Tag: public relations

“Anti-woke” messaging on the rise as brands position by ideology

~ penningink ~ 1 Comment

If I ask a group of students whether or not a company or organization should take a stand on a social issue, there is universal agreement. If I ask them which stand an organization should take, there is little more than blank stares.

The same phenomenon is likely true of adults at large. Everyone makes the self-righteous  assumption that organizations need to take a stand that is consistent with their personal opinion, beliefs and values. But what if a an organization proclaims position A when you are strongly aligned with position B? 

Perhaps this is why a recent Gallup poll notes that “fewer Americans want businesses wading into current events.“

However, if you read that poll commentary you see that democrats are most likely to encourage organizations take a public stance. Relating to my initial point, that is because the stance organizations take is usually left leaning. The left has dominated issue advocacy in terms of which stances organizations take because the left dominates social institutions including government, entertainment, news media, education and now corporations.

Given that left-wing dominance, the stances are often aligned with what is culturally called “woke” perspective. This general term correlates specifically to the alphabet soup of DEI (Diversity, Equity Inclusion), ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance), CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) and of late advocacy for a particular perspective on matters of sex and gender.

Stances in accord with so-called woke philosophy are no longer seen as a potential, they are stressed as inevitable. This may be a good time for a conservative turn on a woke-ish neo-Marxist statement: we need to dismantle the hegemonic structures of institutional, systemic left power. 

I have noticed the beginning of a dismantling, or at least the emergence of alternative stances on social issues. This of course causes rage among the very people who used to say “speak your truth,” “marketplace of ideas,” or even “silence is violence.” 

So if the dominant left is demanding a stance be taken, the unwavering right is responding in kind.

The first company I noticed doing this is Jeremy’s Razors.  When Harry’s, a decidedly leftist company, stopped advertising on the Daily Wire due to “values misalignment,” co-founder Jeremy Boreing started Jeremy’s Razors to embrace that difference. The advertising copy has been boldly touting its products specifically as anti-woke. Recently the company has taken on and called out companys from Hershey’s to Braun for their extreme wokism and offered alternative products with that selling point.

In the career recruitment space, the company Red Balloon offers what it calls the “#1 woke-free job board in America.” It has an ad titled “It’s time to grow up and get back to work” that features children sarcastically saying what they look forward to in a workplace and career that mocks the woke culture pervading workplaces. 

Patriot Mobile advertises itself as the only “Christian conservative wireless provider.” They call out the corporate philanthropy of other wireless carriers that support causes in conflict with conservative and Christian values.

Another example is Public Square, a shopping site to rival Amazon that expresses its values as “Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Freedom.” Businesses that share those values can add themselves to the site, and consumers who share those values can shop knowing they are patronizing like-minded business owners. Don’t overlook the meaning of the name Public Square, which refers to a democratic philosophy that all ideas should be able to be expressed, not censored.

These are just a handful of examples of companies that are speaking out on social issues with an anti-woke set of values. There are others and will likely be more. It is hard to say if ideology forward positioning is a trend or a permanent feature of public relations, advertising, marketing and business plans from now on. 

For now though, the messaging is beyond the basics of features and benefits and price point. The target publics are defined more by ideology and social opinion than need for a product or service. The question is moving from whether or not a company should take a stand on a social issue, to determining which stand to take. 

Sales and stock prices were down for Target and Bud Light after famous social values marketing earlier this year. However, some other brands have continued such overt messaging.

I personally think this segmenting of businesses and publics, making social values the primary message and brand distinction, will lead to more divisiveness writ large. It’s why I have previously advocated for companies to have the courage to remain neutral. 

But if one “side” in the market keeps pushing a woke message, the other sides will understandably set themselves apart and offer their own deeply held perspectives. In the marketplace of ideas there are many ideas, ideologies, values and beliefs. They are all being expressed. It’s called diversity. 

Viral Employee Video and Weak CEO Apology Demonstrate Need to Have PR in the C-Suite

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Right at the end of the past winter semester, a business story broke about a company in my area in West Michigan that had public relations implications. In an employee meeting, the CEO of furniture company MillerKnoll told employees to quit worrying about not getting a bonus when they asked about how to stay motivated. Instead, she implored them to commit to meeting an internal corporate financial goal. 

She famously told her team to “leave pity city.”

An employee had recorded this message and shared it on social media. It went quickly viral, reaching 7 million views quickly with numerous comments. The story earned more media mentions than a typical new product release, including national outlets like the summary with perspective on the incident in the Wall Street Journal as well as a series of articles in local media leading up to a reported apology by the CEO in Crain’s Grand Rapids Business. 

I don’t know if the MillerKnoll PR team was involved or listened to with regard to crafting the messaging for the initial meeting or the subsequent apology. But there are certainly some PR lessons here. 

A primary lesson is that internal communications can quickly go external. MillerKnoll is not the first and won’t be the last to experience a window opened on what they think are internal deliberations. All internal communications should be planned considering the impact on reputation if it is seen externally.

Related, employees can’t be isolated. First, employees are also members of the community and may also be customers and/or investors. Even if they are not, those other stakeholder groups increasingly care about and make decisions based on how employees are treated by corporate management. In a talent shortage, potential employees may wonder if they want to bother applying for a job at a company where the leadership communicates in harsh and insulting fashion.

There is a lot of published advice on executive apologies and lots of research on what makes them effective. Suffice it to say apologies have to be sincere, address the reason for the offense, be meaningful and often action based. In this case, the CEO said she was sorry for how employees reacted—but not for what she said and what that implies about her view of employees and their concerns. This is especially true in this case when the CEO told employees not to worry about their bonus when she received nearly $5 million in salary, stock options and non-equity incentive compensation and other perks, according to the MillerKnoll 2022 proxy statement (see page 32).

The central issue in this whole story is about employee motivation. Employee motivation—as well as retention and engagement—are primary concerns of CEOs everywhere, especially post-Covid. Motivation is not done by chastisement or shame. Making company ‘needs” paramount and diminishing the legitimacy of personal concern is not a wise plan. Asking employees for commitment after negating your own commitment to them is set up for failure. 

At the time this incident was getting social media and news media spotlight, I was reading papers and grading a final exam in my graduate course in Communication Management. I was reminded about some of the readings we discussed in the section we did on internal communications and performance. The 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer showed that after the pandemic, employees are considered the most important stakeholder for long-term success, replacing customers, that 78% of employees surveyed have anxiety about losing their job, and 43% say their employer doesn’t take seriously employee burnout. 

The Axios 2023 State of Essential Workplace Communications shows that management and employees are not in sync in terms of how things are communicated to them. 77% of leaders think the communication they provide has the context to help employees do their jobs well, whereas only 46% of employees agree.

One research study we dove into showed a complex model that essentially showed the importance of internal public relations in achieving employee engagement. Briefly, internal communication satisfaction (made up of feedback, information, climate and media) will positively affect both perceived organizational support and perceived employer attractiveness. Those two things are key determinants of employee engagement, which in common terms means employees who work with vigor and dedication. 

Another article we reviewed in a section on communication and leadership demonstrated the importance of a “communicative” leadership style, defined as “someone who engages employees in dialogue, actively shares and seeks feedback, practices participative decision making, and is perceived as open and involved.”

A CEO who pays attention to all of the above would not have had to mention “pity city” in the first place.

Reviewing this situation also made me thing about all of the interesting and practical topics my graduate students wrote papers about. There were papers on executive communication coaching, communication competence, transformational leadership, communication management and the ethic of care, the communication role in organizational culture and employee performance, and more.

All of this shows that leadership is more than having authority and insisting on something. Communication is more than just distributing information. An educated public relations or communications professional should be at the right hand of a CEO to ethically and strategically consider both communications and actions with regard to employees. 

The Role of PR in Civil Society

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Salvatore Alaimo is a friend of mine and faculty colleague at Grand Valley State University. He is in the College of Education and Community Innovation, whereas I am in the School of Communications. He recently started a podcast called “Tilting the Earth’s Praxis,” which is all about different aspects and influences on civil society.

I was joined by two alumni. Jason Manshum has both his bachelor’s and master’s degree from the School of Communications. He has worked in public affairs for companies in various industries, and has taught as an adjunct in my Advertising and Public Relations program. He currently is Principal at 45th Parallel Strategies LLC. Stephan Syzmanski is a more recent graduate who has worked in public relations in the political realm, including candidate campaigns and currently works as a program associate at the Great Lakes Political Academy. 

We had a good and wide-ranging discussion about public relations, ethics, culture, media, politics and society. All of it relates to the central them of civics. 

Rather than writing for this blog post, I’ll let you hear the audio. Listen on Spotify or look for the ‘Tilting the Earth’s Praxis’ podcast on your favorite podcast service. 

A Process for Both PR Pedagogy and Practice

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

I’ve been teaching public relations for more than 20 years. But a few years ago I changed how I teach—my pedagogy—in several classes. This was the result of noticing how students have changed over the years, attending teaching conferences, and my own experimentation. 

What resulted was a way of teaching that students tell me they really like. And while that is nice, the reason I like it is because I notice students are actually learning more. I use this in my writing classes as well as a PR management and case studies class. It works when students work independently, such as writing classes, as well as on group projects, such as case studies. 

[Note and plug—to accommodate this teaching method I turned my lectures into books that I self-published and make available to students for $5 for an ebook and $15 for a paperback. Media Relations Writing, Corporate Communications Writing, and Public Relations: A Management Function are available from Amazon, Apple, Barnes and Noble or Vital Source. They have been adopted by other colleges and purchased by professionals. Learn more about these books.]

This way of teaching is the fusion of several pedagogical methods increasingly popular in higher education:

  • Flipped class—The old way was for me to lecture in class, and then students would go off and do an assignment and turn it in during the next class, after which I would grade it. A “flipped” class means students acquire the information that was a lecture before class, either by reading or watching a recorded video or some other means, and then in-class they do their homework with me there to coach. 
  • Peer learning—When I taught in France at a partner school of my university, I noticed students were always talking while I was lecturing. I thought this was rude until someone explained that this was their way, they were talking to each other about what I was saying. I applied this concept in my classes by having students come to class with a draft of an assignment and pairing with a fellow student to do a peer review/edit. I am there to make sure they are doing a substantive review and also answering questions. After this we talk as a whole class. Students learn from each other as well as me. They also learn the value of feedback, collaboration, brainstorming, that creativity is a process of draft and revision and considering alternatives. 
  • Experiential learning—Learning by doing ‘real-world’ assignments is the gold standard not just in PR education, but in all academic disciplines. The assignments are not invented but based on actual problems or opportunities of a class client we have for a semester. Also, instead of learning and then doing, students learn as they do, and what they ultimately turn in for a grade is not a first draft, but the result of a process. So at the end of a class period where the peer learning happens, they have time to make final revisions and then ultimately turn in the assignment for a grade. They do better, I see fewer mistakes having caught them in the process, and students retain what they have learned with less anxiety in the process.

It occurred to me when chatting with professionals about this that the same pedagogical methods could be translated into a process for professional practice on creative projects. For this I would translate the flipped class, peer learning, experiential learning to a simple and alliterative model of acquire, adopt, apply.

For professionals, acquire would mean independently gaining knowledge about a client or project by research, reading a creative brief, and sketching some initial ideas.

The adopt stage would involve a collaborative meeting to come to common ground on the problem, opportunity, or project goals. Then sharing and reviewing each team member’s ideas, suggestions, strategies and concepts.. The best agreed upon ideas—or revisions of them—would be adopted.

The application stage would be the design, writing and implementation of the tactic or campaign. 

The acquire-adopt-apply process captures the benefit of both solitary introspection and group collaboration. People come better prepared to creative meetings with a draft in hand. The meeting is focused on development vs conception. And the application is done with greater confidence and sense of both personal input and teamwork.

We PR educators often encourage each other to make the classroom like the workplace. Professional practice may be able to take some things from current pedagogy as well. 

From Fourth Estate to ‘Just Journalism’–An Opportunity for Public Relations

~ penningink ~ 1 Comment

I have a healthy respect for journalism. It was my undergraduate major and I worked as a journalist for my first professional jobs before moving to public relations practice and ultimately teaching public relations.

As part of my PR career, I focused for a season on a specific aspect of public relations called media relations, also called earned media, which of course means handling requests from reporters and pitching stories and sending news releases to targeted media. It was largely an enjoyable job with productive relationships and mutual respect.

I have also watched as many journalists, like myself, made the switch from journalism into public relations. They now bring writing skills to roles such as public information officer, content producer, corporate communications director and others of the myriad forms of public relations, even in some cases exhibiting the management function PR can play for organizations.

But as I look at journalism today, I have significant concerns for a noble profession that has been called the ‘fourth estate” of American democracy. Bad public relations practice has often been called “just PR.” This is of course unfair to many legitimate professionals who practice public relations with ethics, strategy and understanding, as attested to in the book It’s Not Just PR.

Journalism should also be seen as a collection of both good and bad professionals, and some who engage in journalism who are not professionals. But, looking at the institution of journalism as a whole lately, I’d have to say the determination of what is news and what is not, and how to cover it, leads me to consider much of what I see in the media today as “just journalism.”

I am not alone in my estimation of modern journalism. Consider some other credible reports in recent months that are critical of the profession:

  • Columbia University in its report “Ghosting the News” speaks of the lack of local reporting holding government accountable;
  • Walter Hussman Jr. in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed points out the paradox of declining public trust in newspapers but editors insisting that objectivity is somehow old-fashioned as a standard for reporting. He notes only 16% of people in 2022 had a “lot of trust” in newspapers, and also cites an Arizona State University survey of journalists called “Beyond Objectivity” in which many of today’s journalists do not regard simply reporting the facts as a standard for the profession.
  • A lengthy series in the journalism trade publication Columbia Journalism Reviewlooks at the ‘Trump-Russia collusion’ allegations as an example of partisan coverage of a president, really political advertising in the name of journalism;
  • Several prominent journalists (liberals, mind you) have left the ranks of mainstream media because of the bias they experienced daily. They have taken to writing on Substack and other outlets as independent journalists. Two recently gave Congressional testimony to Congress about not just the media but the government and social media companies working together to censor free speech. Their testimonies were based on their reporting in what has become known as the “Twitter files”. You can read the full congressional testimonies of Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi.

The notion that journalists who want to actually do journalism have to leave mainstream media to do so is discussed at length by James O’Keefe in his book “American Muckraker: Rethinking Journalism for the 21st Century”. O’Keefe is known for independent investigative journalism with the organization Project Veritas. He was ousted from that organization by its board in February, and has announced he will launch the O’Keefe Media Group in July.

O’Keefe made a name for himself through surreptitious audio and video recordings in his reporting. He justifies this by noting it is the only way, working against big tech and big media, to be believed. Essentially, the news media has become a corporate conglomerate and the independent function of journalism as a watchdog on truth has been left for a new era of muckrakers.

He takes a historical look at the problem of journalism as propaganda. He cites Orwell’s 1984 and Chris Hedges in “Wages of Rebellion” to note that the object of censorship and persecution of viewpoints is to break the will. He refers to Upton Sinclair’s 1908 “The Jungle” about corrupt journalism and the 1919 expose “The Brass Check.” He quotes Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “By what law has the press been elected and to whom is it responsible?” O’Keefe also reminds readers that Karl Marx was a journalist, likening the famed socialist to the American media today in both ideology and impact.

O’Keefe also takes on the communication technology, i.e. big tech, establishment. He notes that “tech platforms freely contribute falsehoods while banning truthful videos of the muckraker” (e.g. his own). He concludes that “almost as soon as the internet established liberating influences, forces centralized to counter that liberation.”

Most interesting to public relations professionals and educators is O’Keefe’s citation of Edward Bernays from his 1927 book “Propaganda.” Bernays called propaganda a tool of the elite to manipulate masses and the investigative journalist the natural enemy of the propagandist.

While many blame Bernays for associating public relations with propaganda in this book and for working with the government on propaganda during the world wars, O’Keefe points out that Bernays equated many journalists with propaganda. O’Keefe concludes of mainstream media like the New York Times and Washington Post that “the business they are in caters to an increasingly narrow audience of affluent ideologues.”

My question is, who is the muckraker today? Who works to ensure the public is served, and is served by unfettered full information of all perspectives?

John Stuart Mill famously said “let truth and falsehood grapple and the truth will out.” Now we are seeing countless examples of that which was censored as “misinformation” emerging as true. So we are left to grapple with how we should think about journalism today. What should we call a profession that puts on the mantle of democracy but eschews objectivity and determines arrogantly what people should and should not see? If we have to question if we are getting the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth from our media, then we have to look at what they give us as “just journalism.”

I would say the antidote to “just journalism” is traditional public relations. By that I mean open, transparent and honest practice. Seeing publics in relationship, not as a target to manipulate. PR “professionals” (i.e. not mere practitioners) have always been upfront about advocacy, corporate social responsibility, honestly promoting a particular point of view ethically in the “marketplace of ideas.” If the New York Times has gone from “all the news that’s fit to print” to activism, and the Washington Post motto of “Democracy Dies in Darkness” has gone from warning to promise, then it will be left to public relations to counter the wolf in sheep’s clothing, to combat with honest civil discourse the surreptitious propaganda of “just journalism” posing as an institution of free democracy.

Freedom of the “press” was never for just journalists—it was for anyone with the means to produce and distribute information. Public relations needs to claim its constitutional right, and moral responsibility and noble professional purpose to do so.