Greentarget

January 28, 2022 by Greentarget

Establishing true authority in a crowded landscape requires an effective PR strategy. One proven way to cut through the noise is research-driven thought leadership – a strategy that Littler, the world’s largest employment and labor law firm representing management, has effectively leveraged in partnership with Greentarget for a decade.

Since 2012, Littler and Greentarget have conducted an annual survey of in-house lawyers, C-suite executives, and HR professionals to understand the top regulatory, social, and technological issues impacting the workplace. However, the outbreak of COVID-19 in early 2020 created a need for Littler to provide quicker and more frequent data. Companies of all sizes were facing unprecedented challenges and the firm’s clients expressed a strong desire for benchmarking data to help respond to a rapidly changing pandemic environment.

Solution

To stay ahead of the curve, Littler and Greentarget reconfigured their strategy by introducing shorter “pulse” surveys focused on time-sensitive issues. In the early months of COVID-19, team members across Greentarget’s Media Relations, Research & Market Intelligence, and Content & Editorial teams – led by Littler’s account team – developed a more efficient approach that cut down lead time before publication.

From March 2020 through the end of 2021, eight survey reports (six in the U.S. and two in Europe) were published, providing valuable insights for employers on such issues as vaccination policies, return-to-office expectations, hybrid working models, and safety protocols.

Results

The surveys have generated substantial media visibility, with more than 1,100 media placements stemming from the 2021 research in top-tier publications – including the Associated Press, Axios, Bloomberg News, CNBC, Financial Times, Forbes, New York Times, PBS Newshour, Politico, Reuters, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post – as well as in a range of industry trade and regional media.

The reports also led to a considerable increase in website traffic for Littler, including a five-fold increase in page visits to press releases related to the reports and almost double the traffic to report landing pages from 2020 to 2021. Additionally, the survey on the Delta variant’s impact was cited multiple times in OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard as part of the agency’s factfinding with respect to employer vaccine mandates.

Perhaps most significantly, Littler has received a plethora of direct feedback from clients who are relying on the data to help guide and support workplace strategies, as well as understand how their peer group is approaching emerging issues. More than 4,500 executives completed the surveys in 2021 – the highest response rate in the history of Littler’s surveys and another clear indicator that issuing brief surveys on timely and relevant issues is resonating with clients.

Taken as a whole, the research reports have further bolstered Littler’s standing as the go-to employment and labor law adviser and authority across a broad range of industries – all while providing critical insight to employers in uncertain times.

December 14, 2021 by Greentarget

Professional services firms are under more scrutiny than ever when it comes to the clients they represent. Employees are no longer reticent about protesting clients they consider unsavory. We’ve seen other stakeholders and the public actively lobby firms to drop certain clients, as well.

Think about the way at least three law firms distanced themselves from representing the Trump administration after initially agreeing to help challenge election results. Public and internal pressures forced these firms to reconsider their willingness to be involved.

Controversial scenarios like this can land on the doorstep of any professional services firm. To protect your firm’s reputation in an era of more aggressive social activism, you can mitigate risk by considering carefully which clients you’re willing to work with.

Professional services firm can do this by applying the logic investors are increasingly using – it’s associated these days with three letters: ESG.

ESG Minimizes Risk and Maximizes Long-term Results

In the financial services realm, investing with a fund manager who touts a strong commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices is not just about making a positive social impact. It’s also a way to reduce the likelihood that your investment will lose value while increasing the likelihood of positive returns over time.

Companies with weak ESG performance often find themselves in situations that can lead to a decline in valuation. If a company is cutting corners on safety protocols, harming the environment, or exploiting its workers, there’s a much greater likelihood it’ll eventually be sued, fined, or otherwise penalized, which can negatively impact its stock price. Activision’s shares have tumbled since revelations of sexual misconduct among its employees, a clear failure of governance. So an investor or fund manager may choose to benefit society by putting her money into a company or a fund with stronger ESG standards, sure, but it should also de-risk her investment.

How is this strategy relevant to who professional services firms take on as clients? Like investors, they should weigh the short-term gains they stand to make against the long-term risks associated with their choices. Is the initial financial windfall of working with a client of questionable or dubious integrity worth a ding to your firm’s reputation?

Socially Responsible Investing is a Way for Investors to Live Out Their Values

There are firms who choose to represent society’s most controversial and polarizing characters as a matter of principle. In the legal industry, for example, firms rightly argue that everyone deserves skilled representation, even those who some may consider unsavory. That’s certainly true, and if the employees and stakeholders of those firms know that is how they make decisions, there’s less risk for those firms. But when a firm purports to hold certain values and then makes decisions that contradict those values, the firm takes on significant reputational risk.

Assuming you’ve taken steps to define your values, applying an ESG investment lens to client selection can help you live them out.

Ethical investing got started in the 1980s when students in the U.S. demanded that their colleges and universities divest from companies that did business with the apartheid government of South Africa. Over the years an investing strategy known as “exclusionary screening” became popular, wherein investment managers would screen certain industries out of their portfolios. Tobacco, firearms, pornography, fossil fuels, etc., were common targets.

Investors have largely moved from screening out whole industries to selecting best-of-breed companies across all sectors of the economy. Regardless, protocols aligned with your corporate values can help you make decisions about the types of clients you’re willing to represent or the kinds of projects you’re comfortable taking on. Failing to make decisions in this way can cause backlash among other clients, employees, and even law enforcement.

Google, whose motto remains “Don’t Be Evil,” faced intense blowback when employees discovered its plans to work with the Pentagon on a project using artificial intelligence technology. After workers spoke out, walked out, and even resigned in protest, Google abandoned the project. Executives recently announced they’ll be exploring another contract with the Pentagon — but this time Google took care to explain how this decision fits with its principles.

PR giant Edelman has been assailed recently by employees who decry statements it made praising COP24’s “new level of international consensus that climate change is an existential threat,” calling for “more scrutiny of corporate climate lobbying efforts,” and arguing that many pledges made at the conference “fall short of what is necessary to avert climate disaster,” all the while representing companies that exploit fossil fuels and the trade groups that lobby for them.

McKinsey advised the pharmaceutical industry for years about how to increase opioid sales at a time when abuse of pain medicine was widespread. Sued by 46 states’ attorneys general for contributing to the opioid epidemic, the firm ultimately apologized for the work and paid a $573 million settlement to resolve investigations into it conduct, though the firm remains beset with fresh lawsuits. To avoid such entanglements in the future, the CEO Kevin Sneader struggled to draw bright-line rules around the kinds of industries from which it would no longer take clients, including defense, intelligence, justice or policing institutions in nondemocratic countries. Consensus among its partners on this has been difficult to achieve, and the divided opinions are said to have contributed to the Sneader’s ouster.

Investing in Funds with a Low ESG Index Can Influence Positive Change, Too

Sometimes, investors with a strong ESG commitment still invest in companies with environmental, social, or governance liability, but make this seemingly contradictory decision to encourage a company to change. For example, they might invest in an oil company to influence management’s decisions around replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.

This logic might guide you to take on projects or clients that appear to be objectionable on the surface but have the potential to drive reform.

One example of this is impact litigation, which Harvard Law School defines as filing or defending lawsuits focused on changing laws or focused on the rights of a larger group of people than is directly involved in the suit. On the surface, such representations could beg the question, “Why are you doing this work?” But under certain circumstances, a firm may enter unsavory territory not only to earn fees, but also to make the world a more equitable place for more than just its client. Alan Isaacman’s work on behalf of Larry Flynt, published of Hustler in Hustler Magazine v Falwell, a landmark First Amendment decision, is a clear example. Indeed, John Adams’ defense of the reviled British soldiers who fired on colonists at the Boston Massacre in 1770 – rooted in his concern for the rights of the innocent and the rule of law – reveals how this practice has long been a feature of American jurisprudence.

Make Business Decisions that Align with Your Firm’s Values

Whether you’re more concerned with mitigating risks to your firm’s reputation or using your talent and expertise to effect social change, the business decisions you make are most defensible when they align with what are commonly understood to be your organization’s values. Applying an ESG filter can help your firm make choices that maximize long-term earnings over short-term gain, enter boldly into social reform territory, or screen out clients and projects that don’t fit with your core principles.

It all comes down to who you are and what you want to represent. Define your values. Communicate them to your clients, your employees, and the community at large. And then commit to making decisions with those guidelines in mind.

November 17, 2021 by Greentarget

Journalists continue to feel they’re the last and best defense against the spread of fake news. Yet only 14 percent say their own efforts have a significant impact on improving the situation. And they’re skeptical that mitigation efforts such as media literacy campaigns and anti-fake news laws will do anything to turn the tide.

According to our 2021 Fake News report, 84 percent of the 103 journalists surveyed agreed that the weaponized use of the term “fake news” — i.e., when it’s not being used to describe misinformation and disinformation — is contributing to the delegitimization of traditional media and news sources. Furthermore, 89 percent believe that actual disinformation is as dangerous or more dangerous than no news at all.

As a former reporter, I understand journalists’ cynicism — a sentiment common in newsrooms even in happier times. But I also think journalists are wrong to take such a bleak view. From my vantage point, there are two actions that would reduce fake news’ impact, at least over the long term.

We absolutely should support reform efforts around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And we must simultaneously invest in media literacy education efforts. Here’s why.

Lobby for Section 230 Changes to Hold Big Tech Accountable

A thriving free press plays a vital role in speaking truth to power and holding people accountable for what they say and do. And that means disinformation and misinformation’s threat to journalistic credibility is a threat to the very fabric of our democracy.

We asked journalists what, if anything, can be done.

Journalists don’t believe Big Tech’s efforts to police themselves will be effective. There are plenty of instances, including a Facebook insider-turned-whistleblower, to suggest they’re spot on about that.

But when we asked journalists if the government should move forward with amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and enforce greater regulations on Big Tech, the response was lukewarm. Fewer than half believed reforms were necessary, and 38 percent remained neutral on the subject. Those who definitely did not support reform were more forceful in their responses. One respondent adamantly said, “Free speech shouldn’t be trampled on.”

It’s understandable and commendable that members of the press are protective of the First Amendment. But there are already limits to free speech that act as guardrails for society. And amending Section 230, if done right, can be another smart limit.

Section 230 currently grants broad protections to internet platforms — including social media giants — from liability associated with comments made by their users. But the law was written 25 years ago, long before the advent of the digital-first era and prior to social media’s ubiquity. It doesn’t — how could it? — account for the vast reach disinformation can have in today’s world. And it certainly doesn’t factor in the algorithms and machine learning that propagate fake news while turning a profit for the platform itself.

Given that both sides of the political divide have legitimate concerns about the power of Big Tech and its influence over our society, it seems feasible that lawmakers could reach consensus about reform. Holding social media and Big Tech accountable through greater regulation could be an important first step in stemming the tide of fake news and reducing its harmful impact.

Stay Active in Media Literacy Efforts

All that said, I can understand cynicism by journalists and, really, most people about the government’s ability to regulate our way toward ending fake news. Gridlock has been a fixture in Washington for a long time to say nothing of how journalism’s very integrity was attacked by the highest office in the land for four straight years.

But it’s surprising that reporters and editors are also so cynical about the potential for education to make a difference. Only 33 percent of respondents felt media literacy efforts have a high or moderate impact on lessening the spread of fake news. One in five said they had no impact at all.

Journalists should hold out a little more hope about the positive effects of education. This report found that media literacy intervention in the U.S. and India “improved discernment between mainstream and false news headlines” by 26.5 percent. Meanwhile, media literacy efforts are increasing across the nation. In fact, 14 states have taken legislative action aimed at teaching media literacy to K-12 students. Illinois recently became the first state in the nation to mandate all public high schools include media literacy as part of the curriculum. And in Colorado, lawmakers enacted legislation to create an online repository of media literacy resources that teachers can easily access and use.

It will take time, but media literacy efforts have the potential to help a new generation engage with media in a more responsible, discerning way. Only when audiences have the knowledge to help identify disinformation and misinformation themselves will they think twice before hitting that “share” button. They might even take time to debunk the bad information they see on social media if they’ve been taught how to do it.

If Journalists and PR Professionals Don’t Take Up the Fight Against Fake News, Who Will?

We can’t afford to throw up our hands and give into cynicism when it comes to the future of our society. We must lean into opportunities that will make a difference. That means being open if not supportive to reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act or other ways to leverage regulation so it can catch up with technology, like perhaps taking a different view on antitrust law.

But it also means not waiting for the government to act. We need to do our part to invest in media literacy efforts in our communities. That might mean supporting nonprofits committed to advancing this cause. Or it could involve volunteering to speak in a classroom and work with students first-hand.

In the coming months, Greentarget will be renewing and ramping up our investment in local media literacy education efforts. And we’ll continue to stand with journalists to combat the negative effects of fake news.

October 1, 2021 by Greentarget

As an expert, you have a responsibility to engage with the media, ensuring that high-quality perspective cuts above the clutter of uninformed prattle. That said, being on the opposite end of a reporter’s camera, microphone, and notepad can be daunting to even the most media-savvy thought leaders.

Fortunately, you don’t have to jump into the battlefield without tools or backup. Greentarget’s media pros would like to share our guide with you to help you approach your next media interview with skill and swagger.

September 20, 2021 by Greentarget

If you’re a baseball fan – almost regardless of which team you root for – New York Mets infielder Javier Báez is among the players you enjoy watching most. That’s largely because, since 2014, Báez has done things that almost no one else does, like this absurd play in Pittsburgh in May.

But Báez recently saw how being the center of attention can backfire – and demonstrated the tricky path public figures and organizations on the whole must walk these days. On one side is an increased emphasis on authenticity. On the other is the very real possibility that in speaking publicly, and from the heart, feet will occasionally end up in mouths.

What happened with Báez and the Mets provides good lessons for leaders of professional services organizations. In addition to illustrating the challenges around authenticity – especially in the age of social media – it showed the danger of overreacting and why building up a reservoir of goodwill has never been more important.

The Foot in the Mouth

On July 30, the struggling Chicago Cubs traded Báez – a team legend who played a key role in its historic 2016 championship – to the playoff-hopeful Mets. For a variety of reasons, the Mets played poorly in August and, for fans, Báez’s positives weren’t outweighing his negatives, prompting boos Báez rarely heard in Chicago. Mets fans hadn’t seen enough of Báez’s flair on defense or as a baserunner – or his bat’s ability to carry a team for weeks – to look past five strikeouts in a game against the Marlins.

After the boos started, Báez and other Mets began celebrating big hits by pointing their thumbs down. When asked after a game to explain the gesture, Báez put his foot in his mouth. It’s worth reading his comments in full, but Báez basically said that he and other Mets, after performing well, wanted to let fans know how it felt to be booed.

What happened next was anything but subdued – and was also fairly predictable. The Mets owner and team president came out against Báez’s comments. The New York tabloids did what New York tabloids do. And Báez apologized a couple days later, sounding somewhat convincing and saying that he wasn’t booing the fans — but that his gesture was almost a subdued “How do you like me, now?” after their previous criticism.

But the damage, at least at that moment, was done. Pundits speculated that Báez had cemented his future as an ex-Met and hurt his chances generally in free agency this offseason. “It’s impossible to think of another prospective free agent making a bigger public relations mistake,” longtime baseball writer Buster Olney said.

How to Try to Avoid Flubs – and Prepare for Them

For professional services organizations, the first lesson from Báez’s verbal misstep is that being authentic doesn’t mean throwing caution to the wind. Báez and most athletes likely go through media training, but they’re also constantly bombarded with questions. Individuals who work for professional services organizations have fewer opportunities to make these mistakes and therefore less of an excuse for making them.

Preparing for interactions with reporters is crucial because of how quickly the wrong thing said in today’s 24/7 media climate can wreck a reputation, or do damage to an institution. But preparation should go beyond one-off prep sessions. If organizations have their houses in order from a communications and public relations standpoint – and have invested in developing a solid reputation that builds up a reservoir of goodwill – that’s the best way to be authentic without taking on too much risk.

This may be a long-term process, but it can provide a sort of communications resiliency – broad shoulders that allow an organization to take a PR hit every now and then. The Mets didn’t have such a reservoir in the lead up to Báez’s comments. Their previous GM was fired after a sexting scandal, the team’s owner publicly calls out underperforming players and there was even the highly implausible explanation for a team dustup about whether an animal in Citi Field was a rat or a raccoon.

When Flubs Happen

Like sports teams, professional services organizations are comprised of individuals who might say the wrong thing to a reporter, post something they shouldn’t on social media or simply do something in life that draws the wrong kind of attention. But it’s important that organizations don’t overreact in the heat of these moments.

Whether the Mets did that here is debatable – some might say quick action was needed – but at least one well-known baseball blogger called out Mets executives for their comments. “I get that the fans are the meal ticket, but the fans don’t fan without the players,” the blogger, Brett Taylor, said. “Praising the fans for booing the team ain’t exactly the best way to get on the players’ good side when you need them most.”

Perhaps the Mets could have figured that into their thinking, along with the realization that the glare of the modern spotlight is bright but especially fleeting. It certainly was when it came to Báez’s comments.

The day he apologized, Báez would go on to be key in sparking a huge come-from-behind win, including a big hit and baserunning straight out of his best days in Chicago. In an amusing footnote, a top Mets executive joined the Mets ground crew following the come-from-behind win in searching for an earring Báez lost around home plate while he was celebrating the big win with his teammates to the cheers of thousands.

The Mets’ struggles resumed after the win, and they’re now all but out of postseason contention. But Báez certainly isn’t to blame, with a strong performance that quieted the boos. His apology before the Mets’ come-from-behind win came on September 1, and he has a .380 batting average this month and (for more statistically inclined fans) a 1.118 OPS. It’s hard to see Báez getting blamed for the team’s shortcomings, with even the New York tabloids coming around in recent days.

That same tabloid pointed its finger at someone else as far as blame goes – controversial team owner Steve Cohen. One wonders how a smarter PR strategy might have avoided many of the Mets’ problems this season.