Greentarget

Greentarget

by

In March 2022, Elon Musk tweeted: “Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy. What should be done?” 

Musk answered his own question a few weeks later when he made a formal offer to purchase the publicly held social media platform and take it private. A self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” Musk’s goal is to remove many (if not all) of the Twitter Rules the platform uses to moderate user content. He might even restore the banned accounts of controversial figures like Donald Trump and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Some fear changes like these could unleash unprecedented levels of hate speech, harassment, and misinformation.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether Musk will follow through on his offer or walk away from the deal. And sure, there’s a chance he could change Twitter for the better. But regardless, his arguments about free speech and public spaces merit close consideration.

Here’s why Elon Musk is wrong about Twitter — and a few thoughts about how authorities can and should respond.

Historic Town Squares Were Carefully Regulated

Let’s assume that Elon Musk is right — that Twitter functions as a digital town square. Even if that’s true, he’s missing a critical detail. While town squares are public spaces, they are not — and never were —  free from government oversight.

Modern town squares evolved out of the British concept of the village green or town common. In the Middle Ages, villagers who didn’t own land were permitted to raise crops, care for their livestock, and buy and sell goods in these public spaces. Many common areas also featured bogs where commoners could cut peat, an important heating source equivalent to modern-day public utilities.  

But did villagers have unfettered access to do whatever they wanted? Could they consume public resources without limits? Of course not. Use of the village green was carefully regulated by overseers in charge of distributing this precious shared resource. 

That’s because without rules, common spaces risk succumbing to “the tragedy of the commons.” This 19th century economic theory argues that individuals who consume a shared resource by acting wholly in their own interest — and at the expense of every other consumer — will ultimately degrade and endanger that resource. This is especially true when there are no guardrails in place to prevent anyone and everyone from consuming the resource.

Put simply, town commons exist to support commoners collectively. Any single individual’s rights — or that of one group — cannot supersede the common good. As such, community standards must be applied. So if Twitter really is a town square, rules and regulations are a justifiable and even essential part of the equation.

The Right to Free Speech Isn’t Absolute

The second part of Elon Musk’s tweet argues that the limits Twitter imposes on free speech undermine democracy. Again, his thinking is flawed. 

As most of us can recall, the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The First Amendment is solely concerned with protecting Americans from government overreach. As such, the right to free speech guarantees us the freedom to speak truth to power and hold the government accountable for its actions. It does not give us the right to say anything we want whenever we want to say it. 

We can’t yell fire in a crowded building. We can’t spew hatred toward members of protected groups without consequence. And no one has the right to stand on someone else’s front porch and scream profanities. 

The First Amendment simply does not extend into the private sector. Plenty of institutions, corporations, and entities can choose to limit speech within their spheres of influence. Universities, private businesses, civic organizations, and religious institutions may all impose limits on what their members and constituents say.  

To that end, all social media platforms, including Twitter, are well within their rights to place limits on speech as they see fit. If Musk is concerned with upholding democracy, he should take his quest elsewhere. The government doesn’t own Twitter, and therefore Twitter’s stance on speech has no bearing on the health of our democracy. Elon Musk cannot make Twitter any more free from government interference than it already is. 

Why Should Authorities Care — And How Should They Respond?

Elon Musk is right about this much: Important conversations take place on Twitter. And because of that, it’s crucial for authorities to step into this arena and shape smarter conversations. 

The challenge here is that true authority is getting lost in the noise, and the public’s respect for bona fide expertise keeps diminishing. Thanks to the rampant spread of misinformation and disinformation in a highly polarized environment, it’s becoming harder and harder to break through the digital clutter and capture attention.

But authorities must try. 

Directing a smarter conversation involves putting several elements of our Authority Manifesto into practice, including:

Without the influence of authoritative, fact-based points of view, the public could very well experience the tragedy of the commons in a whole new way. 

Elevate Smart Conversation on Twitter and Beyond

Time will tell whether Elon Musk will actually buy Twitter and implement a no-holds-barred approach to speech on the platform. Whether he does or not, your professional services firm has a role to play in demonstrating true authority and elevating the conversation for your audience and society at large.

But to direct a smarter conversation, you need to first create and hone your unique positions of authority. We’d love to help. 

by

At Greentarget, we’ve formed a small working group that is advising clients on communications considerations surrounding the Supreme Court’s imminent ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Based on the inquiries and conversations we’ve facilitated thus far, we’ve created a discussion guide, which can be downloaded below, designed specifically for the unique dynamics professional services firms must navigate in their communications considerations.

We hope you find this tool useful in your ongoing discussions.

by

Over the past two years, reporters have increasingly turned to online video calls as convenient ways to conduct interviews with faraway sources. The result has been an influx of opportunities for business leaders to engage with the media and establish themselves as authorities in their areas of expertise.

To take maximum advantage of this, one must be ready to not only interview with reporters, but do so via Zoom or similar programs. These interviews come with their own set of challenges and considerations…but don’t worry: we’re here to get you and your firm prepared.

by

For decades, PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have been used in everything from non-stick pans to firefighting foam. The so-called “forever chemicals” make things durable because they are resistant to efforts to break down their atomic structure – but that fact also makes disposing of the chemicals extremely challenging. In recent years, PFAS’ durability ran headlong into a growing awareness of their potential dangers as early (and still developing) research suggests that PFAS may link to certain cancers, liver and kidney issues, and other health problems.

Lathrop GPM, an Am Law 200 law firm, has an industry-leading environmental and tort practice with a focus on PFAS. The firm first dipped its toes into PFAS work around 2009 and spent the following years studying this emerging contaminant and figuring out what to do with it. By 2019, with a decade of experience under their belt and insight that this was going to be a growing area of demand, they dug into a marketing and business development plan.  As predicted, public and regulatory pressure around PFAS began to increase in 2020 and companies whose products included PFAS faced liability issues going back years, if not decades, and needed guidance on how to navigate the evolving landscape. Lathrop GPM’s team of lawyers had the knowledge and experience to provide that guidance – and reached out to Greentarget for a strategy to stand out as a voice of authority amid a crowded landscape and while much of the world’s attention was fixed on COVID-19.

Solution

Greentarget first identified individual PFAS topics that were in line with Lathrop GPM’s knowledge base that might fuel a thought leadership campaign. Then, to be sure that the firm’s point-of-view aligned with its audience’s most critical concerns and expectations, Greentarget turned to tools that measure search engine activity to identify terms that PFAS-related users were searching for.

Greentarget sought out terms with high relevance, robust monthly search volume, and little if any relevant legal content in top search results. Greentarget was able to pinpoint white space that Lathrop GPM could own by publishing novel, relevant, and useful perspectives. Together, Lathrop GPM and Greentarget decided on the topics of “PFAS in groundwater,” “PFAS in food,” “PFAS Action Plan” and later added “PFAS in cosmetics,” among others, as the focuses offering the best opportunities to assert Lathrop GPM’s authority.

Several calls with Lathrop GPM’s thought leaders and Greentarget were held to discuss the SEO-informed topics with the goal of creating articles stemming from the above terms and showcased Lathrop GPM’s knowledge and practical guidance.

Results

The campaign earned more than 42 media results, for 9 million impressions. That included bylines in Food Safety Magazine, Bloomberg Law, Mergers and Acquisitions, Industry Today, HAPPI, Food Industry Executive, Law360, FDCC Insights and DRI’s For the Defense, and Lathrop GPM lawyers being quoted in 16 articles in such publications as Law360, Bloomberg Law, Water World, Agripulse, Food Safety & Quality, Environmental Health News and Cosmetic Design.

Additionally, Bloomberg Law now regularly turns to Lathrop GPM as legal authorities on PFAS. The campaign also led to several new business inquiries as well as outreach from current clients and a prominent environmental lobbyist — who said Lathrop GPM was analyzing the issue in mostly uncovered ways.

by

Challenge

Ignite, a Chicago based non-profit, has been dedicated to supporting homeless youth for 45 years. But they continue to run up against a significant problem that inhibits their ability to deliver services: specifically, how the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines homelessness.

HUD currently defines homelessness by assessing the number of people on the streets and shelters within one night. But homeless youth generally fly under the radar, often by staying on people’s couches: of the 1 in 10 young adults between 18 to 25 who encounter homelessness in a year, half only do so through couch surfing. As such, HUD doesn’t count these youth as homeless, making it much harder for community organizations like Ignite (who rely on the department’s funds) to help them. This problem is only getting worse, especially with COVID-19 having exacerbated housing instability across the US. 

Legislation exists to change HUD’s definition, but it had stalled in Congress. That’s why, in the fall of 2021, Greentarget jumped on board to help Ignite draw attention to this legislation and the growing problem of youth homelessness.

Solution

The Greentarget team began by engaging Ignite’s Executive and Program & Leadership team members to understand precisely where the HUD issue stood, why it was more important than ever we address it now, and how the Ignite team’s experiences could establish them as authorities on this topic.

From there, we conducted extensive research into the issues at hand and the current media landscape, and interviewed two homeless youth who were using Ignite’s services – knowing that to really illuminate this story, we had to back up our claims with data and place firsthand experiences front and center.

This gave us the foundation to shape media pitches and develop an op-ed geared towards target audiences on Capitol Hill and in Chicago.

Results

“Your time and energy make these life-changing programs possible and mean that we can help more young people achieve personal and economic independence and reach their full potential.” – Stephanie Piccirilli, President & CEO, Ignite.

by

The ground-breaking nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court means professional services firms have a lot to consider when it comes to their PR strategy. The key question is whether – and how – to weigh in publicly on an appointment that could have far-reaching business and social implications.

As her Senate confirmation hearings begin this week, Jackson stands on the threshold of one of the most consequential jobs in the country, ruling on issues that are critical to U.S. business, governance and civic life. If confirmed, she would be the first Black woman on the court as well as the first justice to have worked representing poor criminal defendants.

Her nomination comes as the public is increasingly looking to business leaders for guidance and opinions at important moments of civic discourse. Offering a point of view at such times shouldn’t be done without care. But organizations that consider the matter strategically have an opportunity — and in some cases, a responsibility — to express true positions of authority at a key juncture in U.S. history.

Jackson’s nomination isn’t the only high-profile personnel move that might tempt professional service organizations to speak up. We asked Greentarget’s senior leaders about the advice they offer clients who come to us for guidance in these moments, and it starts with a few questions.

Is There a Direct Connection?

The first couple queries are fairly open-and-shut and pertain to the direct connection to the person being nominated or appointee.

Does the nominee/appointee have a personal connection to your organization?

An organization that has such a connection almost certainly has the authority to say something. That might not be the case if, say, a 67-year-old is appointed to a significant position 40 years after working at a law firm as an associate. But if the connection is stronger, putting out a short congratulatory statement that acknowledges the connection is probably a smart play, assuming things didn’t end on bad terms.

Making such a statement is a point of credentialing for an organization, even if it’s not one that will likely generate tons of headlines. Of course, there’s the inverse to this question …

Does your organization have an obvious conflict when it comes to commenting?

This is probably another question without much gray area. The decision to say something publicly might be a simple “no” because there’s a direct conflict – in the case of Jackson, a law firm might be set to argue before the Supreme Court in the next term. That might not automatically rule out saying something, but it could limit what can be safely said. And a milquetoast point-of-view might not be worth the time it takes to work it up.

What if There’s No Direct Connection?

Depending on the answers to the first two questions, some organizations may simply shrug and move on. But there are other important questions to consider before doing so.

Does the position relate directly to a major focus or emphasis of your organization?

Say your organization does a lot of work in securities or finance. It’s likely that your team includes someone – probably multiple someones – with strong perspectives when a new SEC chairman is named. Or, perhaps your organization has expertise on workplace issues. The appointment of a new secretary of labor will probably elicit a reaction or two from members of your team.

Still, making public comments in such moments isn’t a given. It’s important to actually have something to say about the person being nominated – and that what you’re saying is insightful enough for the reward to outweigh any potential risk.

So how do I know if what we have to say is insightful enough?

For either of the above examples, your organization’s subject matter experts might have thoughts on how the new SEC chair or labor secretary might perform, how policy or enforcement might change and, ideally, practical guidance on how companies should adapt. Importantly, subject matter expertise doesn’t have to be confined to the focuses of practice groups within your organization.

In the case of Jackson’s nomination, Littler utilized an existing podcast on inclusion, equity and diversity to post an interview between Cindy-Ann Thomas, the co-chair of the firm’s EEO & Diversity Practice Group, and Bernice Bouie Donald, a federal judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Thomas and Donald, both of whom are Black women, discussed the importance of diversity on the Supreme Court, strategies for female jurists of color in managing biases and advice from Donald for other female attorneys of color, among other topics.

Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk

The life and professional experiences of Thomas and Donald meant they had gravitas to comment on Jackson’s nomination. But Littler as an organization also could authentically and effectively weigh in because the firm has addressed similar issues for five years on the podcast (in addition to a variety of other channels). These factors tie directly to the next question on our list.

Is your organization able to speak to that point effectively and authentically, particularly in historic moments?

This was a question that came up a lot over the past couple years as organizations decided whether and how to contribute to the conversation in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and a broader racial reckoning. As my colleague, Steve DiMattia, smartly noted last year, it’s important that public comments in these moments aren’t just words:

The authenticity and credibility of any statement issued to address a fraught moment will not be judged against the values that you claim to profess but by the values you demonstrate through your actions. Values reveal themselves in observable behavior. And an organization that claims to stand for diversity and inclusion, but which has done nothing to advance diversity and inclusion, needs to think carefully about how it participates in the conversation about diversity and inclusion or risk alienating its audience.

The Need(?) to Say Something in the Digital Age

Here’s one more piece to the puzzle: Not only do we live in an era when news can make it around the world in minutes, we live in one in which technology makes it easier than ever to hold organizations’ feet to the fire.

Take what happened during International Women’s Day earlier this month. A slew of organizations posted what were fairly banal comments meant to celebrate the day – and were then quickly skewered by a bot that replied to the original posts with pay gap data about the organizations. The organizations, many of which quickly deleted their original tweets, learned the hard way that it’s never been more important to think through points-of-view before going public with them.

But that shouldn’t keep companies from commenting at all. As my colleagues Pam Munoz and Howell J. Malham Jr., noted last year, “It’s not an option for companies and their leaders to avoid entering into the fray of complex social challenges anymore.”

It could be argued that companies can enter the fray without entering it at every possible moment – and in the case of Jackson’s nomination, the moment might simply not be right based on the criteria outlined above. Indeed, organizations should pick their spots, because an empty/by-the-numbers move will be at best a non-factor.

But smart and incisive commentary, delivered thoughtfully and at the right time, is likely worth the risk, and it can make for a smarter conversation.

Close
Close