've grown up and we've got more specialists and we've got departments and we've grown, I think we have to be careful not to lose that creative culture.

SH: If everyone on the team knows the client, supports the client, understands the client, that is what leads to great creative.

WJ: But it can be creative kryptonite though, if you say to someone, right, here's a creative, then you're like, well I don't do creative and that's a huge problem in the industry.

DL: I’m where I am because I'm good at all sorts of things. I've come up with some excellent creative ideas that should have been totally award-winning that got executed poorly. This is in previous roles, of course.

PH: But the thing that's changed in our business more than anything else… I focus on the things that don't change, right? So, diversity hasn't changed, measurement hasn't changed, but what has changed is when I started writing about public relations, you were all generalists. The people I knew then did pretty much everything: they came up with the ideas, they pitched the reporters, they did everything. Now we have all these people who are animators or narrators and if you put them in front of a reporter they'd have no idea how to behave. It's increased the degree of complexity for people in your role exponentially. The matrix is so much more complex.

SH: We need more specialists, right? We can't survive without them. But at the same time it does take away some of what Rebecca was saying about how everybody used to have the opportunity to be creative to contribute ideas.

DL: We do have to be integrated. I do think there are still things that everybody needs to know. You need to understand the anatomy of earned. You need to understand data and insights.

MD: But does the tension still exist in your agencies, between the account directors and creatives?

DL: Are the creatives at my agency, “we're going to go into a room, we'll see you in two weeks, and that's that?” No. They are very much “we build together, we want to bring people in from the beginning.”

SH: The currency inside the agency is solving for the client. We're human, so yes there's tension between all kinds of groups, but the currency is solving for the client. The other thing Tom Beckman has taught me is to take someone to the client meeting with you who's completely a different thinker than you are, because you're going to come up with a better answer that way.

AS: We do the Creativity in PR survey and it's a question we ask. Is creativity purely the job of your creative department? Can ideas come from everywhere? And actually what we found is there is a feeling that if you're not in the creative department, you're not necessarily as respected for your ideas.

PH: Any other random observations from this year?

ADS: It was interesting to me that the jury presidents at the press conference said they were all surprised that there wasn't more AI in the work. It's a little too soon for AI in the work maybe, but AI has been everywhere in terms of the discussion, the exploration, the understanding, and next year we're going to see more. And to me, that's extremely exciting. The time that I've spent here this week has helped me evolve and refine my thinking about generative AI and its role and the opportunity. And we're all going to go home, I think, with a more practical but urgent focus on the role it's going to play in our industry.

SH: One thing I noticed at the festival that I want to just highlight that I'm excited about is just the insights seem to be for the real world versus some fake made-up world and I do think that there are a lot more campaigns around the table around the Palais basement that are really making a difference as a result.

I had nothing to do with it, but I totally admire the Mastercard “Where to Settle” campaign that won a Gold Lion. Amazing work.

ADS: I loved “Fighting to Remember,” the Gold Lion campaign about the Holocaust and gamers.

I do feel there is a timelessness to some of the patterns we see. I was a 20-year-old intern at Ogilvy, I won't tell you how many years ago, and we all learned that you need great insights that lead to powerful ideas that are culturally relevant and that have either really important business or cultural impact. That's been true for the ages. I've heard other people say that, wow, this year the insights are so strong and they're so clear. Is that really different? Hasn't that always been the case? That's where great work flows from.

MD: I think it's going to be really interesting, a year from now, when you list out the number of terrifying and horrific societal issues that we are all both facing as practitioners and as humans. I hope the work a year from now reflects insights and creativity that are actually addressing those problems because our clients have the resources, the scale, and the influence to do something about it.

PH: And the will?

MD: Let's hope we have the will and the courage. I am optimistic because at our core, often, our best work is done quietly behind the scenes and these are the questions we are being asked behind the scenes. The work that we do in the next 12 months might not win a Cannes Lion, but it sure as hell is going to win for the reputations of the clients we represent.

PH: Thanks, everybody. Good discussion.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/2023-agency-rankings-global-pr-industry-momentum-continues-with-9-growth https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/2023-agency-rankings-global-pr-industry-momentum-continues-with-9-growth arun@provokemedia.com TrendsResearchNewsLongreadsGlobal Top 250Global PR Agency Rankings 2023 Agency Rankings: Global PR Industry Momentum Continues With 9% Growth PRovoke Media unveils its ranking of the world's top 250 PR firms, revealing another strong year for the global PR industry in 2022. Mon, 15 May 2023 09:15:20 Z 2023-05-15T09:15:20Z The global PR industry grew by 9.1% in 2022, based on PRovoke Media's definitive annual ranking of the world's top 250 PR firms, which is now live.

The Global Top 250, which provides the clearest picture available of global PR industry size and growth, is based on submissions from more than 400 PR firms across the world, along with revenue estimates for key firms that chose not to submit.

The research reveals that the Top 250 PR firms reported fee income of around $17.1bn in 2022, up 12.1% in USD terms. Our constant currency analysis reveals a Top 250 increase of 9.1%. 

The impressive performance comes after the PR industry bounced back from the worst of the Covid era, growing 11% in 2021 after declining 4% in 2020

Once again, the industry's 2022 performance was underpinned by strong returns from the Top 10 group, demonstrating that diversification not only mitigated the worst of the pandemic, but helped firms prosper, too.

And while Top 10 growth was outstripped by midsize and smaller firms, it seems safe to conclude that the past two years have seen the PR industry fulfil its potential in terms of strategic counsel, creative innovation and sector-specific expertise. The results indicate that the significant elevation of corporate communications in the C-suite has outlasted the pandemic — suggesting a permanent dividend that has made PR firms less dispensable than ever as trusted advisors. 

In particular, events of the past three years — spanning such areas as geopolitics, diversity and inclusion, ESG, employee engagement, health and wellness and digital transformation — have reinforced and elevated the critical value of empathetic public relations across multiple stakeholder groups, a state of affairs that appears to have played to the industry's strengths.  

Accordingly, the vast majority of PR firms recorded healthy growth in 2022, even if specific types of firms and geographic regions remained favoured. Accounting for the numerous firms that reported outside of the Top 250, along with the vast number of smaller firms that do not provide revenue figures, PRovoke Media estimates the size of the global PR agency industry at $20bn, up from $18bn in 2021, and $15.8bn in 2020.

Meanwhile, the 'floor' for the Top 250 rises to record levels of $6.5m. 

“Last year was a strange one for the industry," said PRovoke Media founder Paul Holmes. "Many firms seemed to spend the year waiting for the inflation we saw globally to tip the market into recession, and yet it never happened, and by the end of 2022 PR firms were enjoying a two-year growth spurt that recovered any revenue lost during the pandemic and added considerable new money.

"The fact that public relations is now at least a $20 billion business globally — and our estimate errs on the conservative side — means that PR is now a significant sector of the global economy. And it is growing faster than either the advertising sector or the marketing sector, a reflection perhaps of the broader range of issues and challenges that PR agencies are being called on to address in the stakeholder economy.

“The past three years have seen increased emphasis on ESG and DEI, both areas that require clear, credible communications and therefore both areas that play to the strengths of the PR sector. On the marketing front, companies are centering purpose, and again PR firms are playing a leading role, as earned-first becomes the mantra in an arena that requires trust. The need to build credibility and reputation capital has been a boost to the PR business and will continue to drive growth even if the market does slow this year."

Global Top 250 growth


The Global 250 grew 12.1% to $17.1bn in USD terms last year, compared to 15.7% growth in 2021. In constant currency terms, fee income was up 9.1%, compared to 10.6% in 2021, based on a like-for-like comparison of those firms reporting fee income for 2022 and 2021.

The Global 250 also reveals the following geographic results:

•  US PR firms account for more than half of the market ($11.4bn), up 11.4%, compared to 16% growth in 2021.

•  For all PR firms reporting in USD ($14bn), growth was 13.6%, compared to +16% in 2021.

•  UK PR firms reporting in GBP (accounting for around $1.3bn, or £1bn) were +12% (constant currency) but only +0.4% in reported terms (USD), thanks to the impact of a stronger US dollar and weaker pound sterling.

•  PR firms reporting in Euros ($1.2bn) led the market with 28% constant currency growth, or +20% (USD), compared to 17% constant currency growth in 2021.

•  German PR firms ($465m) were up 9% (constant currency) or +2.6% (USD), following a 6% constant currency increase a year earlier.

•  Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa PR firms ($1.8bn) were up 4% (constant currency) or +14% (USD), compared to 11% (constant currency) growth in 2021.

“Currency fluctuations played an outsized role in the rankings this year, but it is clear that firms reporting in Euros outperformed the market," said Holmes. "This group included some newly acquisitive European businesses, but even so it’s an indication that continental Europe is no longer being outpaced by the English-speaking markets.
 
“If any market has been slow to recover from the impact of the pandemic, it’s Asia, which has its own economic and geopolitical challenges to overcome."

The midsize engine

The world's Top 10 firms reported fee income of $6.5bn, up 12% on 2021 ($6bn). Growth was led by number one firm Edelman, which became the world's first $1 billion PR firm in 2022, when it grew by 9.6%. A further five firms matched Edelman's growth pace, led by Japan's Vector (+69%), Real Chemistry (+17%), FleishmanHillard (+10%), Ketchum (+9%), and MSL (+10%).

It is also worth noting that four of the top 10 firms are now independently owned, the highest ever proportion, and yet another reflection of how independent PR firms have outgrown their publicly-held peers over the past decade. 

Midsize PR firms — defined for these purposes as those within $50m to $250m — consolidated their position as the industry's growth engine, expanding by 17.8% (constant currency) in 2022 to $4.8bn, after growth of 15.4% in 2021.

“Once again, midsize firms are the engine driving industry growth," said Holmes. "We have seen consistently over the past few years that firms specializing in a single market — whether that’s an industry sector like health or tech or a single geographic market — really do offer a flexibility that helps them respond nimbly to changes in what the market demands."

Smaller firms ($15m to $50m) were up just 4.5% in constant currency terms.

Independents vs public

After outstripping their publicly-held peers for the first time in 2021, it was another watershed moment for independent PR firms in 2022, as they cracked the $10bn barrier for the first time after registering 16.6% constant currency growth.

At just over $10bn, the gap between independent and publicly-held firms continues to grow, with independents now accounting for more than 60% of the total market. 

Publicly-owned PR firms reported fee income of $7.5bn, an increase of 4%. Notably, PR operations owned by the Big 4 holding groups grew by 8.4% to $5.5bn, accounting for less than 28% of the overall global PR market.

“There are three issues that impact the ability of the big, publicly-traded firms to keep pace with the market as a whole," explained Holmes. "The first is that it’s much more difficult for a $400 million firm to grow by 15% than it is for a $40 million firm. The second is that it’s also more difficult for a global behemoth to respond nimbly and quickly in a fast-changing market. And the third is that independent firms are now more active in the M&A space than their publicly-traded counterparts, as firms looking to be acquired prefer the perceived freedom of a midsize holding company or a private equity investor to the one-size-fits-all approach of the traditional behemoths."

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/anheuser-busch-s-'responsibility-to-america'-is-unclear https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/anheuser-busch-s-'responsibility-to-america'-is-unclear pholmes@provokemedia.com Paul HolmesPremium ContentNewsLongreadsDiversity & InclusionCrisisBrendan WhitworthBoycottsAnheuser-BuschAnalysis Anheuser-Busch’s 'Responsibility to America' Is… Unclear If you don’t have any values — or if you are willing to run away from them the moment they are challenged — maybe purpose-driven marketing is not for you. Mon, 17 Apr 2023 06:37:15 Z 2023-04-17T08:06:10Z We live in an age of hyperbole, particularly in the political realm. Everything is the biggest or the first or the best — or the worst. So I want to start by going on record and saying that — unlike some of my public relations friends — I don’t believe the statement issued late on Friday by Brendan Whitworth, the chief executive of Anheuser-Busch, is “the worst statement in the history of PR.”

It is, however, very bad. Really, very, horribly bad.

I asked PR people on Twitter what they thought the statement was trying to accomplish. “A lot of words saying nothing at all,” said one. Another added: “A giant ball of nothing. It doesn’t express anything approaching support of anything, except for himself.” The consensus: “A statement that says nothing of substance and leaves everyone dissatisfied. They would have been better off just staying quiet.”

It’s worth taking a moment to consider the context in which the statement is issued. Because reading it without knowing the context, you’d never know what prompted it, of what its point is. Even with the context, the latter question remains unanswerable: there’s no discernible strategy, no definitive stand is taken, nothing of any relevance or significance is said.

The context: In early April, Bud Light sent some beer to an influencer called Dylan Mulvaney, as part of a promotion that allowed people to win money for posting videos of themselves with cans of Bud Light. Mulvaney posted a video of herself dressed like Holly Golightly from Breakfast at Tiffany’s, celebrating her first year as a woman. One of the cans in the video featured her image.

What happened next was that people (some people, you can guess which people) lost their minds. The proximity of an iconic American brand to a trans woman prompted a performative paroxysm of outrage. A washed up musician posted a video of himself shooting cans of the beer, a not particularly subtle message about what he would like to do to trans people if it the woke mob wouldn’t call it, you know, murder. An elderly  country music star said he didn’t want the brand to be available in his presence any more.

It's worth noting several things here.

First, there was nothing particularly unique or groundbreaking about this campaign, for Anheuser-Busch or the beer industry more broadly. AB has benefited over the years from the longstanding feud between Coors and the gay community, which dates back to the 80s, when Joe Coors was a vocal supporter of right-wing causes and an outspoken foe of LGBTQ Americans. Since then, both companies have supported pride events around the country to show their solidarity with the gay community and are considered among the best places to work for LGBTQ employees (or were, until this weekend).

Second, Anheuser-Busch (or rather parent company AB InBev) has a pretty clear statement about its commitment to diversity, equality and inclusion on its website: “Our purpose is to create a future with more cheers. To achieve this, our company must be an inclusive and diverse workplace. Here, we all feel we belong whatever our personal characteristics or social identities, such as race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, abilities, socioeconomic status, religion and others. Our greatest strength is our people, and we support every individual to excel.” (The emphasis, obviously, is mine.)

Third, the attacks on AB, while loud (especially on social media platforms like Twitter) were far from broad-based. Joe Rogan, often hailed as an ally of right-wing causes, called the boycott of Bud Light “goofy” and asked: “Why, if something is good, do you give a fuck who's got it?" Howard Stern said he was “dumbfounded” and asked, “Why do you care so much?” Country music star (and Navy veteran) Zach Bryan weighed in: “I just think insulting transgender people is completely wrong because we live in a country where we can all just be who we want to be.”

Fourth, right-wing boycotts tend to go nowhere. In the past couple of months, the far right has been pissed at M&Ms and Hersheys for similarly absurd reasons — and yet America continues to consume chocolate. Absent internal data, there is no reason to believe AB is suffering in any way from the boycott: the share price is up over the past month, and has been steady over the past few days. Those boycotting the company had to buy the beer before they posted video of themselves shooting at it, and then appeared to replace it with other AB products. If there was a sales impact, there’s no reason to believe it would be sustained after the performative phase of the protest loses steam.

And fifth, the majority of Americans are not hate-filled bigots — at least according to a survey conducted last year by the Pew Research Center, which suggests that acceptance of trans people continues to increase. About two-thirds of Americans (64%) told Pew that they would favor or strongly favor laws or policies protecting trans people from discrimination in jobs, housing and public spaces — only 10% say they oppose or strongly oppose such laws.

(It is worth pausing for a moment to consider how this whole issue might have played out had the influencer in question been Black, rather than trans, and then to wonder whether trans people are the ones being targeted in this way is precisely because they are the most vulnerable people available for hate at this point in time.)

Given all of that context, especially given his company’s supposed commitment to DE&I, it’s hard to see why this was such a difficult issue for Whitworth to address in a candid and clear way. And yet apparently it was. Painfully difficult. How else to explain the awkward statement that came out late on Friday (at a time when PR people traditionally release statements they don’t want anyone to see).

Here is the statement, with a few helpful notes:

"Our Responsibility to America"

Okay, the headline is promising. An optimist might think that Whitworth is about to reference the company’s values, its commitment to “an inclusive and diverse workforce,” including perhaps influencers retained for a specific campaign. That same optimist might anticipate a condemnation of divisive rhetoric and violent hate fantasies.

If so, an optimist would be setting herself up for massive disappointment.

“As the CEO of a company founded in America’s heartland more than 165 years ago, I am responsible for ensuring every consumer feels proud of the beer we brew.

This is not a promising start. From the first sentence, it seems clear that Whitworth is going to do everything in his power to avoid addressing the issues on everyone’s mind, except elliptically, through coded language and empty virtue signaling.

“Founded in America’s heartland” sounds like it’s supposed to remind us that Anheuser-Busch is a middle-American company, and thus to distance the company from the coasts, or the urban centers. You know, the places where people are not bigoted against the LGBTQ community.

But also, is it really the CEO’s job to ensure that “every consumer feels proud” of the beer they brew? I mean, I’m not a fan of Budweiser or Bud Light — I’m more of a Sam Adams guy. But am I “proud” of the beer they brew? Not really. I like the taste is all.

And in any case, we’re not talking about the beer here; we’re talking about the company’s values. In that context, “pride” makes more sense. Whether you’re an employee, a customer, or part of the community, you can be proud of a company’s values. Though by the time you’ve finished reading this statement, you won’t be.  

“We’re honored to be part of the fabric of this country. Anheuser-Busch employs more than 18,000 people and our independent distributors employ an additional 47,000 valued colleagues. We have thousands of partners, millions of fans and a proud history supporting our communities, military, first responders, sports fans and hard-working Americans everywhere.

The “fabric of this country” stuff sounds like the “America’s heartland” reference in the opening paragraph. It’s another (not very) coded way of saying, “Hey, we’re a traditional company, we support traditional things, and certainly not those freaky-deaky people who don’t conform to traditional gender norms.” There might as well be a winky emoji.

And it gets worse. The communities AB supports are “military, first responders, sports fans, and hard-working Americans.” Nothing particularly subtle about that, right? The communities AB supports are the communities conservatives claim to revere. The implication, by omission, is that AB’s support certainly does not extend to the groups that blue America cares about: LGBTQ people, or anyone else marginalized or victimized or regarded as being “outside the mainstream,” who don’t merit a mention.

So far, it’s all a loud dog-whistle for conservative consumers.

“We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people.”

This gets us to the heart of the matter, because the only reason AB is part of a “discussion that divides people” is that it had the temerity to acknowledge the existence of a trans person at a time when the demonization of trans people has become an important signifier for Christian nationalists. The company did not promote the trans agenda (whatever that is). It did not take sides in any kind of debate or advocate for any controversial position.

It merely failed to exclude and erase trans people from its marketing. This is only “divisive” in the sense that a tiny minority has become adept at manufacturing division on the thinnest of pretexts in order to promote its own agenda.

“We are in the business of bringing people together over a beer.”

In which case, why are we even having this discussion?

Surely, acknowledging the existence of a community is a necessary part of “bringing people together.” That’s all you did. Your marketing campaign sought to bring people together, by being inclusive. So what is the apologetic tone all about?

“My time serving this country taught me the importance of accountability and the values upon which America was founded: freedom, hard work and respect for one another.”

And here we go completely off the rails.

First of all, this is where we realize that the statement is not about trans rights, it’s not about right-wing criticism of the company, it’s not about anything except Brendan Whitworth, and specifically, the fact that he wants you to know that he’s a swell guy. He served his country, he understands “the importance of accountability.”

But he’s a swell guy who is desperate not to have anybody mad at him. And he’s equally desperate not to take sides in the conflict between LGBTQ people and those who hate them. So he prevaricates, with a few words that are supposed to signal, I guess, tolerance?

After all the soft signals to conservative bigots in the first few paragraphs, this is a weak, half-hearted pivot, the point at which he wants people to know he understands “the values upon which America was founded.”

He talks about “freedom,” which surely includes the right to exist, the right to be who you are, the right to express yourself (in any way that doesn’t cause harm to others). And presumably “respect for one another” means not directing hate, abuse and violent rhetoric at a group of people simply because they exist and are different from you.

But if you really do believe in “accountability and the values upon which America was founded” why is this statement not a whole-hearted defense of your own marketing campaign, and of the trans community? Why is it not a scathing condemnation of those who are debasing those values and the national discourse?

A cynic might think this was an attempt to have it both ways. “We value freedom and respect. But we value the freedom to direct hate and prejudice at others just as much.”

“As CEO of Anheuser-Busch, I am focused on building and protecting our remarkable history and heritage. I care deeply about this country, this company, our brands and our partners. I spend much of my time traveling across America, listening to and learning from our customers, distributors and others.”

This is, for the most part, empty pablum. “I care deeply” rings especially hollow in the context of everything that came before: “I care about this country, but not deeply enough that I feel bold enough to take a side in a battle between a historically marginalized and persecuted community and a group of right-wing zealots who are trying to stir up violence against that community.”

“Moving forward, I will continue to work tirelessly to bring great beers to consumers across our nation.”

What does this even mean? “We’re going to continue to make beer” is not any kind of revelation. And it conspicuously fails to answer any of the questions people across the country — left or right — have been asking over the past week.

Will it satisfy the bigots? The statement is probably sufficiently repentant that some of them will claim that they persuaded a giant American corporation to back down on its previously stated commitment to diversity and equity. But I suspect most of AB’s critics will require more than this: they won’t settle for anything less than a promise that the company will erase trans people from its marketing forever.

Meanwhile, it will almost certainly infuriate the LGBTQ community and its allies. They are smart enough to read between the lines, to understand what all that “heartland” and “fabric of the community” language is really about. They will recognize that AB is bending over backwards to appease the hate-filled homophobes.

Dave Infante, a beer columnist for VinePair and the publisher of the drinks newsletter Fingers gets this exactly right: “Not only does this statement look like the brewer is walking back its stated DEI commitments (which will anger progressive customers and staff), but it’s not going to cool any heads on the right,” he told Vox. “I honestly think this was worse than saying nothing.

“They just prolonged the news cycle another few days, because now their Republican antagonists in the media, Congress, and every statehouse in the country have more to work with.”

Will there now be a counter-boycott from the LGBTQ community and its allies? I'd be shocked if there isn't some kind of reaction, because anyone capable of reading between the lines will see this statement for what it is: an apology for the initial campaign and a walking back of the company's DE&I commitment. 

In any event, I’d like to suggest three important lessons that communicators — and other CEOs who find themselves under fire in this way — can take away from this misbegotten episode:

One: If your company doesn’t have any real values, or if you are willing to walk away from those values the instant someone criticizes you, perhaps purpose-driven branding is not for you. In this instance, there wasn’t even much “purpose” to begin with. The campaign had elements of inclusion is all. It wasn’t edgy. It didn’t stake out any bold position. It didn’t call for action. It simply acknowledged the existence of trans people, which is… reality. And yet Whitworth is backing away from it as fast as his legs will carry him. It would have been better to stick to horses.

Two: If you plan to issue a statement that is likely to get widespread attention, maybe sit down with a professional communicator. I refuse to believe that this statement was crafted in conjunction with, or even approved for release by, an experienced public relations professional. It is impossible to discern what the statement’s purpose was. There’s no apparent strategy. It’s just six paragraphs of empty phrases and hidden messages. It reads like something written by someone with nothing to say because someone told him saying something was better than saying nothing. (that someone was wrong. So wrong.)

And three: If you are going to issue a statement on something that has created controversy, think about all your stakeholders. The message in this statement is clearly directed at consumers, but the people Whitworth really needs to worry about are AB employees. You’ve been telling them you care about diversity. You’ve been bragging about your inclusive workplace. And yet here you are, showing clear contempt for one of the groups you claim you want to include. If I was any kind of AB employee, I would be deeply ashamed of my company this weekend. If I was an employee who identifies with any kind of marginalized community, I’d be horrified. Or terrified.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/on-twitter-marketers-need-to-draw-a-line-in-the-sand https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/on-twitter-marketers-need-to-draw-a-line-in-the-sand pholmes@provokemedia.com Premium ContentTwitterTechnologyPaul HolmesOpinionNewsLongreadsFake NewsEdelmanDisinformationAnalysis On Twitter, Marketers Need To Draw A Line In The Sand Twitter is now Truth Social without the integrity. Absent pledges that its descent into disinformation and intolerance can be reversed, marketers need to move on. Tue, 11 Apr 2023 07:20:13 Z 2023-04-17T08:47:26Z A little more than a week from now, Twitter chief executive Elon Musk will appear at the Possible conference in Miami, managed by MMA Global, an organization that brings together marketers and tech providers. The event provides what may be the last chance for marketers to influence the platform’s direction. They should make it clear that unless Musk addresses the proliferation of disinformation and hate speech unleashed in the wake of his takeover, advertising revenues will continue to decline.

To be fair, many marketers have already made it clear that their brand values are incompatible with Twitter’s direction under Musk, who has weakened moderation practices and reinstated accounts that had been banned for violating the previous management’s rules against hate speech. According to research from Pathmatics, 14 of the top 30 advertisers on Twitter stopped all advertising on the platform after Musk took over. Overall, spending by the top 30 companies fell 42% to an estimated $53.8 million for November and December combined.

But during an interview with Bloomberg in February, WPP chief executive Mark Read said that Twitter seemed "to be a lot more stable” than it had been in the early days of the Musk regime, and offered: “I think clients want to start to look at how they can come back onto Twitter.”

If that’s the case, Read and the clients he is talking to need to take a closer look at the events of the past couple of weeks, which have underscored just how unstable — in terms of content and policy, if not in terms of technology — Twitter has become. In terms of brand safety (protecting brands from association with hate speech and disinformation) there is little question that the platform is getting worse.

Twitter policy on any given day seems to be dependent on the whims and grievances of its owner, and it is clear both from his own tweets and his intervention to denigrate and punish individual Twitter users that the platform has no rules that can be relied upon from day to day; everything is subject to Musk’s adolescent level impulse control.

In short, Twitter has turned into Truth Social without the integrity — because at least the Trump-run platform is upfront and clear about its political agenda.

Making room for disinformation

In March, NPR reported that Twitter’s public relations press@twitter.com address, which has not responded to media inquiries at all since the PR department was decimated in the wake of the takeover, would now “automatically reply to journalists' inquiries with a single poop emoji,” — something confirmed by Musk himself in a tweet.

Leaving aside what this says about Musk’s view of public relations (more on that topic later) this is also a statement about his view of mainstream media. He seems intent on delegitimizing real journalism even as he amplifies misinformation and promotes conspiracy theories.

In the past week, the platform has made two decisions that ought to set alarm bells ringing. The first involved the decision to strip The New York Times — and only The New York Times — of its blue check mark, which in the past has been an indicator of “verified” status. The second involved the decision to identify NPR as “state owned media” in a blatant contradiction of Twitter’s own published policy at the time.

Both were clearly capricious choices — almost certainly by Musk himself — targeting media outlets that offended him personally, and both were clearly attempts to delegitimize legitimate media organizations. As such, both decisions further the cause of those who wish to use Twitter to promote disinformation and to ferment right-wing hate.

The New York Times fiasco was the culmination (or, more likely, not) of several weeks during which the future of the blue check mark was perhaps the most discussed topic on the platform.

Musk had first tried to sell blue check marks, which had previously denoted verification (meaning that those who displayed them were who they claimed to be, and were in some way significant, because of their qualifications or their follower numbers). The result was that check marks were bought primarily by Musk’s right wing fanboys, or by disinformation agencies prepared to pay for legitimacy they would never get on merit.

Then Musk announced that the legacy (read, legitimate) check marks would be taken away on April 1, and only paid check marks would remain. Those who bought check marks would see their posts boosted (again, regardless of accuracy or merit). Many of those with legacy check marks said they would not be paying to keep the checks, either on principle (they would not pay for creating the content Twitter needs to remain relevant) or for pragmatic reasons (they did not wish to be perceived as in any way similar to those who were buying blue check marks).

The Times was one of the first organizations to make it clear that they would not be paying — and when April 1 came around, the Times was one of the very few legacy verified accounts to lose its check mark, even though Musk did not follow through on his pledge to remove all such checks. With a handful of tweets disparaging the Times, Musk made it clear that the publication had been singled out basically for refusing to play ball.

As for NPR, Twitter added a "state-affiliated media" tag to the broadcaster’s main account on Tuesday, applying the same label to the nonprofit media company that Twitter uses to designate official state mouthpieces and propaganda outlets in countries such as Russia and China.

As the organization points out: “NPR operates independently of the US government… NPR gets less than 1% of its annual budget, on average, from federal sources.”

Twitter's own policy describes state-affiliated media as "outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content” and until Tuesday, the social media company also explained that “state-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy."

Responding to a tweet about the change, Musk posted: "Seems accurate," which would appear to imply that he approved the change, elevating his personal desire to troll above any coherent company position — precisely the kind of behavior, in other words, that ought to alarm anyone hoping that Twitter will behave responsibly or be guided by policy and principle rather than poor impulse control.

A torrent of hate

In the wake of the takeover, Musk pledged that Twitter would not become “a free for all hellscape.” But the data suggest that it has become precisely that, with dramatic increases in hate speech against almost every marginalized group — some of it coming directly from Musk’s own account.

In December, The New York Times reported on research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, the Anti-Defamation League and others, which found that before the acquisition, slurs against Black Americans showed up on the social media service an average of 1,282 times a day. After the acquisition, they jumped to 3,876 times a day. Slurs against gay men appeared on Twitter 2,506 times a day on average before the takeover, and 3,964 times a day after.

Two weeks ago, more evidence emerged that Twitter has become more and more toxic since the takeover, raising fears that it is no longer a safe place for brands to market themselves. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, for example, found that incidents of anti-Semitic speech in the app have risen sharply since Musk took over.

As reported by The Washington Post, “The study, which used machine-learning tools to identify likely antisemitic tweets, found that the average weekly number of such posts ‘more than doubled after Musk’s acquisition’ — a trend that has held in the months after Musk took over.” As an article in Social Media Today points out, this “makes some sense. Musk has overseen the reinstatement of over 60,000 Twitter accounts that had previously been banned, many for hate speech violations, and… many of these accounts have resumed their previous tweeting habits, sharing hate speech, misinformation, etc.”

Another recent report in the Post suggested that “Twitter is amplifying hate speech in its ‘For You’ timeline,” the result of an algorithm “that is supposed to show users more of what they want.” (Based on my own experience, I can say that the abundance of hate speech in the ‘For You’ tab also shows many users more of what they very much don’t want).

According to the Post’s analysis of Twitter’s recommendation algorithm, “accounts that followed ‘extremists’ — hate-promoting accounts identified in a list provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center — were subjected to a mix of other racist and incendiary speech…. In one instance, after an account created by The Post followed dozens of others labeled as extremist, Twitter inserted a quote and a portrait of Adolf Hitler — from a user the account did not follow — into its timeline.”

Just two weeks ago, in fact, Twitter confirmed that it would be relaxing its already flaccid moderation rules to allow what it calls “non-toxic slurs.” In the absence of a coherent explanation of that Orwellian formulation from the company itself, I can come up with nothing better than this, from Thom Dunn, “Unlike hate speech, which is objectively bad, these non-toxic slurs are neither hateful, nor acts of speech, but rather, umm, derogatory insults aimed at a particular group of people, I guess. Which is different, you see. Because they're non-toxic.”

Overall, the best summary of the platform’s recent activities comes from Techcrunch senior reporter Natasha Lomas: “Since Musk took over he has set about dismantling everything that made Twitter valuable — making it his mission to drive out expertise, scare away celebrities, bully reporters and — on the flip side — reward the bad actors, spammers and sycophants who thrive in the opposite environment: An information vacuum.”

Lomas expressed concern that Musk was “building a chaos machine by removing a source of valuable information from our connected world… and replacing that with a place of parody that rewards insincerity, time-wasting and the worst forms of communication in order to degrade the better half.” Her conclusion: “That our system allows wealth to be turned into a weapon to nuke things of broad societal value is one hard lesson we should take away from the wreckage.”

Marketers need to ask themselves whether this is something they want to support.

A toxic environment

“No amount of shiny Super Bowl commercials can make up for paying to place ads next to tweets by neo-Nazis and white supremacists,”said Nicole Gill, executive director of Accountable Tech, reacting to research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, released in February. “Elon Musk has made it clear that he will stop at nothing for clicks and profit — and companies that continue to play his game are only hurting their own brand and bottom line. It’s time for companies to stop funding Musk’s toxic Twitter.”

To be fair, many leading marketers already understand what Twitter has become and what it means for their brands. With the Possible conference just around the corner, a Semafor article reported on a private email thread among MMA Global board members.

“For many communities, his willingness to leverage success and personal financial resources to further an agenda under the guise of freedom of speech is perpetuating racism resulting [in] direct threats to their communities and a potential for brand safety compromise we should all be concerned about,” wrote McDonald’s chief marketing and customer experience officer Tariq Hassan. “All of us who lead our brand's investments across platforms were required to navigate a situation post-acquisition that objectively can only be characterized as ranging from chaos to moments of irresponsibility.”

Colgate-Palmolive’s VP and general manager of consumer experience and growth Diana Haussling added: “While I am a huge supporter of free speech and enterprise we cannot ignore the impact of such hate speech. I especially can’t ignore it as a black woman,” she wrote.

Others, including Kristi Argyilan, senior VP of retail media at the grocery giant Albertsons, questioned whether the decision to invite Musk was, in itself, a stain on the organization’s reputation.

From a public relations perspective, it must be clear that Twitter’s descent into unchecked racist, sexist and homophobic abuse makes it incompatible with the brand values of pretty much every major company in the world. Indeed, Richard Edelman, CEO of the world’s largest PR agency, spoke out on this issue at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year, suggesting that businesses should “deprive [social media] platforms that spread disinformation of oxygen. Stop advertising. Pull your promotion money.”

Musk’s response was characteristically juvenile: “Edelman is a despicable human being — his job is literally being a professional liar!” (It’s worth noting that most of what Edelman does is marketing PR, for companies and brands including Unilever, AstraZeneca, Barilla, Vaseline, Papa John’s, Sanofi, Xbox, and EY. If this reflects Musk’s view of marketers, it’s a little odd that he even wants them on his platform.)

Again, the ad hominem attack and the adolescent tone should be a clue that Musk is incapable of reining in his worst impulses. The chances that he will create a stable environment for brands, or address the pandemic of disinformation, or do anything to reduce hate speech are vanishingly small. Indeed, the proliferation of disinformation and hate speech appears to have been (under the guise of “free speech”) the entire reason for his investment in Twitter.

(It is also worth noting that Edelman’s remarks and Musk’s response should have galvanized the entire public relations business. Edelman’s concerns over brand safety were entirely legitimate; Musk’s contempt for our profession was deeply offensive. Instead of outrage, the response was mostly silence. And some of those who see Edelman as a less-than-perfect spokesperson for PR were more inclined to pile on than to defend the integrity of their chosen profession.)

Nevertheless, the Possible conference presents marketers with an opportunity — perhaps their final opportunity — to urge changes that would make Twitter into a more hygienic platform for their brands.

They should call for clearer, fairer policies that are enforced consistently rather than capriciously.

They should call for significant reductions in hate speech, as measured by credible third parties, not Twitter’s own dubious metrics.

They should call for algorithms that promote factual, clearly-sourced information over disinformation and conspiracy theories.

They should call for a verification system that renders impersonation (of brands and individuals) almost impossible.

And they should insist on mechanisms that prevent their branded content from appearing anywhere near racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-trans content.

Then they should let Musk know that if he can implement these policies consistently over a six month period, Twitter will have earned their consideration. I don’t believe for a second that he is capable of operating his company in this way — but it’s the only way in which Twitter can become a safe place for brands to operate.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/the-pr-industry-needs-to-defend-business-against-anti-'woke'-ideologues https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/the-pr-industry-needs-to-defend-business-against-anti-'woke'-ideologues pholmes@provokemedia.com Premium ContentTrendsPurposePaul HolmesNewsLongreadsESGCorporate ReputationCorporateBusiness RoundtableBrand ActivismAnalysis The PR Industry Needs To Defend Business Against Anti-'Woke' Ideologues Both ESG and DE&I are critical to a company’s relationship with its core stakeholders. We need to take the lead in defending them against fear and ignorance. Tue, 21 Mar 2023 07:57:39 Z 2023-04-17T08:48:40Z In 2018, BlackRock chairman and chief executive Larry Fink released a letter to S&P 500 CEOs in which he called for companies to look beyond short-term profit and “benefit all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers and the communities in which they operate."

There is a pretty strong case to be made, with the benefit of hindsight, that Fink’s pronouncement about the need for companies to focus on what was then thought of as corporate social responsibility and what is now more broadly known as ESG (environmental, social, and governance) kicked off a new era for public relations professionals. After all, understanding, listening to, engaging and mobilizing stakeholders is the core of our profession.

And the next five years brought a succession of events that elevated the role of public relations even further. Later that same year, the Business Roundtable adopted a new statement on the purpose of the corporation, acknowledging that “each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders.”

Then came the pandemic, which compelled companies to put the health and safety of employees and customers ahead of short-term shareholder interests; the Black Lives Matter movement in response to the murder of George Floyd, jarring many corporations out of their torpor on issues related to diversity, equity and inclusion; the 'quiet quitting' and 'great resignation' trends, which restructured the relationship between employers and their workers; and finally the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which forced companies to consider reputation risk in a whole new light.

As a result, the corporate communications function has been elevated to mission critical status inside well-run companies. Public relations professionals are now advising on stakeholder expectations, on defining and communicating purpose, on when organizations should engage with social and political issues, on internal policies that do not exclude large numbers of talented employees or potential customers, and even on whether companies should continue to do business in geopolitical hotspots.

This is, supposedly, the 'seat at the table' for which we have been clamoring since I started writing about public relations. I understand the desire to celebrate, to enjoy our newfound respect. But we cannot be complacent. We need to do a better job of explaining why these issues matter — because the idea of stakeholder capitalism, of ESG and DE&I as legitimate business functions, is under attack. And while those attacks are ill-informed, replete with disinformation and distraction, and motivated almost entirely by bad faith, the threat is real. 

Silicon Valley Bank meets the 'wokeness' panic

"While Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, top executive pushed ‘woke’ programs." This is an actual headline that appeared in the wake of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse (albeit in the New York Post, a publication that abandoned any pretense of serious journalism many years ago).

A closer reading reveals a train of thought that stands as a wonderful example for anyone seeking to illustrate the post hoc propter hoc fallacy, but not much more. Author Katherine Donlevy begins her piece by detailing initiatives promoted by a UK risk management executive of the bank ("the company’s first month-long Pride campaign and a new blog emphasizing mental health awareness for LGBTQ+ youth") without mentioning the fact that the UK operation was a separate ring-fenced entity from the US bank that collapsed and, despite the problems in the US, was entirely solvent.

Donlevy then went on to quote Bernie Marcus, a founder of Home Depot who in recent years has succumbed to Rudy Giuliani-style conspiracy theories and imagined grievances, who claimed (without anything even remotely resembling evidence) that: "These banks are badly run because everybody is focused on diversity and all of the woke issues and not concentrating on the one thing they should, which is, shareholder returns."

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal was asking "Who Killed Silicon Valley Bank?" — a question it elected to answer with only a passing mention of venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who helped to spark the panic that saw investors engage in a classic bank run. Instead, the column offered this apparent non-sequitur: "In its proxy statement, SVB notes that besides 91% of their board being independent and 45% women, they also have ‘1 Black,’ ‘1 LGBTQ+’ and ‘2 Veterans.’" Ah yes, the famously pernicious influence of veterans, whose mere presence in a boardroom can cause a company to forget what governance means.

Unless readers fail to grasp his real point, author Andy Kessler followed up with the classic 'only asking questions' formulation designed to make baseless speculation seem somehow legitimate. "I’m not saying 12 white men would have avoided this mess, but the company may have been distracted by diversity demands."

Kessler’s theory, if I am reading it right, is that the (predominantly elderly, white, cisgendered male) management of Silicon Valley Bank put too much capital into "higher-yielding long-term government bonds" because they were unable to think straight due to mental fatigue incurred after seeking a single LGBTQ+ director for their board.

At this point, I should remind our readers that Kessler is employed by the Journal to write "on technology and markets and where they intersect with culture" and that this idea — thinking about diversity so discombobulates experienced bankers that they make terrible investment decisions — makes perfect sense to him.

(For what it’s worth, Bloomberg’s Matt Levine helpfully provided a detailed and not remotely insane explanation of what really happened with SVB.)

Was Silicon Valley Bank in any way 'woke'?

So far, this column is merely a commentary on the way in which journalistic standards — if that term can be applied to outlets like the Post and the Journal — have declined. Any media organization that uses the word 'woke' in a headline is insulting the intelligence of its viewers and/or readers, unless it then goes on to offer a precise definition of the term and an explanation of what it means in context.

So what does 'woke' mean in this context?

One definition comes from Bethany Mandel, a conservative author who literally wrote a (best-selling) book on the topic. Those with Twitter accounts will recall Mandel for her utter failure to define 'woke' during a live television interview, but a few days later she sought to correct that brain freeze and offered the following definition. Woke, she says, is "a radical belief system suggesting that our institutions are built around discrimination, and claiming that all disparity is a result of that discrimination. It seeks a radical redefinition of society in which equality of group result is the endpoint, enforced by an angry mob."

It's hard to believe that those who were calling SVB woke seriously believed that a financial services company serving the most libertarian sub-section of American society was seeking "a radical redefinition of society in which equality of group result is the endpoint, enforced by an angry mob."

So perhaps those who attacked SVB were using a less strident definition, similar to the one offered by an attorney for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — who has shot to national prominence because of his attacks on 'wokeness' — who told a court that woke refers to "the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them."

By that standard, I would like to think that any sentient American would self-identify as woke. The idea that there are injustices in American society — that certain groups have been discriminated against over the course of the nation’s history, and that the effects of that discrimination linger today — seems irrefutable. In which case, attempting to address those injustices is simply an attempt to create a more level playing field, of allowing all Americans the opportunity to achieve their full potential.

Are there companies making a genuine, good faith effort to address the consequences of historic injustice? I am sure there are (though I believe that their motivation is pragmatic rather than based on altruism or ideology — more on that later). Was Silicon Valley Bank one of those companies? The evidence is, to say the least, mixed.

You might not think so, of course, if you read columns like this one in Newsweek by Jeff Charles, who reports that "a database created by the Claremont Institute revealed that SVB either donated or pledged to donate almost $74 million to organizations affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement." Charles goes on to allege all manner of scandals involving Black Lives Matter Global Foundation — in a way clearly meant to imply that the Foundation was one beneficiary of SVB’s largesse. ("Naturally, this makes one wonder why an organization like SVB, which is supposed to mitigate risk, would be willing to dump so much cash into an obvious grift machine," he writes).

The answer is that it wasn’t. SVB gave precisely zero dollars to Black Lives Matter or the Foundation. The $73 billion actually breaks down as follows: in 2021, the bank pledged to spend $50 million over five years on an internal initiative called Access to Innovation that sought to connect women, Black people, and Latinos with startup funding (it is not clear how much, if any, of that money was actually invested in the program); a $20 million donation "to support additional Covid-19 relief"; and corporate donations to the NAACP, ACLU, National Urban League and other organizations.

I would suggest that if SVB was actually woke, its critics would not need to resort to such extraordinary levels of intellectual dishonesty to make their case.

"It’s hard for me to see how SVB’s politics had anything much to do with interest rates changing and their balance sheet being vulnerable," Zach Teutsch, founder of an actually progressive financial advisory firm called Values Added Financial, told Vox. "This sounds like ideology in search of a fact pattern."

Why this matters to PR people

I have been thinking a lot about the whole issue of woke capitalism over the past couple of years, as the term 'woke' has been weaponized by the right to criticize a range of initiatives including CSR, ESG and DE&I programs. And I have come to two conclusions.

The first is that genuinely 'woke' corporations are at best 'black swans' and at worst 'unicorns.' Which is to say, they are either exceedingly rare or entirely fictional. I could make the case that companies like Ben & Jerry’s or Patagonia are genuinely 'woke,' that their business decisions sometimes take into account political or social justice criteria because they have values that sometimes supersede profit and loss decisions. (I could also make the somewhat more cynical case that what looks like social conscience is, in fact, smart brand-building.)

For the vast majority of companies, however, ESG and DEI initiatives — and other examples of so-called 'wokeness' — are being prioritized for pragmatic reasons. They are either a response to real-world business requirements (diversity initiatives expand the available talent pool, climate change has clear economic implications) or to meeting stakeholder expectations, enhancing organizational reputation and building strong brand relationships.

My second conclusion is that most accusations of 'wokeness' leveled against corporate America are just as absurd and intellectually dishonest as the allegations against Silicon Valley Bank. None of those attacking 'woke' corporations genuinely believe that America’s CEOs have joined forces in order to promote "a radical redefinition of society… enforced by an angry mob." Instead, they are angry that the companies involved are no longer happy to be seen as perpetuating discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual identity or ethnicity.

(For an example of the latter, look no further than the criticism of Hershey for featuring a transgender woman in a Canadian advertising campaign.)

But the shallowness of 'woke panic' is no reason to ignore it. Authoritarian elected officials are already formulating real-world laws and regulations designed to punish companies they deem 'woke.' In Florida, DeSantis has been on a jihad against Disney because of the company’s decision to support the rights of LGBTQ+ young people in the state. And Republican lawmakers are now pushing laws similar to one in place in Texas that will prevent their states from doing business with companies that adopt ESG policies that protect the environment.

And as articles like those in the Daily News and the Journal were widely shared, it became apparent that they will provide a pretext for political 'investigations' into whether DEI might crash the US financial system. Indeed, former Trump administration official Stephen Miller first tweeted that he was "shocked to discover that making DEI the new organizing principle of the US financial system has backfired" and later demanded that the "House GOP must subpoena SVB to learn, among other things: How many hours & dollars were spent on equity/DEI/ESG/climate scams."

Make no mistake, the attack on “woke” corporations is an attempt to subvert the independence of corporate CEOs and other business leaders to a specific political ideology. It is an attempt to ensure that decisions currently made for business reasons are instead at least influenced (and perhaps proscribed) by fears of punitive political measures.

That would be bad for business. It would be bad for stakeholders. It would be bad for shareholders. And it would be especially bad for public relations, both as a discipline and as a philosophical idea (that companies should attempt to build profitable, mutually-beneficial relationships with the societies in which they operate).

That is why I believe public relations practitioners — in their roles as communications leaders for their clients and on behalf of their own profession — need to be in the forefront of defending ESG, DEI and other stakeholder-focused initiatives as strategic business priorities — and not just gratuitous corporate altruism.

That may be challenging, for a couple of reasons. First, because PR people and the companies they work for have spent years talking about corporate social responsibility as an indicator of corporate virtue rather than as simple good business — often as a response to critics on the left, who found the business case for CSR to be cynical and self-serving, when in reality the value of CSR lies in the fact that it is, in fact, entirely self-serving.

And second, because measuring the impact of what we do is still the greatest glaring weakness of our profession. To convincingly demonstrate that CSR, ESG and DEI are truly business imperatives, we need to be able to demonstrate two things: one, that these initiatives contribute to corporate reputation and brand image, and have a meaningful impact on the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders; and two, that enhanced reputation and improved stakeholder relationships have a tangible impact on business performance.

Oddly, the latter challenge might be easier than the former. There is already a significant body of evidence demonstrating the value of reputation and relationships. Our own industry’s Trust Barometer, is an example, but there is also plenty of academic work to draw on. The growing population of data and analytics experts within the PR business should be able to conduct a thorough review of the literature and figure out the impact of stakeholder relationships on corporate performance.

The most challenging aspect might be coming up with a metric that can be embraced by the entire industry, which would thus have a credibility and an authority greater than the plethora of proprietary products that have been developed by individual agencies or measurement companies (many of which, it should be noted, do not answer either of the questions raised above).

Changing the habit of a lifetime, overcoming the impulse to take credit for selfless generosity rather than acknowledging enlightened self-interest, may be more difficult. But it is something companies may need to do if they are to convince hostile politicians that they are protecting the bottom line rather than taking sides in the culture war.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/analysis-fragile-confidence-slows-crucial-china-pr-rebound https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/analysis-fragile-confidence-slows-crucial-china-pr-rebound arun@provokemedia.com Premium ContentWeber ShandwickTrendsThe Orange BlowfishSandpiperRuder FinnNewsMSLLongreadsInfluence MattersAPACDAnalysis Analysis: Fragile Confidence Slows Crucial China PR Rebound There is a welcome sense of optimism that China's economic recovery will help spur a rebound for the country's PR market, but economic and political challenges persist. Fri, 17 Mar 2023 04:15:03 Z 2023-03-22T05:52:34Z The end of Covid-era restrictions has been welcomed across Asia, but perhaps nowhere more so than China, where prolonged lockdowns and a draconian quarantine policy helped sap the energy of one of the world's most vibrant economies. 

With normal service now largely resumed, there is a sense of optimism that China's economic recovery will help spur a rebound for the country's public relations market, even if few people expect a return to the heady days when 20% annual expansion was considered a baseline rather than an aspiration.  

China's economic revival is important not just for firms operating in the country, but for the fortunes of the global PR industry at large. At a basic level, China remains one of the world's five biggest PR markets, and — by some distance — the biggest in Asia-Pacific.

That status alone should make it the main event when it comes to determining regional priorities for Asia-Pacific PR networks, before you even consider the level of digital innnovation that has emerged from the country. That it isn't reflects how few industry leaders are overly bullish about prospects for China's PR market in 2023.

To start with, China significantly underperformed expectations by only expanding 3% in 2022. So while a GDP growth forecast of 5% is a positive step for 2023, the ramifications of the Covid era are expected to linger, even if the shackles have been loosened.

"I do expect a rebound, but not as strong as everyone expects or hopes for," says Simon Vericel, who oversees independent agency Influence Matters, and believes that comms plans and budgets remain frozen as "consumers, companies, MNCs, are waiting for more signs of strength and openness before investing or spending."

Vericel is not the only agency head pointing to a sense of uncertainty engendered by the sudden reversal of Covid-19 restrictions, after years of hardship. With unemployment at a 30-year high, he says it adds up to "a feeling that the future is unpredictable and, a new sentiment in China, the economy cannot be trusted to grow year after year."

"The major challenge is how to rebuild confidence", agrees Ruder Finn Asia regional director Elan Shou. "The lockdowns have shaken people up...and there is confusion about how the decision [to reverse course] was made. Consumers are more pro-saving, rather than spending. That's a significant change."

Shou notes that many clients remain cautious, for example — looking for six-month retainers instead of the usual annual deal and "continuously testing the waters" rather than committing to significant plans. Vericel, meanwhile, believes the situation is particularly pronounced for funded companies that rely on a steady supply of raised capital to grow.

"The 'funding winter' that started towards the end of 2021 is not over, these companies are very conservative in their non-essential spend," says Vericel. "I expect that, barring major new geopolitical issues, we will start seeing big funding rounds resume by end Q2, beginning Q3. A rebound could come from these towards the end of the year. We see clients getting prepared for it now."

The Orangeblowfish founding partner Natalie Lowe agrees with Vericel's Q2/3 forecast, reinforcing the point that people in China still need to time to emerge from the shocks that have characterised preceding years.

"There's a lot of buzz and domestic travel but at the end of the day, consumption is cautious," explains Lowe. "People are at a point where they don't know if they believe what just happened. Is something like this going to happen again? Everyone is waiting and seeing. I feel like people are going to really start spending in Q2 and Q3."

"While we expect growth, it is still early days in the post-pandemic era, and clients and brands are likely to remain cautiously optimistic while keeping a close eye on market trends and policies before taking bold steps," adds Weber Shandwick Asia-Pacific CEO Tyler Kim. "We anticipate China to come back strongly and resiliently by the third quarter." 

Positive signs
 
Despite fragile confidence, there are enough signs to suggest that a rebound is already underway, in specific sectors at least. "Hospitality and tourism are the immediate and obvious sectors hoping to make a significant comeback," says Kim. "We have already seen an increase in briefs and invitations to pitches from tourism boards and related brands."

Shou, meanwhile, notes that her office GMs are "very optimistic", particularly when it comes to "revenge consumption, especially in beauty, luxury, consumer electronics, sports, and tourism."

However, Shou adds that consumers are slower to spend on bigger items such as cars and houses. "In the past, people borrow money from the bank to buy houses. They still have appetite to spend, especially travel/tourism, sports and beauty. But in the big things, it's very cautious."

Other sectors also see opportunity. Sandpiper North Head senior executive director Robert Magyar, for example, points to healthcare and green tech as areas of growth. "Foreign pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers see great growth opportunities and can achieve healthy margins," he points out. "With the government’s intention to increase health coverage by commercial insurance, healthcare companies are eager to be in position for the growth in private consumption of healthcare products and services."

More than one agency head, furthermore, flagged ESG as another driver — dovetailing with R3's biannual study of the market. The same study also pointed to increasing marketing and PR integration at companies in China, helping to explain why integrated solutions remain critical for the country's PR consultancies. 

"We expect that more clients will seek a partner with a consultative mindset and an innovative problem-solving culture," says Kim. "Even prior to the pandemic, we received briefs intended for consulting firms, which creates an intriguing competitive environment."

And, of course, the shift from online to offline cannot be underestimated. "We need to balance what we learned during the pandemic specifically the transition to online while supporting businesses in their renewed engagement offline," notes MSL Asia-Pacific CEO Margaret Key.

MNCs vs local players

Any discussion of China's public relations fortunes has to contend with the geopolitical complexities that continue to colour the country's crucial trade relationship with the US. Neither can brands avoid these issues. MNC caution in China might predate the pandemic, but there is no question it has been amplified by events of the past three years.

Accordingly, one simple consequence is that domestic players have risen to the forefront like never before — a trend that unites all of the industry leaders who contributed to this story. "The last three years, Chinese nationals are really vocal about needing brands that understand domestic consumers and tastes," points out Lowe.

International agencies have not always been able to work effectively with domestic Chinese companies. Now, it appears they may have little choice. "I believe that domestic brands, particularly those in the technology and consumer lifestyle sectors, will continue to innovate, improve, and compete both locally and abroad," says Kim.

Shou admits there remains a challenge in terms of client education. At the same time, though, a difficult economic situation at home is also spurring a sizeable uptick in Chinese brands looking to invest abroad — another trend on which all of our respondents agree. 

"It's beyond my imagination," states Shou. "Suddenly we get a lot of business from Chinese brands going abroad. In the past, Chinese brands are so big and so good, they don't need to put effort beyond China. Now they begin to look into Southeast Asia, Japan and Europe."

What then for MNCs in China, long the key client base for the country's international PR consultancies? In both economic and political terms, there are challenges that must be addressed. 

Says Vericel: "MNCs will need support from agencies to understand the shift in consumption and business fundamentals in China brought by the economic uncertainty, leading to a more conservative approach from consumers and businesses in China, but also the impact that lopsided communication from both sides around the increasingly vocal geopolitical spat between China and the US."

Shou and Kim, furthermore, point to crisis management as a continued focus for MNCs in China, given the propensity for political flare-ups. Key and Lowe, meanwhile, think MNCs need to rethink their growth strategies in the country.

"Domestic brands are growing across many sectors, unlike any time before," says Key. "MNCs will need to review approaches to change communications, go-to-market strategy and co-branding activities that look to local partnerships."

Complicating matters further is an information environment that can skew perceptions of China's appeal as an investment destination. "It can be difficult to find balanced and accurate media coverage about China internationally, and this creates a sense for many executives that they should avoid this market or if they engage with it, their expectations should be limited and focused on mitigating issues," claims Magyar.

"Such perceptions create very low expectations of China. While thinking ahead and being prepared for potential crises are always important, communications and marketing activities in China can be similar to activities in other markets. Being smart and discerning about where the real issues lie can bring business success to companies."

These issues, says Vericel, are particularly pronounced in the tech sector, where he observes "degrading trust". As ever, that may also spell opportunity for savvy consultancies. "We're having conversations with MNCs that need independent and objective analysis on the on-the-ground business environment, and objective communications strategies to prepare for business eventualities in China (positive or negative). Some feel they cannot rely solely on their local teams or even local agencies for objective situation analysis."

Either way, it adds up to a continued challenge for an international PR industry that has not always been able to easily replace reduced MNC spend with local brand budgets. 

"MNCs still treasure the market," says Shou. "China remains one of the biggest markets, so it's not an easy goodbye. They spend more money on corporate positioning and global HQ education on understanding what's happening here. And crisis management."

Talent frames the bigger picture

Any PR sector is only as strong as the talent base that fuels its work. The exodus of foreign executives has certainly changed the face of China's PR industry, but opinions are mixed as to whether this year will prove more challenging than usual from a talent perspective.

"What has made international agencies very attractive is international talent, but trying to find that talent right now is very tough,” says Lowe. "In the last three years, China has really closed off to the rest of the world. It is very clear, that the main business language is Chinese and international teams who speak the local language and understand the culture, are key to success."

"During the pandemic, the industry faced a series of ups and downs when it came to recruitment and talent retention," adds Kim. "It was always challenging to justify the investment in talent when planning or envisioning a defined growth path with clients was impossible. This remains a significant challenge for the industry, as the talent pool is limited, and there seems to be a never-ending battle to attract the right people at the right time to ensure clients' stability and growth."

Shou, however, is rather more bullish — partly because major tech platforms like Alibaba, Tencent and Bytedance are no longer hoovering up the best people, but also because she believes that international PR firms in the country are finding it difficult to hold onto their best people.

Neither is China immune to the forces reshaping employee expectations of the workplace, which have been vividly brought to life by the 'lying flat' trend. "Everyone is now fighting for the same pool of people," continues Lowe. "No one wants to work a nine to five in the office. Everyone is going through a reorganisation of priorities. We have to be a little bit more creative in the way we operate as a business."

If these prove to be the biggest concerns for China's PR industry this year, that will probably represent a welcome return to normalcy, given the dramatic nature of the crises that have rocked the country during the Covid era. But the observations of many industry leaders in this analysis suggest that we can expect political and economic factors to continue playing an outsized role in terms of China's PR trajectory, particularly where international consultancies and multinational brands are concerned. 

Even so, a sense of optimism has returned, making for a welcome contrast from the despondency of the Covid years. Some prognosticators are even willing to stick their necks out when it comes to predicting PR growth in 2023.

"Historically, the growth rate for the local communications and public affairs sector is 0.5% to 1.5% ahead of the GDP growth," contends Magyar. "I think that probably means at least 6% growth, but with some of the rebound spending, the growth rate may even climb higher this year."

"If policy stays stable, more than 5%," agrees Shou. "I'm certain the industry will rebound significantly."

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/'this-industry-is-on-steroids'-transformation-lessons-from-comms-leaders-at-davos https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/'this-industry-is-on-steroids'-transformation-lessons-from-comms-leaders-at-davos arun@provokemedia.com RoundtableWeber ShandwickTechnologyNewsLongreadsLeadershipIn-HouseDavosData & AnalyticsCorporateChatGPTBig DataArun SudhamanAPACDAnalysis 'This Industry Is On Steroids': Transformation Lessons From Comms Leaders At Davos PRovoke Media/Weber Shandwick Davos roundtable reveals a pivotal moment for in-house leaders, as significant forces reshape the corporate communications function. Mon, 30 Jan 2023 10:00:00 Z 2023-04-17T01:42:24Z Love it or loathe it, there's no question that Davos plays an outsized role in terms of framing the issues that matter at the nexus of business, government and social progress. Stakeholder capitalism writ large, you could say, perhaps helping to explain why communications chiefs have become an increasingly conspicuous constituency at the World Economic Forum.

Indeed, when I first started attending Davos a decade ago, I was struck by how so much of the conversation spoke the language of corporate affairs, whether in terms of stakeholder engagement, corporate activism or issues management. Often, though, the people that I would deem experts on those topics — namely, communications leaders — were often relegated to a peripheral role, despite their ability to understand multiple stakeholder groups like few others within a given organisation. 

And while senior communicators are still called on to police their CEOs across the frozen Alpine resort town, they have increasingly found their voice at the World Economic Forum (WEF) — to the extent that they can credibly be viewed as principals when it comes to not only shaping the Davos agenda, but determining the actions that need to follow. And that is no bad thing, given Davos' reputation for prioritising rhetoric above reality

Much of that focus, of course, revolves around the economic and social issues that are the WEF's bread and butter, whether in terms of geopolitical threats, financial fears and technological innovation. But there is no escaping the significant implications that these trends have for the communications craft, colliding with a pivotal moment of transformation in terms of media fragmentation, disinformation and tech-fuelled disruption.

To better understand the rapid change that is underway at in-house functions, PRovoke Media partnered with Weber Shandwick to convene a panel of communications leaders from major companies across the globe, hosted by IBM. The following is an edited transcript of the 90-minute conversation, while photos from the roundtable can be found here.

Participants

  • Abhinav Kumar, CMO/CCO, global markets, TCS
  • Bea Perez, SVP & chief communications, sustainability and strategic partnerships officer, The Coca-Cola Company
  • Brian Lott, CCO, Mubadala
  • Chris Perry, chairman, futures, Weber Shandwick
  • David McAlpine, global head of PR, Illumina
  • Emily Garbaccio, global CMO/CCO, AIG
  • Jonathan Adashek, CCO & SVP marketing/comms, IBM
  • Russell Dubner, MD & senior partner, CCO, BCG 
  • Sarah Campbell Donia, global corporate affairs leader, Randstad 
  • Stacey Jones, senior MD, head of corporate comms, Accenture 
  • Arun Sudhaman, editor-in-chief, PRovoke Media (moderator) 


The data-driven function
"This industry is on steroids right now" — Stacey Jones, Accenture The impact of technology on communications hardly counts as a new development, but rapid advances in such areas as generative AI (ChatGPT, for example) and machine learning carry significant implications for corporate communicators. In specific terms, our panellists focused much of their attention on how best to use data and analytics, grappling with a deluge of information that does not always make their jobs easier. While the shift towards a more data-driven function has been underway for several years, it seems clear that the repercussions from more sophisticated analytics are only now being felt in a more tangible manner. 

Chris Perry (CP): We’ve already seen what algorithms do to what people say. What are people going to believe? Whether it’s coming from governments or corporates and individuals. I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet. We need to be thinking in more of an 'intelligence mindset' versus a 'media mindset' to understand and use new technologies that aren’t years out. They are here right now.

Bea Perez (BP): I think what’s going to be good about this new world in technology is that we’ll have a lot more information available, we’ll have more data and facts so we can source, we can start to predict where we need to place our messages. There’s going to be a lot more opportunity to reach individuals in a way that’s more relevant and contextual to them. You still need human intelligence to look at that data and go back and verify, make sure that what is coming through the technology is legitimate. We can’t forget that human intelligence and people are equally important.

Arun Sudhaman (AS): I’m curious because both of you have alluded to something of a gap between how organisations communicate and how people are actually now absorbing media and that seems like quite a fundamental issue.  

Stacey Jones (SJ): I think we obviously know data is king. We said that pretty early, it’s not a breakthrough. But I would say, in the last 18 months, we are starting to get access to more data, more platforms that actually enable more relevant, more targeted conversations. I can’t walk into a meeting and start it without data, which creates an accountability and transparency that, frankly, I couldn’t have imagined. This industry is on steroids right now and we have access to it, many of our stakeholders have access to it. The good news is that investment will come because the belief in the story, the belief in the mission and what we can deliver has never been higher. 

Russell Dubner (RD): [There is] much more targeted data at the centre, more agile, but bringing our teams along on the journey because it is a very different model than I think a lot of us have dealt with in the past. People have been more comfortable saying ‘let me see’ and then ‘oh I’ll get it at the end of the month’. That’s a big shift that we can’t lose sight of. 

Abhinav Kumar (AK): I think quite often the debate tends to get moved towards the extremes. Technology is fantastic for communications — look at what we can do, demographic access, new audiences etc. Or, this is just making things impossible because of fake news, misinformation etc. But the truth is technology is just a tool. It’s how you use it. I think one of the challenges our profession faces is there is cognitive overload, both in terms of dealing with the sheer amount of content which our team needs to process, deal with, react to, but also the sheer number of tools.

If you look at communications tech or marketing tech tools, they have exploded. You talk to the team, how much are you going to experiment? There are some schools which have banned [ChatGPT] but guess what? You are not going to ban progress. Same for communications. You are never going to ban the changes which are going to come about, but we need to find a way to deal with them without getting completely overloaded and burning out our teams. 

Sarah Campbell Donia (SCD): I hope we all still think that communications is a craft. I worried over the past few years that we just completely go down the rabbit hole of data and forget that this is a skill which is an art. We have to train our teams to be curious. I had a very upsetting conversation last week with someone who said 'I don’t have time to learn and I have so much to do'. I said 'OK, stop right now and block two hours every week in your calendar'. It’s really important for us to continue fostering that type of behaviour. We won’t move on without it. 

"If you don’t understand public reaction to what happens you get into some very risky material challenges" — Chris Perry, Weber Shandwick

Jonathan Adashek (JA): One of the things that we found is important is, what’s the framework you are applying to the data? Because you can have so much information, but unless it’s changing how we think about what we do commercially and for the corporate brand or reputation, it can just be noise. It needs to be clear enough that it can get translated for the rest of your organisation so that you can shift everyone’s mindset to tap into their creativity. Then they start thinking like communicators as well, but have a much better sense of the context that you are communicating within. 

David McAlpine (DMA): I can’t come to the table without any kind of data because I am up against every other function that is extremely data-driven. I always make the joke, we are probably the least data-driven part of the organisation between sales, marketing, the rest of it. I always tell people ‘it’s just a gut feeling’ and no one really likes it. Sometimes it’s hard to sell that especially with the increasing amount of data that’s out there. People are always looking for 'where is the data behind that?' I don’t have it, but my experience tells me that this is a good idea.

We at Illumina have a very complex story to tell, and so I have to see who responds to what and who understands what. And sometimes data can’t tell that. Sometimes it does and sentiment is great, and seeing what resonates and what doesn’t is great, but I always tell my team, keep your guard in check. You guys are trained communicators, make sure you are reading the data from a human perspective too.

Brian Lott (BL): We’re struggling to unify data that’s meaningful. The challenges are multiple. They are geographic or linguistic, they are through legacy systems. How do you connect what communications is doing to deal flow? It’s very intuitive at the moment, and you can’t calculate a story that doesn’t appear, that may have been wrong or misguided from the beginning. We’re fortunate to have a CEO who gets communications intuitively, so that’s a huge advantage. But using it in a targeted way or being at a level we want to achieve, we’re just not there yet. 

"There’s so much opportunity in [data], but I think there is a little bit of fear as well" — Abhinav Kumar, TCS

RD: We are talking at a very high level and I’m just curious, using data to solve what problem? My experience right now is it can be super helpful in certain steps, like the comms and marketing value chain, and another part is like it’s totally irrelevant. For the first, to prioritise and understand topics, understanding where the conversation is going and with who. Tying it back with the commercial agenda and how it rolls out is deeply integrated: where in that channel can we earn, where do we need to buy, where could we do something interesting in a partnership?

And then there’s the reputation side of things. We do an index that we draw up ourselves but that looks at where is trust. We have a multi-stakeholder view and we will look at that every quarter and then we layer in the conversations that are happening — where we see stakeholder frictions and we check on those. Those are probably the core areas that we are using data. Of course, the performance data that goes into social and into paid. That leaves a whole bunch of big gaps, but it’s a super solid place to start. One of the challenges is the lagging indicators. [They] are super helpful but they don’t necessarily tell you what are the leading indicators you need to change to drive change and alignment. 

AK: One question I think we do need to ask ourselves is, this focus on data, is it progressive? Are we trying to move the profession and the craft of what we do forward, or is it in some cases defensive? Another roundtable I was part of where a participant there started talking about how they started measuring the business impact of their communications. In simple terms they said, 'we took out this press release and we were showing the business as much as possible who has consumed it, we are trying to report here’s the leads from this'. And I said that’s a really slippery slope because that’s not what this mechanism is intended for and, if you go down that road, in a sense you are competing with standard marketing campaigns which are much more effective in doing that. But what I gathered from that person was they felt they were under so much pressure to justify the existence of their department — that is why they were getting pushed into the data side of things. There’s so much opportunity in it, but I think there is a little bit of fear as well.  

CP: The last three years, we have gone down the rabbit hole of disinformation. Eventually we created a partnership with a crew called Blackbird.ai. Disinformation isn’t something you just cut up and put a deck together and go talk to clients about it. To make a long story short, we spent about a year developing a system designed for people like yourselves around the table to understand different signals. It’s not sentiment and reach and a lot of things you can get through your typical systems. It’s cohorts, it’s accounts, it’s the narratives, it’s the propagation and most importantly it’s the intent.

So we are able to see in a networked visual what’s happening. Is it a big deal, is it not a big deal, what are the accounts, do we change our media lists, global opportunities, do we have to go to our CEO or our chief counsel asap? Russell, I think this is a super important question you teed up because there are so many things we can do, but right now if you don’t understand public reaction to what happens you get into some very, very risky material challenges that aren’t the kind of challenges we’ve dealt with for our 20-plus years in the business. 

BP: Beyond public reaction, it’s also employees. It’s really important to understand where they are and how are they thinking about the company, and how do we portray ourselves to the public. We do have the technology and tools in place to have conversations with our employees, and it is interesting because there’s no shortage of feedback from them either, right? I think it’s actually made that relationship with the employee so much stronger. 

AI anxiety & change management

"We get a little too focused and we forget the fun" — Russell Dubner, BCG 

Deploying data analytics more effectively is just one example of how technology is reshaping the communications function. But the conversation soon broadened to consider the impact on employees and the use of specific tools, such as ChatGPT. It became painfully clear that, for communications leaders, one of the key challenges lies in change management, whether in terms of adding new skills, disrupting traditional modes of operation, or weeding out unproductive initiatives. From an employee engagement perspective, accordingly, there is plenty at stake. 

BP: Something like a ChatGPT, we know the data sets aren’t going to be great. I played with it — let me write a press release announcing a new senior leader at Coca-Cola — it actually turned out pretty good. Then I said 'who is the senior leadership of Coke today?' They got it all wrong. We have to know the role of technology. Maybe it’s really to take the work that can be more routine off the plates of the employees, but you still need somebody to oversee that. The more critical thinking work is probably still not going to be done by that tool. Understand what is the job description of each tool in technology and how to use it, but also really listen inside, not just outside.

AK: I asked ChatGPT to write some texts on how the company differentiates itself. Honestly it’s better than what 80% of our sales force can do and maybe better than 80% of what our marketing team can do. It was really good. Today, in a sense, your employees are the verification checkpoint. Not just for us, but for our clients, also for media. Any narrative you put out, especially companies with large employee bases, you send a story to a journalist — they go ‘well let me talk to a few employees in this organisation and let’s verify it’. And one thing employees hate is defending the indefensible, right? So the internal/external part is so important to get that strongly aligned. 

JA: It’s a massive shift in getting people to think about it differently, not just in the function but our clients internally. Previous places I’ve been, it’s been like a press release factory. That’s the mindset shift — it's like 'we’ve done this for the last five years and we’re continuing'. 

SJ: I think that change can be really intimidating. So I think it’s incumbent upon all of us as leaders to help that change be inspiring to our colleagues and our teams and help explain this. It’s a burden because we do have to explain it and it’s not something that can be intuitive all the time. 

"Sometimes the data doesn’t tell us what we need to do" — David McAlpine, Illumina 

DMA: Show them there are alternative paths. For a long time I think people at my company saw press releases as a win or a check box. We’re seeing press releases are being read less and less — I use it as a tool to keep reminding media this is what we’ve done. I’ve got to remind people — with the data that we have, this isn’t the most effective way to get the news out now. We have to think creatively, we have to think beyond what we’ve done and, back to my point about the human element of it, sometimes the data doesn’t tell us what we need to do.

Sometimes we just sit around the table and say what’s the best way to tell the story and then figure it out from there but, to your point on change and inspiring people, you have to bring them along on the journey and it’s hard. It’s not easy, especially when people are so used to ‘well this is what we’ve always done and this is what our competitors always do.’ I try to remind people innovation is in our DNA, we’re trying to move the needle in a different kind of way. 

SCD: With change, we also assume that there is something to go to. In my organisation, I’ve been there only 18 months, but I joined a press release factory. They are all customer stories and none of them were actually genuinely interesting narratives, they were just customer stories on a press release. So I said we are going to spend the next 18 months building the infrastructure that allows us to get one story and one narrative out there. The old ‘we will build it and they will come’ — what’s the point of measuring when you just need to build the stadium?

JA: If you really think about it, what we are measuring brings our employees, our teams along. Because that’s how they are going to get comped at the end of the year, reviewed and all that kind of stuff. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had people come and say I’ve got to put this press release out because…I’ll get my bonus for the year. 

RD: It’s not as easy as it seems. It’s easy to say it. For me, I’m lucky, the CMO and I are deeply integrated on the mindset and the work. We just created an activation and orchestration group that looks to make sure that everything that should be 360 is defined in a 360 way — the measurement, the paid is done in a way that understands the nuance of earned. It sounds like one of these silly small moves, but the difference of having that when you start reporting out across the channel sets and then people start optimising. If everyone’s in their lane, they report in their lane, it's substandard. They might win in each lane and then lose in terms of individuals you want to engage with.

Everyone ends up having more fun too. We barely think about the press release now. I push people much more [on] the idea. So the creativity part of it becomes more interesting again. To me that’s the risk in all of this, we get a little too focused and we forget the fun part of what we do is what do we conjure up? What do we conjure up with new formats, what do we conjure up in this fractured environment in terms of how we fan out? Those are the things to me that are energising about the next chapter versus the little battles that we have to fight that are a lot less fun. 

CP: I think we have to address the other format that’s pervasive that needs to be broken: Powerpoint. So we have a session when DALL-E came out, and it was one of the most energised meetings I have ever come out of. We spent roughly four hours putting in prompts in the code — it’s just having fun versus ‘oh my god another thing I have to learn’ especially when we’re as busy as our teams are. So the more I think we can be in that environment, the more comfortable and maybe more passionate we can get about this new stuff. 

BL: People do still use, particularly in Abu Dhabi, the press release of the MOU as the validator of their business. If different business units do it on their own and start to put together briefing pages on their own, I’m curious what the competencies of my team are going to shift to. Is it going to be more video? Is it going to be more editorial and stylistic functions to make sure they are saying the right things and speaking with their own voice? Is it going to be the team shifting away from traditional writing skills to be much more visual?

Agility & integration

"I’ve completely restructured my team. We were trying to stand for everything, and we stood for nothing" — Jonathan Adashek, IBM

Unsurprisingly, the conversation explored what this transformation, in terms of technology, data and employee engagement, means for the in-house communications function. There is considerable restructuring underway, often towards more agile teams, suggesting an inflection point for the fortunes of the corporate communications discipline, particularly when you factor in increasing integration with the marketing side of the business, at a time when communications has — perhaps — never been valued more highly

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one participant outlined a structure that involved pairing a more agile unit with a traditional function — bringing in more esoteric talent for the former, while ensuring that the latter remained focused on core corporate affairs areas. "We’ve learned that actually you can’t have your whole team based in agile because that doesn’t always work, so we had to reshape and put some of that headcount back into the fundamental [team]. But we left a good number [in the agile team] because what we found is that they didn’t all come out of comms. They were coming from different disciplines and that actually enriched the communications process for us and brought in new skills and new thinking."

JA: I’ve completely restructured my team. We have many, many different campaigns coming across the company from every different business unit and I think we were trying to stand for everything when we stood for nothing. When I got the job and I called a friend who said, ‘well what does IBM do?’ that spoke volumes to me. But getting people more focused and restructuring the team and the organisation, and the work that we are doing to get there and to get a unified set of campaigns, I mean it has taken a while. But I did it in comms and then I put marketing and comms together and now everybody is pushing to the same set of messages, same set of outcomes for the business. It’s really closely tied to the business so there is this great engagement with our internal clients to make sure that there is success in our company. 

RD: I’ve got product areas and then I’ve got field, I’ve got my tools people, I’ve got content and so I’m really [getting] them aligned. The big thing was finding one person who was responsible ultimately for each of the verticals and ensuring that as it ties up to the company — and we look at metrics there whether it’s awareness or consideration or demand — that there’s a healthy amount of tension from the field and from the people who own the products to create demand, to create consideration, to drive awareness, to move the metric on all of those things because they are both looking at it from different places. 

SJ: We’ve done something very similar to bringing in an agile team. Our teams were getting pulled further down that leadership funnel into the actual research, partnering, the deep messaging. When you are doing that you are not doing communications, you’re getting into deep content development. So we’ve started to pull people who are experts and align them more carefully from the practice with our communicators much earlier in the process. It’s made a world of difference because it frees us to bring our craft to the table but it also brings in much deeper experts to build up leadership, do the research, make the connections that your team needs at work. You can have a whole team pulled out before you know it and they’re not doing their day job.

AK: We used to have a communications team and a marketing team on the side, completely stifled. Then we did one thing which was a fantastic decision for us — getting the teams together and making the natural balance of the communications team of storytelling, of being able to tell the story from an audience point of view versus your marketing and, even worse, a technology company or technical jargon. And two, the capability of the marketing team to manage multiple channels, the brand discipline etc. When we stood together we did some of our best work after that.

If you take an analogy of sports, if you look at football, the challenge in having siloed organisations is that people see their roles as very narrow. I’m a defender and my job is just to defend the ball from coming in this patch. Or I’m a striker and my job is only to stand in front of the goal and someone gives me a pass I need to score. I think more and more we need to play the Dutch style of total football — we all have one objective which is to get the ball in that other net. That’s it. It’s not about your little turf. We didn’t have that wisdom to start with but it has grown and I think that today we are very agile, we are open, there are new roles, we are getting new people in from different disciplines and absolutely there’s much more evolution to be done still. 

Leadership, learning & futureproofing

"Talk to employees who have strong influencing skills in social media...they tend to see things before you do" — Bea Perez, Coca-Cola

At Davos, talk is always easy. But following through on the various lessons that are learned is another question altogether. That challenge is heightened by the need for leaders themselves to keep learning, often from their own employees, and to ensure their teams are adapting to new processes and practices. Aside from the leadership challenge, many of our participants pointed to the critical role that coaching can play, and that agencies can deliver in helping to reimagine the future. 

SCD: I came from an organisation where we had a huge communications team to an organisation where it’s incredibly small. So I came in and the only thing I wanted to accomplish was, if you were a communicator or someone who was vaguely interested in communications or corporate affairs that you felt valued, that you knew I wanted to listen to you and that if you have extra time on your hands that we would take you into a global project because we were agile completely out of necessity. For all of the possibilities of data and tech, for me my job as leader is incredibly simple, it’s just to be there, to be the hype person for the people in the organisation. Then in terms of how we’ve structured, the most important thing right now is employee communications. The most. 

DMA: Genomics is kind of a niche and then life sciences is a little bit of a bigger niche. We have some employees who are actually tremendous influencers. I mean, they have tens of thousands of followers. They are not continuing conversation, they are creating conversation.

JA: Exactly the same thing. We know who the top social people are inside the company and sometimes we feed them content. Sometimes you can target content to make sure it lands in their feed and there’s other times that they just naturally do it, but they’ve become great ambassadors. 

BP: I’d also say listening to them as well because it’s a big thing to know what’s the next technology, what’s coming. They’ve got their ears to the ground. I think it’s been really interesting to talk to the employees who have such strong influencing skills in social media and other places because they tend to see things before maybe you do if you’re sitting here as the leader. It’s great that they can be partners in getting the message out but also partners in helping you understand where the trends are going and how to think about your messages. It’s that two way dialogue with them that we found is crucial to actually how we think about communications. 

CP: I’m curious, as we think about structure, how much you all think about foresight in your function. Just that understanding of what could be coming that’s just totally different than how we’re wired.

"Larger organisations will spend enormous sums of money on the future of the business, but we don’t do that as communications teams" — Brian Lott, Mubadala

RD: In most of the consulting environments, you have all these little ‘think tanks’ within your organisation. All they do is think about the future of X. That’s not true for most companies, but at BCG, let’s say there are 50 of these different pods. Everyone probably has it in certain patches but, where an agency can be super helpful is doing that at a meta level of what’s happening for certain audiences, because most of the time companies are looking at it for topics. We’re looking at topic set, we’re not looking at audience set. So when an agency can come in and say here’s what’s happening, here’s a more future forward view based on these trends I think that’s super helpful. 

JA: Forums like this are really helpful. It’s being able to pick up the phone or send an email and say ‘how are you dealing with that, how are you dealing with this?’ Trying to empower my team to go out and learn as well. Make sure that they’ve got the opportunity to go participate in things like Page, and learn from different conferences that are relevant. Carving up time, carving up money at the beginning of the year to make it happen. I think it’s hugely important. 

RD: I think there’s a bigger role for agencies in this. I think what can sometimes happen is because clients want to get things done and will probably ask you that. You want ideas, you want an idea partner, you want an execution partner, but the other part of it is the future of the craft. What are some of the diverging topics or skills or data or technology? Agencies can definitely be playing a big role in this moment that’s of transformation. 

BL: It’s amazing to me that you have these pockets of larger organisations that will go off and spend enormous sums of money on the future of the business, but we don’t do that as communications teams. To bring an agency is to say here’s 50 grand let’s workshop where our functions are going to be in five years. On the flip side, when the agency comes to me and says ‘we’d like to put this together and we’ve got some ideas on how to integrate technology and skillset and all that’, it’s like we have a widget to launch tomorrow morning so, come back in two weeks. It just never happens.

SCD: We have to help each other to learn and that’s also the commitment that I make to all of you and all of your teams, feel free to reach out. Hopefully I can also help to coach your teams and be mentors and be mentees, and I think that’s also what we really have to lean into. 

AK: Two examples on the learning side. We get pitched on LinkedIn, there are 100 messages a day. I started taking some of those sales pitches. The good ones would stand out and I’d say ‘ok show me your tool’. And that half an hour investment of time, maybe you don’t buy, but at least know what’s going on. The second thing, building on what Jonathan said, we need to learn but it’s more about our teams. One mechanism, it’s a bit informal — is for the bright stars to get mentorship from someone else in the profession. In the Netherlands our marketing leader there is being mentored by someone in Shell. You’ve got to learn from the mistakes of what others are doing and learn from the experimentation which you are doing. It is so important to create that ecosystem. Sometimes formal mechanisms, sometimes it’s just having these networks and utilising the value of it for your teams, not just for us.

JA: The concept of coaching, I can’t push enough.

]]>
https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/davos-2023-four-key-takeaways-for-communicators https://www.provokemedia.com/long-reads/article/davos-2023-four-key-takeaways-for-communicators arun@provokemedia.com H/AdvisorsRuder FinnWorld Economic ForumWeber ShandwickPremium ContentPorter NovelliNewsLongreadsEdelmanDavosAPCOAnalysis Davos 2023: Four Key Takeaways For Communicators Three years of dramatic instability suggested a more downbeat Davos, but public relations pros will find much to keep them occupied. Mon, 23 Jan 2023 07:25:17 Z 2023-01-25T13:02:16Z When discussing Davos, it is probably worth noting that the event is not quite as monolithic as it might appear. Despite its reputation as a kind of shadowy cabal in snow boots, the World Economic Forum is a rather decentralised affair these days, with the official agenda rubbing up against a lively fringe program across the promenades and slopes of the Alpine resort.

Thus, perceptions of Davos can vary widely, not least among participants. Politicians engage in earnest discussions about circular economics inside the Congress centre, while celebrities rub shoulders with NGOs at after hours receptions. Corporate chiefs are feted and questioned, not always in equal measure, while journalists attempt an air of frazzled autonomy. It is quite a tapestry.

Amid all this, the World Economic Forum continues to shine a remarkably useful spotlight on the issues that matter to the business world, helping to frame corporate concerns at a time when public accountability has never been more important. No matter where you stand on the jamboree's overall value, there is no disputing that Davos trades in the language of public relations — a discipline that was already keenly aware of the fundamental social contract required with all stakeholders. 

And while much of the coverage predicted a more downbeat Davos, by the end of the week a sense of optimism had begun to pervade, bolstered by an improved economic outlook. Even so, significant risks remain, particularly in terms of the Ukraine conflict, trading tensions and inflationary pressures. 

As usual, we have sounded out key industry figures to come up with four themes that resonated most among the communications and marketing leaders that made this year’s pilgrimage.

"Reflecting on Davos is always a difficult thing to do," explains APCO executive chairman Margery Kraus, who attended WEF for the 22nd time this year. "Within a few days, you are exposed to so many new ideas and are also surrounded by experts who can give you a deeper dive into the issues of our day…and the Lord knows we have enough of them. While it is extraordinarily hectic and often stressful, I enjoy the chance to think ahead for the year and get the pulse of the issues of import to business and society for the coming year."

1. Polycrisis vs Pollyanna
Much of the early conversation during WEF focused on the various crises facing the world, including the pandemic, war, inflation, climate change and trade conflicts. Hence the emergence of the term 'polycrisis', used by economic historian Adam Tooze to describe a world where "disparate shocks interact so that the whole is worse than the sum of the parts."

This may also help to explain why PRovoke Media's annual Crisis Review weighed in at 21 cases this year, the most ever. It stands to reason that any attempts to resolve the myriad crises that impact governments and corporates require a sophisticated understanding of the febrile state in which the world finds itself. 

“Communications that brings diverse voices into a dialogue and promotes listening is key to managing today's polycrisis environment," says Ruder Finn CEO Kathy Bloomgarden. "Adopting emerging technologies and engaging employees are critical to unlocking growth amidst the kaleidoscope of current challenges."

Professional communicators, steeped in the redemptive qualities of a good crisis, may not be too dismayed by this prospect. Perhaps they should not be alone. H/Advisors CEO Neil Bennett chaired a session on the post-conflict reconstruction of Ukraine that was notable for a sense of "resilient optimism", as he puts it. And this from a country that is currently ravaged by war.

"News coming out of the WEF23 this week is heavy on references like 'perfect storm' and 'polycrisis'," says Philip Morris communications SVP Marian Salzman. "Negativity bias may be all the rage these days, but there’s a case to be made for a propensity for positivity."

The Pollyanna principle may strike some as an unrealistic response to the various threats facing us today, but Salzman makes a hopeful case amid polarisation, extremism and hate.

"People have had enough of scary, dangerous, and frustrating happenings," she says. "We’ve finally been galvanized to stand up for ourselves — and for whom and what we cherish. The result: a macro trend of power rebalancing. Folks across social strata are rethinking once-sacrosanct beliefs, including the value of formal higher education and unilateral loyalty to employers. We’re less likely to blindly accept the status quo and more likely to push back to create better ways forward."

2. AI is 'unforgiving'
There was little doubt as to the most popular technology topic of the week, with few conversations ignoring the transformative impact that ChatGPT will have on how we live and work. "ChatGPT elevated AI from something for geeks like me to the top of the technology agenda," said Charles Palmer, global head of TMT at FTI Consulting's strategic communications practice.

Business leaders described how they are already using the generative AI chatbot to draft emails, handle accounting and process research. Meanwhile, CNET has made multiple corrections to articles written by the AI program, suggesting that the technology is not quite ready for prime time yet.

"It’s quite amazing that alongside an agenda focused on wars, recessions, and climate crises that a communications technology — ChatGPT — became the talk of Davos," says Chris Perry, chair of Weber Shandwick's Futures group. "It’s as if church leaders tried to understand effects of the printing press days after it became known. The impact of generative media will be far reaching. It will change how knowledge is created, disseminated and trusted. It will displace and create new jobs. And it’s a must for communicators to understand the application and implication of its use."

The opportunities for AI are clear, potentially lowering the costs of expensive services, and dramatically expanding access to legal help, health care and more. But so are the risks, starting with misinformation and bias. Access Now executive director Brett Solomon, for example, foresees a future where AI technologies will be used against human rights activists and journalists.

And, of course, there are significant concerns on the future of jobs. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, whose company is expected to invest more in Open.Ai, admitted that the pace of change when it comes to AI is "unforgiving", particularly for technology companies. "The means of production change dramatically and that requires us to unlearn and learn, which is always very unforgiving. The previous era AI expert is the one that will have the hardest time shifting to this new paradigm."

And he noted that concerns about knowledge workers being displaced are real. "The idea that every country needs to have social cohesion based on jobs is much better understood today than in the first phase of globalisation."

Even so, Nadella thinks that technological advances in AI can help solve problems rather than adding to them. "When I look at productivity data, we need something to help us. We need something that truly changes the productivity curve so we can have real economic growth." 

"The best way to prepare it is to not bet against this technology," added Nadella, noting that "doing more with less is perhaps more at a premium" because of current economic headwinds. "Let's create that economic surplus and then talk about how to distribute it."

3. Communicators take centre-stage
When I first started attending Davos in 2013, I was immediately struck by how so much of the conversation spoke the language of corporate affairs, whether in terms of stakeholder capitalism, strategic communication and public relations. Yet, strangely, the people that I would deem experts on those topics — namely communications leaders — were often missing from those conversations. 

Typically consigned to a supporting role that involved babysitting their CEOs, senior communicators have increasingly found their voice at the World Economic Forum, to the extent that they can credibly be viewed as principals when it comes to shaping the conversations at Davos, and the actions that need to follow.

This much was not only brought home by PRovoke Media's CCO Roundtable with Weber Shandwick and IBM, but also by numerous events that reflected how corporate communication concerns have risen up the Davos agenda. It makes intuitive sense; any attempt to deal with critical stakeholder challenges starts with the fundamentals of good public relations — listening, collaboration and action. 

“After listening to the conversations and debates held here this past week, it’s clear that the job of the communicator has never been tougher or more vital," says Justin Blake, global chair of executive positioning and executive director of Edelman Trust. "Brands and executives are dealing with complex issues and a variety of stakeholders that are causing them to rethink business models and priorities."

At the Page Society's first Davos event, for example, Economist editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes called on comms leaders to heed the widespread desire for greater authenticity from corporates. 

“Because you’re understandably concerned about protecting a brand, there is a temptation to hide behind platitudes,” Minton Beddoes said. “But I think it really raises the stakes.”

Even CMOs are getting in on the act, telling an Infosys session that "our job is to speak to truth," and ruminating on everything from social activism to political backlash. Whether that poses a threat to the CCO's traditional sphere of influence remains to be seen.

And as communications professionals take on a more central role, expect scrutiny to rise. Edelman's Trust Barometer remains the industry's most formidable thought leadership study, consistently bringing together politicians, corporates and NGOs to examine how the crisis of trust undermines progress on various fronts. But it was hard to avoid the mainstream media attention that the world's biggest PR firm is attracting these days.

That reflects the tension that often underpins sensitive PR assignments, where ‘ethical' counsel can often help steer an ‘unethical' client in the right direction, towards reform and — hopefully — better behaviour. But the industry needs to become far more savvy in terms of making this case, providing tangible proof of its ability to improve organisations from within. If not, PR firms will continue to serve as a convenient lightning rod for media outrage, at Davos and beyond. 

4. Do we care enough?
It is easy to be cynical about the World Economic Forum's rarefied status, particularly when it comes to elites discussing the inequity that underpins much of the world's instability. But it is probably also true to note that few events, if any, shine such a bright spotlight on these issues — often driven by the hundreds of NGOs and civil society organisations that are present during the week.

This cannot help but have a beneficial impact on a range of issues, most notably climate change, even if progress can appear slow. "Climate action has come of age — whether financing, technology, biodiversity, or carbon trading, there is no room for inaction," says Kraus. "And even with that, it is doubtful we can meet the goals necessary to abate the current situation. Lots of ideas, but action and sustained action will be required for the transformation that needs to take place. There will be no quick fix away from fossil fuels but we have to keep moving forward on this important journey."

Meanwhile, Porter Novelli executive influence EVP Ravi Sunnak points to "groundbreaking conversations happening around equity," showcased by Accenture's first 'Pride on the Promenade' event — even as countries that outlaw LGBTQ rights play a more prominent role at Davos.

"[It] showed how far we've come, but also how much more there is to do," said Sunnak. "Delegates and attendees are prioritizing progress. There's a real opportunity for businesses, governments and the nonprofit community to capitalize on the momentum from Davos in 2023 and turn these conversations into action."

Meaningful action, though, cannot happen without recognising and addressing the inequality that continues to blight progress. "Underscoring not only climate but almost every topic was the concern that we are creating much more inequity in this world and that it is the root cause of much of the instability we face," explains Kraus.

"From climate to technology to reskilling workers to the impact of Covid, we have a widening of the gap between those who have and those who don’t," she continues. "This was not just about women, although women are more impacted, but it is about solving problems and finding solutions that benefit all people."  

An important, and often under-appreciated aspect of that, adds Kraus, is the 'care economy' — which made its first appearance on the agenda. "As we explored this issue, it became clear that shifting demographics will drive a growing demand for eldercare, childcare and a wider social infrastructure," says Kraus. "Traditionally, women have had to stay home to provide some of these care giving services. The sector of professionals in this space is chronically underpaid and shrunk during Covid. Without this support, many women end up leaving the workforce."  

Additional reporting by Diana Marszalek

]]>