A PR polarization index requires perspective and authenticity

In recent years, companies and their PR teams have had to more strategically consider whether or not, and how, to take a stand on the issues of the day.

Now there’s a new tool to do so: a polarization index.

As noted on the intro page to the online tool:

It reveals which side of the political spectrum is most engaged with an issue, how far apart both sides are, and points to how much unreliable information is being shared.

Developed by Fred Cook and others at Golin, Signal Labs and the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Southern California, the tool uses scalable metrics to help visualize the sentiment context of an issue, and thus calculate how to position a CEO or brand on that issue.

Currently, the index covers 10 issues, including the Covid vaccine, immigration policy, and others.

I like the tool and have respect for what Cook and USC Annenberg have done and made available to professionals and students in the past. I do have a couple of concerns about how polarization is characterized and how this tool is used, and I mentioned it with Cook on a recent webinar where he revealed the tool. He explained that polarization is seen as a high level of incivility and extreme viewpoints.

That is fair. But my two concerns remain.

One, we should not be too quick to label something as polarized when we simply have competing values, ideas and expressions, which is consonant with our national history and actually healthy for democracy and civil society. I worry that polarization will become a pejorative term as opposed to a recognition of expected difference of opinion. Nevertheless, since the index is scalable, it is a good way to assess the valence and separation of views and respectfully position with that in mind. It makes a difference if an issue is a hot potato or a clear imperative for involvement.

My second concern is that social positioning decisions will be made on the basis of public opinion data as opposed to rooted corporate values. If the former, companies could end up looking more like they are coat-tailing than leading. But if it is the latter, a CEO or company position will look consistent, authentic and thus positive for reputation. This will especially be true if there is some expectancy violation, meaning a company takes an unpopular stance because it is in line with their long-standing company culture, values and other positions.