Greentarget

Executive leadership

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

Just because a senior executive has something to say doesn’t mean a news outlet will run it. Depending on the content and intended audience, an external publication might not even be the best medium for the message.

In fact, publishing directly through owned channels like LinkedIn’s new newsletter function or a company website might be better for reaching particular targets and achieving an organization’s specific goals – especially if the work is part of a broader, owned executive communications platform.

Here’s an example: a professional services firm wants to spotlight a new internal initiative – say, a flexible work-from-home policy. A mention in a trade publication’s roundup story isn’t enough to affect employee perception of the new policy or use it as a recruiting tool. Maybe the CEO could write an op-ed on it?

That’s one option, but there are some questions to ask before moving forward:

  • Is your company reputable enough in this area to merit attention from your ideal outlet?
  • Is your work-from-home policy truly unique?
  • Can your CEO extrapolate a unique POV or actionable guidance for others from the policy?
  • Do the benefits of filtering the message in a way even a small trade publication might require outweigh the benefits of speaking specifically, personally, and directly to those you want to reach, i.e. new and existing talent?

There are no one-size-fits-all answers. But as executives face mounting pressure to speak up on a range of issues – and with trust in business now greater than trust in government and media –  how and where they develop their communications has taken on greater importance. An owned channel, be it a company blog, email or alert, or LinkedIn newsletter, may be the most effective (if not the only) path forward.

Why should executives consider owned channels? 

Over the past two years the public has increasingly looked to executives to speak out on topics from social justice to COVID-19 to climate change. An individual leader’s beliefs and values – once seen as largely irrelevant in the professional realm – now factor into how people decide what brands to buy and advocate for, where they choose to work, and which companies they invest in.

At the same time, people’s trust in media and government has declined at an alarming rate. While earned media placements still confer genuine credibility for most professional services executives, they shouldn’t ignore the growing trust people – especially their own employees – are placing in companies and business leaders. In fact, communications received directly from one’s employer are viewed as more believable and trustworthy than those from government and media reports.

Depending on the topic and audience, owned channels can also deliver high-quality engagement. As my colleague recently wrote, they can give executives a straight line to certain audiences and even help lead to earned media opportunities. And while your own channel might not be The New York Times, well-executed owned content can yield powerful metrics: the top posts shared by C-level executives on LinkedIn generated over 33,000 views of their profile, over 2,000 new connections, and 16,000 views on the company’s job page.

When should executives consider owned media?

Deciding which medium is right for your message depends on your target audience, topic and point of view.

For instance, nine times out of 10 it will be easier to place an article with a unique point of view and/or useful guidance about a new regulation or litigation trend than to place the example we started this piece with: an executive discussing a company’s new work-from-home policy.

But if the topic is more personal and/or promotional, and the primary audience is new and prospective employees, an owned channel can be a great option. Some cases where it might be useful to consider this route:

  • Establishing a new leader’s voice and authority. A leadership change is a natural time to want to showcase an executive’s personality, values and vision for the future of their company. In this case, a feature story, Q&A, or byline in a leading industry trade can be a real win – but it’s not the only option. An owned executive communications strategy could allow executives to speak more authentically, clearly and directly, while creating a consistent channel to share their thoughts and highlight those of others.
  • Connecting with existing and prospective talent. Amid the Great Resignation, it’s increasingly important that executives find ways to become a destination for their industry’s top talent. In an age where work is personal, executives’ communications can and should be, too. Sharing stories that compellingly showcase your firm’s culture, community investment, benefits programs and values may not be worthy of an op-ed in an outside publication, but it will show up when prospective employees search your website and LinkedIn page.
  • Commenting on social issues and demonstrating community engagement. Executives looking to get out there on big topics of the day can use blogs and other owned platforms to speak out and demonstrate how firms are taking action in their communities and within their own organizations. Owned channels allow executives to control their messaging around sensitive topics and highlight initiatives (e.g., a charitable giving or pro bono effort) that might not otherwise get media attention.
  • Demonstrating leadership skills. Many executives write on leadership and management topics in business and industry publications. But not all leaders have the credentials, time, or perspectives that would enable them to do so successfully. An owned channel can help executives articulate what makes a good leader and demonstrate to their stakeholders that they’re up to date on current trends. If done well, such content can could even serve as the foundation for future earned media opportunities.

What makes for good executive communications on owned channels?

At Greentarget, we talk a lot about establishing positions of authority and finding a unique  point of view. While those aspects certainly apply to executive communications, owned platforms allow for other elements to shine through: personality, authenticity, humanity, and honesty (not to mention they can also be more genuinely self-promotional).

Richard Branson comes to mind here for a reason. One look at his blog and you feel it immediately captures his fun, adventurous, encouraging, philanthropic spirit. His personality suffuses the words and images on the site, and, of course, the broader Virgin brand.  

While not everyone can be a Richard Branson, each leader has a singular life story on which to draw. In 2020, for instance, Guru Gowrappan, then CEO at Yahoo/Verizon Media, wrote about his experiences voting for the first time in U.S. elections as a way into discussing the importance of factual and trusted information – and to highlight how the company’s content provides that for people. Sometimes, an owned platform empowers leaders to shine the light on others, too. Mark Baer, CEO at Crowe, used a post about the firm’s Crowe Gives Back campaign to spotlight the specific charitable and volunteer activities of employees throughout the firm.

Ideally, the best owned executive communications combine these elements with those of good authority positioning to offer personable content that demonstrates a unique and useful point of view. Scan LinkedIn’s Top Voices for Management & Culture, and you’ll find the list filled with (seemingly) counterintuitive headlines that go on to provide useful guidance, including the co-founder of software developer Aha! talking about why he “will never hire another salesperson” and corporate strategist Molly Moseley using Tesla’s lateness policy (“How to get fired in 9 minutes” reads the headline) as an entrée into guidance on how HR teams can build loyalty among employees.

Want to learn more about developing an owned executive communications platform to support goals and values? Let’s talk.   

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

Nervous about being interviewed by a reporter? 

I know the feeling. As a journalist, I spent more than two decades on the other side of the notebook, pressing executives and politicians for answers on some of the biggest news of the day.  

It’s quite another matter to have the spotlight turned on you – even when it’s just to promote your own work or to discuss a new role, such as the position I recently took at Greentarget.   

Speaking to the press means putting yourself out there. Will what you say be taken out of context? What should you do when an interviewer charges off in a direction you weren’t prepared for, or brings up a topic that you can’t – or don’t wish to – address?  

The urge to hide behind a press release is tempting. But engaging with the media in a thoughtful and substantive way can reap significant dividends for both sides. Preparation is key, from mapping out the most important points you want to make to anticipating tough questions and how you’d respond.  

Why Join the Conversation? 

Experts educate journalists and the broader public on important issues, such as rising cybersecurity risks or the economic impact of sanctions and export controls. At the same time, they’re gaining exposure for themselves and their organizations as authoritative sources of information. That’s valuable currency in a period of intense global upheaval, as propaganda and misinformation rocket around the internet in record time.  

People and businesses are seeking guidance to help them navigate uncharted waters, from Covid-19’s seismic impact on public health, education and the workplace to the economic repercussions and humanitarian toll of Russia’s war on Ukraine.   

That volatility is driving strong demand for authorities who can break down complex issues using straightforward language. Many organizations are now producing their own content to get their message out there, and some experts have gained significant followings through adept use of Twitter and other social media.  

But the most visible, and credible, platform for that authority remains traditional media, especially if you want to reach key business leaders and decision makers. Despite some recent erosion of public trust in the media, about six in ten U.S. adults say they have at least some trust in information from national news outlets and three-quarters feel that way about information from local news organizations, according to the Pew Research Center.    

Business executives in particular view traditional outlets as the gold standard for trust, credibility and value. Eighty-two percent of C-suite respondents said they valued traditional media above all content sources, followed by trade publications covering industry news, according to Greentarget’s most recent State of Digital & Content Marketing Survey. And 79% of in-house counsel ranked traditional media the highest, followed by publications covering their professions and trade outlets.   

Earning Credibility.   

Good journalists vet their sources, fact-check their stories and go to great lengths – often on tight deadlines – to ensure readers get the most accurate representation of what’s happening in the world. That rigor can make for tough interviews and sometimes tense exchanges, especially when reporters and editors push back or challenge a subject’s point of view.  

It’s also why decision makers place greater trust in what they read in top-tier outlets. Anyone can publish an opinion on something these days. An expert voice that makes it through the scrutiny and editing process at a reputable publication tends to carry more weight, and confer greater authority. From a business standpoint, both C-suite executives and in-house counsel say recommendations from trusted sources matter most in researching firms for potential hire. 

As a reporter specializing in explanatory journalism, I sought out reputable sources who could serve as trusted guides for me and for my readers on everything from global shipping bottlenecks to soaring law-firm billing rates to groundwater pollution. I prized experts who could clearly and accurately unpack why something was happening, why it mattered and how organizations and communities could prepare for what might come next. 

Build Authority by Delivering the Essentials—and Engaging in Debate.  

My best sources were able to distill their perspectives into simple and effective language that helped me put news developments in context. Sometimes that took a fair amount of discussion, going back and forth until I felt confident that I understood the points being made and how they connected to the broader topic and to the concerns of my readers. Even if just one sentence made it into a story, such conversations informed my reporting. They also helped build relationships with people who I might end up regularly turning to for insight and analysis.  

That’s one reason many journalists prefer live interviews. E-mailed Q&As and statements tend to be bland and sometimes don’t speak directly to the subject at issue. Ever wonder why a canned quote didn’t make it into a story? Chances are that it was boring, it repeated a point another source made more eloquently elsewhere in the piece, or it just didn’t say anything new.  

Of course, journalists also wade through reams of written material to get up to speed on an issue when time permits. White papers, blog posts and published articles in academic journals and trade publications can provide useful context and point reporters toward potential sources.  

But those materials can be dry, dense and difficult for non-specialists to digest, especially when time is short and news is coming at you fast. Jargon is also one of the fastest ways to lose a reader.  

By contrast, a focused conversation with a skilled and knowledgeable practitioner can yield vivid quotes and examples that grab a reader’s attention and help illustrate what’s really at stake. Authorities don’t need to deliver an encyclopedic manifesto on any given topic, or have the ultimate answers to tough problems in their back pockets. But they do need to think about what time-starved readers and decision makers really need to know, and the most efficient way to convey that.  

Consider Laurel Cutler, a top advertising executive whose trenchant insights often landed her in the Wall Street Journal. According to WSJ’s obituary last year: 

Ms. Cutler, who died Nov. 28 at the age of 94, was frequently quoted in The Wall Street Journal, partly because she could be relied upon for a strong opinion, expressed concisely. In 1990, she told the Journal that automotive advertising aimed solely at women was “patronizing and condescending.” 

A car tire maker once showed her a pink tire designed to appeal to women. She informed the client that women were looking for safety and reliability from their tires, not bright colors. 

True authorities balance the demands of accuracy and accessibility. That means delivering succinct, lucid analysis and using concrete examples to help make abstract or complex concepts easier to understand.  

Some people are born explainers-in-chief. But most need a little help to get there – even those of us who do it for a living.   

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

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