Greentarget

Authoritative messaging

by

If you’re an executive leader whose organization is facing a current or potential lawsuit, it’s important to consider a very important question. How do you manage the tension between protecting your firm from liability and mitigating a hit to your reputation? 

Navigating a litigious event is daunting — and there’s plenty to worry about just preparing for the legal battle that lies ahead. On top of that, a lawsuit can also pose a significant threat to your firm’s public image. And since even the perception of guilt can cause you to suffer losses in valuation and revenue, the reputational risk that accompanies litigation can ultimately cause more harm to your business than the litigation itself. 

Complicating this further, your legal team will tell you to keep quiet and avoid saying anything that could damage you in court. But your PR firm should insist that it’s crucial to get ahead of negative blowback and proactively communicate with your audience. 

Here’s why you should avoid adopting an overly conservative response — and five strategies to communicate effectively in the midst of a legal crisis.

Why You Need an Effective Comms Strategy When Facing Litigation 

Whether your firm is innocent or guilty from a legal perspective, staying silent in response to an attack on your firm’s image is not a good option. Why? In the absence of an official statement from you, your audience is much more likely to accept someone else’s narrative — or create one of their own. 

Academic research bears this out. According to William Benoit’s Image Restoration Theory, “The important point is not whether the business is in fact responsible for [an] offensive act, but whether the firm is thought to be responsible by the relevant audience” (emphasis added).

More simply put, perception is reality. So even if (or perhaps particularly if) you’ve done nothing wrong, it’s essential to communicate your side of the story to your audience. 

How Good PR Enabled a Healthcare Company to Gain Market Share

I saw the importance of managing the narrative around litigation first-hand when I represented a healthcare company that had recently acquired a new technology. When they attempted to break into their competitor’s market, the competitor promptly sued them for patent infringement in several countries.

Initially, my client’s IP lawyer persuaded them to stay silent. But the competitor was relentless, releasing well-crafted statements after every milestone decision in court. It spun every decision in its favor. As a result, my client’s sales team encountered significant resistance in the field. 

Further, the client was a publicly traded company, and its stock prices came under pressure as the competition persisted with its full-court press.

The tide turned when the client’s executive leader stepped in. He understood that even if his organization won the legal battle, it could still lose in the court of public opinion. That meant their business’s very viability was on the line — and he knew it was important to speak out.

So we set out to beat the competitor at its own game. We collaborated closely with the client’s legal team to create scenario plans for every lawsuit in each of the several countries where active litigation was underway. We charted out every possible outcome for each milestone in every jurisdiction. We drafted a press release for every outcome that would relay our point-of-view into the marketplace as soon as each milestone was achieved. 

This proactive, well-timed strategy enabled the client to maintain its customer base and eventually preserve the market share it had taken from its competitor. Thanks to executive leadership who understood the need to balance legal and reputation risk, the comms and legal teams were able to work collaboratively. Together, they addressed the compelling issues facing the company beyond the courtroom. 

5 Steps to Manage Your Firm’s Reputation During Litigation

Protecting or restoring your firm’s image as a result of litigation will take a serious concerted effort on the part of your internal team. And though a partner like Greentarget can do much of the heavy lifting to facilitate this process, your Executive Committee members, legal counsel, and other influential figures will need to come together to craft your PR response.

This will require you to take five crucial steps.

1. Conduct Scenario Planning to Plot Likely Outcomes

High-profile, complex litigation can last for months, if not years. Therefore, as we saw in the example above, one of the most important things you can do is put strategies in place to minimize the impact of ongoing negative press.

To think through every likely scenario, ask questions like:

  • What are all the possible outcomes we may need to address?
  • How severe is the reputational threat of each outcome?
  • How could each scenario potentially unfold?
  • How should we respond to each scenario?

Finally, you’ll need to gather any data or supporting information required to inform the appropriate course of action in response to each scenario.

2. Prioritize Your Audiences

The details of your litigation may not affect — or even interest — every segment within your audience. Knowing exactly who you’re talking to is crucial in getting the right message across at the right time. Therefore, it’s important to tailor your response to the audience members who truly need to hear it.

Consider:

  • What audiences have the potential to be impacted?
  • Which audiences will be most affected?
  • What is the chain of influence within the audience environment?
  • How large is the gap between current and desired perceptions within each audience segment?

Then, develop concise, quotable, factual messages based on each audience’s needs. Use supporting details, analogies, metaphors, and other storytelling devices to capture their attention and foster empathy for your message.

3. Determine Which Communication Platforms to Use

Good communication plans are customized based on your audience’s needs. In the same way, it’s important to deliver your message using the mechanisms they are familiar with or accustomed to. 

For example, you might choose to email your current clients because that’s how you normally communicate with them. Employees might expect to hear from you in an interactive town hall setting. But your investors or other key stakeholders might need to meet with you one-on-one.

Managing your firm’s reputation is too important to simply issue a one-size-fits-all message using your largest platform. Personalization is the name of the game. 

4. Identify and Prepare Appropriate Spokespeople to Deliver the Message

It’s also important to consider who should communicate your message to each segment of your audience. As an executive leader, you might be the best person to talk to the media or communicate with your board or other influential stakeholders. But there may be other spokespeople in your organization who would be more effective at reaching certain audiences.

No matter who you choose to speak on your organization’s behalf, make sure they are prepared to master high-pressure environments. Greentarget can provide coaching to ensure each spokesperson knows how to:

  • Deliver key takeaways first
  • Distill important points into memorable soundbites
  • Block unwanted questions and maneuver the conversation back to your desired talking points
  • Stay calm and poised when fielding difficult questions

Just remember: Your choice of spokesperson is also a message. Carefully think through how each audience segment will feel about hearing your message from your chosen representative.

5. Put a Rapid Response Team in Place to Fill In Any Gaps 

There are natural news events built into any litigation (e.g. filing of the complaint; subsequent motions; the verdict). In the scenario planning phase, you created a planned response for each one. 

Still, unforeseen situations are bound to arise. And when they do, it’s vital to have a team in place that’s equipped to respond quickly.

Your rapid response team should actively listen and monitor the situation at all times. By having an ear to the ground, you can stay ahead of any curve balls potentially coming your way.

Bring PR and Legal Counsel Together When Facing Litigation

Although PR and legal counsel approach the challenges of litigation from opposite sides, they ultimately want the same thing: to protect your firm from harm. Since lawsuits typically stem from — or result in — a reputational crisis, your PR strategy and your legal strategy must be linked.

Staying silent in the midst of a crisis is rarely the best option, but you also don’t want to say the wrong thing. To that end, crafting an effective communications strategy in response to high-profile litigation undoubtedly requires expert guidance and support.

That’s why it’s essential to surround yourself with experts who’ve navigated these challenging circumstances before. Greentarget has helped numerous clients direct a smarter conversation throughout the course of litigation. We’d love to help you, too. Just reach out.

by

PR firms talk at length about concepts such as thought leadership and creating unique POVs that serve your audience. We tend to wax eloquent about participating skillfully in the conversations that matter most as an authority. That’s because we know that when your audience views you with trust and respect, they’re more likely to come to your firm for help in solving their toughest challenges.

Still, it’s natural for you to ask one simple question. Is our PR investment really worth it? 

It can be difficult to draw a direct line between the PR campaigns you invest in and the client engagements you secure as a result. And if you’re not able to accurately measure the ROI of your PR efforts, how can you be sure you’re allocating resources in the most impactful areas possible? 

You need to look at the right metrics at the right time. Because the truth is, authority is the ultimate ROI of an effective PR program. Assessing its full impact requires a holistic perspective and a willingness to prioritize long-term value over short-term wins.

The Value of Authority 

Our goal at Greentarget is to help clients establish and demonstrate their authority. But what does that really mean? And more specifically, what will it look like when your firm is viewed as an authority in your industry? 

First, it’s important to understand that the terms “thought leader” and “authority” are not interchangeable.

Thought Leaders Share Expertise

Thought leaders are ahead of the curve and play a key role in shaping the direction of their industry. However, they tend to share their knowledge in a one-way fashion — usually through owned media channels that don’t invite much discourse. As such, thought leaders aren’t typically concerned with how their audience receives and interprets the information they put out into the world. They simply want to reach as broad an audience as possible with the messages that are most important to their organization.

Authorities Serve Their Audience

By contrast, authorities go beyond dispensing expertise. They carefully consider how to position their knowledge in ways that matter to their audience. Yes, they are bona fide thought leaders in their own right. But true authorities express their POV to spark dialogue, solicit feedback, and test their ideas and perspectives among other experts. 

Furthermore, true authorities aren’t simply heard — they’re heeded. Unlike thought leaders who are usually more reactionary, authorities shape the conversations that matter and inspire action as a result. And they’re willing to embrace feedback, consider new viewpoints and pivot when necessary. 

To achieve this level of influence, you’ll need to:

Anyone can be a thought leader, but not everyone can be an authority. That’s why Greentarget’s approach to PR is oriented around helping firms discover and harness their authority. 

The ROI of Authority

In our highly digitized landscape, we’ve become obsessed with quantitative metrics. And there’s no shortage of data points we can analyze to measure the effectiveness of various communication tactics. 

For example, it’s common to assess your PR campaigns by tracking how often you’re cited by credible media outlets and other authorities in your field. Or, you might look at marketing metrics such as organic web traffic, time on page, click-through rates, and conversion rates to analyze how well you’re reaching your broad audience. 

But as important as these quantitative numbers are, they don’t tell the full story.

It’s About Quantity and Quality

Measuring the ROI of authority requires you to think about qualitative indicators and insights that round out the quantitative data. Instead of only asking how many people you’re reaching, you should be evaluating how effectively you’re engaging the prospects that matter to your firm the most.

After all, it’s better to have one quality conversation that leads to a high-value engagement than 100 conversions from wrong-fit prospects. But if you look at your standard KPIs in a vacuum, those 100 leads look a whole lot better than one conversation. 

To be sure you’re measuring the right indicators of authority’s ROI, ask yourself:

  • How often are our ideas sparking real dialogue among the people we’re most interested in reaching?
  • Are our POVs being iterated upon and therefore becoming sharper and smarter over time? 
  • To what extent are we challenging existing narratives or assumptions within our industry? 
  • What kind of feedback are we getting from our network when we put ourselves out there with a new or provocative point of view?

During the pandemic, Freightos, a digital booking platform for global shipping and logistics, discovered they possessed valuable data about supply chain issues. They determined they had information and a level of analysis that the industry could benefit from, and started a podcast to share their insights about shipping data, including an index of ocean container travel times. Subsequently, The New York Times ran a feature story about their impact. 

What’s interesting is that Freightos didn’t measure success based on how many people accessed and downloaded their useful, salient data. And though they were excited to be featured in The New York Times, that was not the end-all, be-all for them. What signaled success for them was hearing excitement and buzz from the friends, colleagues, and influencers in their own network. That’s when the ROI of their PR efforts was fully crystallized in their minds — when they were recognized as an authority.

Leading vs. Lagging Indicators of PR Success

It’s also important to understand that many of the standard KPIs used to evaluate the effectiveness of PR are lagging indicators of success. But your authority is a leading indicator of future results. In other words, the qualitative measures of impact we discussed earlier are both results in their own right and assurance that you’re headed in the right direction. 

The initial evidence (i.e. leading indicators) that your firm’s authority is yielding ROI can be found in the quality of the conversations you’re having and the anecdotal affirmations of your influence in your network. 

Then, over time, you’ll see additional lagging indicators of your authority’s ROI, such as:

  • Revenue. Your revenue is growing over time, and you’re reaching desired growth targets. 
  • Geography. You consistently see media coverage in the markets that matter the most to you.
  • Talent. Your firm is an employer of choice and you succeed in attracting and retaining top talent as a result.
  • Profitability. Because your authority yields more right-fit conversations, you’re able to focus on the engagements that lead to the greatest profit.
  • Capabilities. You continually identify new services and offerings that evolve with your clients’ changing needs.

In other words, realizing the full ROI of your authority requires you to take the long view.

Invest In PR to See the ROI of Your Firm’s Authority

Although establishing your firm’s authority is a process that requires patience and perseverance, you’ll never see the ROI you’re after without taking the first step. That means you can’t afford to put it off or hope for the best. You need to work with a partner who knows how to build your authority and leverage it in ways that contribute to your firm’s immediate and long-term success.

Greentarget clients have seen a significant return on their PR investment, both in terms of the authority they earn and the business engagements they secure as a result.

We can help your firm, too — but only if you make establishing your authority the priority it needs to be. 

It’s time for you to seize the mantle. So let’s talk.

by

Employee turnover is a disruptive force that can quickly upend your communications department’s best-laid plans. This was true even in pre-pandemic times when it was normal for marketing and communications professionals to seek out new opportunities every two to five years. 

But in the midst of the Great Resignation, the reality is even starker. According to a report from PwC, 65 percent of workers say they’re looking for a new job, and 88 percent of executives are noticing a higher level of turnover than usual. Chances are your team will be impacted, too.  

You can’t afford to let employee departures slow your company’s momentum when it comes to marketing and communications, especially in this era of rampant noise. The last thing you want is for your executive team to experience a disruption in the normal level of service you provide or for your company’s brand to take a reputational hit.

Leaning on your external public relations firm just might be the best move you can make to keep your communication strategy moving forward in the midst of employee transitions. To that end, here are four things a strong PR partner can do to help you weather the offboarding/onboarding process.

1. Handle the Day-to-Day Details of Your Communications Program 

As you’re well aware, communications departments juggle myriad details every day. Press releases, media outreach, internal comms, website updates, award submissions, media mentions, etc. — there’s always something in the works. And when the people who typically handle these tasks depart from your company, one of two things will happen.

You’ll get bogged down by the “tyranny of the urgent” and neglect the big picture communication needs of the business. Or you’ll focus on high-level strategy while the day-to-day details fall through the cracks. Neither situation is tenable.

As a communications leader, it’s crucial that you attend to the strategic business needs of your company. 

So, delegating the day-to-day tasks to a PR partner frees you up to do the work only you can do. We saw this play out recently when a client’s entire comms team turned over at the same time. Greentarget stepped in and kept every plate spinning until the new team was in place and up to speed. Meanwhile, we kept the CMO unencumbered so she could continue moving the marketing and business development strategy forward at the executive level. 

2. Retain and Impart Your Company’s Historical Knowledge

Every time an employee leaves, they take institutional knowledge and memory with them. And no matter how competent and skilled your new hires are, they simply don’t know what they don’t know. It will take them a minimum of 90 days to get the lay of the land and begin executing those tasks their predecessor left behind. But in truth it can take much longer than that to figure out the nuances of your particular culture.

That’s time you don’t have. When working with executives,reporters, and other important stakeholders in your business, your company needs your team to communicate effectively on its behalf — with no gaffes or missteps along the way — from day one. And to navigate industry and office dynamics without a hitch, your new hires need access to the written and unwritten information about your company. 

Preserving this valuable institutional knowledge is one of the most important reasons to consider developing a long standing relationship with a trusted PR partner. A PR firm makes it their business to know who your key players are, which clients require special consideration, and what types of sensitive situations you’ve handled in the past, among other things. 

To that end, your PR firm can help your team understand:

  • Your company’s historic impact on (and current standing in) your industry
  • Sensitive information about your company and/or its client base 
  • Brand standards and messaging guidelines to ensure every press release, media brief, and internal memo reads consistent
  • Approval processes and conflict-check procedures that should be followed before releasing any external communication 
  • Company preferences regarding certain media outlets or particular reporters
  • Ongoing sensitive situations, litigation, deals, or other important announcements that might garner media attention

Without insight into the inner workings of your company, your new employees will feel like they’re operating in the dark. Give them a head start and set them up for success by being intentional about imparting institutional knowledge from the outset.

3. Bring Fresh Perspective and Expertise to Your Comms Strategy

Although you want to win the war for talent and avoid employee turnover whenever possible, it’s important to remember that every change is ultimately an opportunity to grow. 

Yes, your departing employees undoubtedly contributed valuable skills and insight to your program. But perhaps they also became complacent in certain areas or were resistant to new ideas. That’s normal. Sometimes the only way to move your program forward is to tap into an external perspective that can help you identify the gaps you can’t see on your own.

For example, your PR firm might:

  • Help you expand your roster of spokespeople to showcase more diverse perspectives or up-and-coming leaders
  • Spotlight your company’s work in new industries or innovative service offerings
  • Offer media training to your executive leaders to help them prepare for high-profile interviews
  • Suggest a new approach to annual happenings like signature events or financial reporting 
  • Head up a salient market research project to establish your company’s authority and intelligence in a particular area
  • Launch a content audit to determine what is resonating with your key audiences and where it might be time to interject novelty, utility, urgency, and relevance.
  • Assist in developing a more consistent owned media program to underscore your company’s expertise in your industry

The lesson here is this. Employee turnover doesn’t have to halt your momentum. Don’t put initiatives on hold or abandon them altogether while you focus on hiring. Rely on your PR partner’s expertise to advance and evolve your organization’s communications capabilities.

4. Counsel Your New Comms Team Through Crisis Situations

Communicating effectively in times of crisis is always challenging. It’s even more difficult when you don’t have a trusted PR partner to help you navigate internal and external communication needs. If you’re experiencing turnover while also handling a sensitive PR situation, you need an ally in your corner.

This is particularly true if you’ve recently hired a new leader to take up the mantle of your company’s crisis communications strategy. They will need support to help them manage the situation skillfully, and consistently with how the company has handled similar situations in the past.

Greentarget has helped several new PR leaders onboard while facing difficult scenarios at the very start of their tenure. Without a steady guiding hand and historical and cultural context, they may have struggled to effectively and efficiently devise the right strategic communications plan for the company at that time.

There are also two important relationship-building opportunities that may arise from times of crisis. First, this is a meaningful opportunity to lean on the PR firm to help your new, in-house communicators build relationships with key decision makers within the company. And second, with a good PR partner, navigating a crisis situation can set the stage for a strong and lasting partnership.

Communications Team Transitions are Inevitable. Are You Ready?

As a marketing and communications leader, there’s no escaping it. Your team will eventually face staffing transitions.

The good news is you can be ready. By viewing a PR firm as a steadfast partner, you can prepare for the likelihood of natural attrition, manage offboarding and onboarding smoothly, and level up your communication program’s effectiveness along the way.

Interested in learning more about the ways Greentarget can help your team succeed? We’d love to hear from you.

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.

by

When we put out our second annual Fake News survey late last year, the challenges were clear: an overwhelming 93% of journalists believe fake news has a negative impact on their profession.

Less clear, however, was what exactly should be done about it. Our respondents, comprised of over 100 journalists, said – perhaps a bit predictably – that journalism was the answer. Yet their optimism was not exactly overwhelming. Only 14% said their efforts had a significant impact on lessening the spread of fake news.

They’re not the only ones who are skeptical. When former White House correspondent and political reporter Marc Ambinder wrote about our survey for MSNBC, he expressed disbelief that fake news could be fixed by more journalism. With democracy in retreat, he wrote, more media will just lead to more “anti-media” attacks. He suggests instead that, “What is needed is more relentless, sophisticated and unyielding pressure on the superspreaders of misinformation.”

While how and who might apply that pressure remains to be seen, Ambinder’s thinking does at least present another solution to the problem. Nieman Lab’s Predictions for Journalism 2022 series, which we’ll dig into below, offers more. As we’ll see, media institutions, editors, and journalists aren’t the only ones who need to play a role. In a world where CEOs are increasingly more trusted than media and government, business and expert authorities can (and should) contribute as well.

Insights from Nieman Lab

Each year, Nieman Lab “asks some of the smartest people in journalism and media what they think is coming in the next 12 months.” This time around, many (unsurprisingly) addressed fake news. Though each piece in the series is worth a read, we’ve gathered a few key insights.

Diagnosing the Root Cause  

Several Nieman Lab contributors begin by addressing the underlying problems with today’s news media: namely, structural misallocations and the so-called “infodemic” – “a deluge of information so overwhelming that it becomes impossible for ordinary people to figure out what is or isn’t credible information.”

Several Nieman Lab contributors begin by addressing the underlying problems with today’s news media: namely, structural misallocations and the so-called “infodemic” – “a deluge of information so overwhelming that it becomes impossible for ordinary people to figure out what is or isn’t credible information.”

For instance, Izabella Kaminska, outgoing editor of the Financial Times’ Alphaville blog, writes that mistrust in media stems largely from “structural, economic, and bureaucratic forces that have come to underestimate editorial risks and misallocate resources in a bid to maximize returns from reach, digitalization, and standardization.” These forces, she goes on, favor “predictable clicks drawn from knee-jerk, and often erroneous, takes that ride the consensus wave, while sensationalizing content and narrowing the public debate spectrum.”

This is in part what happens when news tries to keep up with the shift to online – from the pre-digital notion that information is finite, to the infinite nature of today’s news. As Shalabh Upadhyay, founder of NEWJ in India, puts it:

…why rely on a journalist if your peers have the same access to the same information from the same source? News organizations are increasingly moving from being a primary source of information to being a source of validation of already-consumed news. With the presence of multiple media players, one of them is bound to validate your version of the consumed information, making the rest of the organizations seem misguided. Hence the emergence of the post-news world and the general erosion of trust in journalism and journalists across the globe.

Finding Solutions

To combat these problems, Nieman Lab contributors offer several solutions:

  • A collaborative and open model of journalism – powered by technology and focused on credibility

“In a world of information overload, credible information – or credibility itself – is the opportunity gap for journalism to rally around to create a sustainable value proposition,” Upadhyay writes.

But given the subjective nature of credibility, especially amid rampant polarization, the process by which journalism achieves it must change.

One of the ideas Upadhyay suggests is “transparent processes that provide the general public with the means of validating their work.” Technology and collaboration can help here. Raney Aronson-Rath, executive producer of Frontline, cites Nobel Peace Prize-winning journalist Maria Ressa’s efforts on this front in the Philippines, including a “fact-checking consortium among news groups to try to help identify online disinformation in near real-time” that also works with “civic engagement, legal, and academic partners.”

Rath also cites the Pandora Papers as evidence of technology’s ability to enable “hundreds of reporters around the world to join forces in secure ways, and to tell a global accountability story with implications that continue to reverberate.”

  • More curation, less noise

Another commonly articulated solution: Focus on quality and curation – not just clicks. Simon Allison, co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Continent, Africa’s most widely distributed newspaper, says that in the context of a universal “information-rich environment … journalism now functions to condense, contextualize, and curate the sheer volume of information that is out there and accessible to all – to stand between readers and the abyss of the infodemic.”

The news product that does this the best, he says, is the old-fashioned newspaper, which is tightly edited and carefully ordered. The worst is the news website, which offers a “dizzying array of stories” and contributes to decision fatigue. Yet focusing on quality content is easier said than done. It’s a matter of aligning the right incentives and resources to combat engrained structural forces that prioritize the sort of “predictable clicks” Kaminska talks about.  

With that said, Tamar Charney, consulting senior supervising producer for NPR’s Throughline, thinks that in a lot of ways, we’re getting there. “Daily news podcasts and newsletters are a growing way people are getting their news. Most daily news podcasts are relatively short, meaning that in 10, 20, or perhaps 30 minutes you can walk away feeling like you are pretty well informed. Newsletters also give you that sense of ‘Okay, I’m caught up,’ so you can turn your attention to something else.”

  • Community engagement is key

“If local newsrooms are going to rank alongside direct service providers seeking support from the same philanthropic people and institutions, newsrooms will have to show that they are listening beyond their existing audience and taking steps to strengthen the community, not just report on it,” writes Ariel Zirulnick, senior editor for community engagement at Southern California Public Radio.

As an example, she cites her team’s work “hosting listening sessions and researching the information needs of Angelenos underserved by journalism.” Collaboration here is key – not only between a newsroom’s audience and engagement teams, but with local, civic and academic organizations.

Other Nieman Lab contributors echo these sentiments, whether they’re discussing going beyond data and into local communities, the importance of face-to-face reporting, or collective impact models that can strengthen and redefine local news.

How Businesses Can Help

If there’s one takeaway from all this, it’s that no one journalist, editor or media organization can beat back the tide of fake news alone. In fact, according to Edelman’s 2022 Trust Barometer, it’s businesses – and, to a lesser degree, NGOs – that should help provide societal stability in an era when media and government are viewed as increasingly divisive.

For instance, business’ trust score is 61, government’s is 52, and media’s is 50. More people trust their own employer than their government or news sources, and the majority of respondents now want business leaders to speak up about societal issues.

At Greentarget, we believe that business leaders who see the need to speak up should do so by developing effective positions of authority. That means speaking on timely, relevant issues that executives are experts in; crafting distinct points-of-view and/or tangible guidance that provides utility; participating intelligently in ongoing media conversations; and supporting or supplementing trusted news outlets, journalists and editors with expert commentary and insights.

Their role is to supplement and support traditional journalism and add expertise to important discussions – bolstering journalists’ efforts, when appropriate. And when they do participate, they shouldn’t just follow consensus or add to the noise. This is what Kaminska thinks is missing in today’s media landscape: “…contrarian quality reads that might be slower to come to market but are much harder to discredit over time because they have been properly researched, considered, and tested.”

There may be no one-size-fits-all solution to fake news, which is why now is not the time to be short-sighted or, worse, cynical. More than ever, we all have a responsibility to play a part in providing and supporting credible, quality news people can trust.

by

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.

Close
Close