Leading comms at a large organization is never easy — especially in the bristling political landscape we are all experiencing right now — but smooth collaboration among departments can keep leadership united through even the fiercest reputational storms.

At Ragan’s 2024 Future of Communications Conference in Austin, Texas, industry experts gathered to share their best advice on how communicators can promote unity and create clarity amid increasing societal and organizational complexities. The opening keynote panel addressed the challenges and benefits of getting different departments on the same page around messaging and deciding when an org should speak up on key issues.

Moderator Marco Pena, EVP and GM of Edelman Austin, led the conversation with Anh Selissen, chief information officer at the Texas Department of Transportation; John Hallock, chief communications and marketing officer at Quantum Health; Elizabeth Monteleone, chief legal officer at Bumble; and Alise Marshall, senior director of corporate affairs and impact at Pinterest.

Read on for their best advice.

Values and vision

As businesses face calls to take public stances on social issues, panelists discussed when and how companies should respond. Marshall argued for a consistent, values-driven approach: “Instead of shape-shifting to match the moment, take a long view,” she urged, advising organizations to focus on what matters most to their consumer base and avoid opportunistic “performative” statements that lack authenticity.

She emphasized the need for companies to reinforce shared values and truths that orgs use to keep their heading through rough seas, and she advised communicators to work with leaders to frame company missions around community service and societal impact, rather than solely shareholder value alone.

“Regardless of that polarization that we see across the electorate, folks still want the same basic things out of this life,” she said. “They want to be able to go to work in a dignified manner and role. They want to be able to give back to their communities and to those loved ones.”

Reinforcing these shared values by providing clear evidence of non-performative community impact, as well as opportunities for employees to get behind a message of societal support, can help companies meet consumer and staff expectations without inciting partisan ire.

Although Monteleone said Bumble favors “policies, not politics,” it is a women-founded, women-led and women-focused organization that has consistently been supportive of reproductive healthcare — a highly politicized topic during the 2024 election. The company organized election triage and crisis teams to ensure both legal and communications alignment around Bumble’s response to the outcome of the election and its implications.

“It’s key for every industry… to continue to stick to the mission and the values that you as a company are committed to,” she said. “There are a ton of things that are going to come up. You don’t need to respond to every single one of them. But on those that we have committed to, regardless of what the political landscape is going to be, we’re going to continue to show up. And that consistency builds trust. It builds authenticity in your employee base and your consumer base. “

Truth and consistency

When in doubt, Selissen advised, get back to the heart of any comms role — delivering on business objectives through clear communications. “Every organization has a critical mission,” she said. ”Regardless of political landscape… you have a core mission to deliver open and accurate information, regardless of the function that you serve.”

It can be easy to shy away from directness when societal dynamics require organizations to make decisions and express positions on issues that impact the business, but transparency and consistency are the best path to both employee and public buy-in.

Clear protocols and policies around what issues the organization will address can help even the most ardent employees know what to expect. “I think that we don’t give the employee base enough credit,” Marshall said. “They understand that the leadership of a company is facing lots of different complex questions and navigating lots of different dynamics and has to be thoughtful and measured and how to move.”

Hallock explained that Quantum Health positions marketing and communications under corporate communications to maintain narrative control around the expression of company values when working with different clients — say, an airline that operates under different regulations than an oil company.

Partnering with legal and IT from the outset is critical to that balance because it can help organizations pick their battles and choose when not to speak up — and it’s the guidance from corporate levels that ensures that awareness of nuance is consistent across the board. “I see corporate comms continuing to take a larger, more strategic role in most companies, because … it lends itself to just being the most powerful lever to bring all these things together.

Key Takeaways:

• Values-driven messaging: Anchor communication strategies around shared values to build unity amid polarization.
• Accuracy and collaboration: Engage legal and IT teams early to ensure accurate, regulation-compliant messaging.
• Consistency: Maintain a consistent stance on core issues instead of reacting to every societal trend, building authenticity with both consumers and employees.
• Integrated communication structures: Make sure leadership is positioned to help craft clearer, cohesive storytelling across functions and channels.

For more lessons from Comms Week, join us a FREE webinar Nov. 19.

The post One org, one voice: How to keep comms consistent in a charged political climate appeared first on PR Daily.

A crisis plan is not a one-and-done document; preparedness requires a constant commitment to proactive planning, situational awareness and flexibility. 

Jay Weisberger, who leads external communications for DPR Construction and has 20 years of experience navigating everything that can go wrong in the construction industry, addressed this aspect of crisis comms during Week 1 of PR Daily’s Crisis Communications Certificate course. Read on for his best advice on setting your business up to survive and mobilize when the unexpected happens. 

Crisis-ready mindset 

As any communicator who’s been through a major crisis knows, emergency situations don’t happen in a vacuum — and they don’t just happen to one organization.   

“We love it in communications when a crisis happens to someone else and we don’t have to do anything,” Weisberger quipped. But 10 minutes later, he noted, that problem could be yours. He emphasized that communicators should plan with an “imaginative mindset” that considers how interconnected issues can evolve. 

If that sounds like a pessimistic way to live, consider this: Assuming anything can go wrong and thinking through the ripple effects will help you develop plans before a risk becomes a crisis. 

• Identify “adjacency crises”: Weisberger pointed to the impact that Boeing’s recurring crises have had on not just airlines, but any business that depends on air travel to run smoothly. “Something happens to somebody else. It feels like you’re in the clear, but wait a minute,” he said. “Where is your vulnerability, actually?”  

• Find the ripple effects: Weisberger recommended that communicators run “thought experiments” to envision various crisis scenarios and potential ripple effects. These might not directly impact you but could do damage in the long run. 

Among the “what-ifs” to monitor and have a plan for, Weisberger floated infectious disease outbreaks, workplace injuries and violence, security breaches and information leaks, disruptive activism and legislation that impacts your business. 

In particular, he flagged predictions that “within two to three years, almost every company (is) going to deal with some form of deepfake video” or other malicious creative. “We really need to be paying attention to the threats that are out there and following the best practices that are beginning to be even more and more thoroughly developed so that we can inoculate ourselves from some of the lower-hanging fruit,” he said. 

Appraisal and action 

When a situation arises that requires a comms response, take a beat to classify it. In Weisberger’s experience, many communicators are quick to label any disruption as a crisis, which can lead to unnecessary escalation or misaligned responses. “Don’t confuse an incident with a crisis,” Weisberger advised. “Just because something happens does not make it a crisis.”  

• Assess the impact: An operational delay may initially appear critical, but if it doesn’t affect overall objectives or stakeholders, it may be manageable without full crisis response. And situations require additional investigation: “Sometimes things happen on the field that aren’t exactly what you saw on tape,” Weisberger said.  

• Shore up your contingency plans: “Think about where your firms are vulnerable,” Weisberger suggested. In the construction industry, that could mean supply chain delays or equipment recalls; he and his teams develop plans that outline response thresholds for each. 

• Look at the long game: When Baltimore’s Key Bridge collapsed in March 2024, it didn’t have an immediate impact on DPR Construction, which has a local office. “However, the Port of Baltimore is now closed, and we get all kinds of material deliveries to ports all over the country,” Weisberger said. And there’s the human aspect to consider with regard to employees, their families, and the well-being of local communities: “Those of us in the construction industry really felt this because the only fatalities were to construction workers on the bridge at the time.” 

Train, prepare, empower 

An effective response requires a well-trained, confident team that knows exactly what their role is in a crisis situation. “A plan unused is a useless plan,” Weisberger stressed. By running crisis drills and simulations, communicators can ensure that their team is ready to adapt as situations unfold. 

• Conduct regular crisis training: “Think about who are the right stakeholders,” Weisberger said, explaining that leaders in particular may need spokesperson training and crisis drills to help them feel confident and prepared. Ensure everyone knows what priorities to focus on at every stage of a crisis or incident. 

• Prioritize efficiency: Weisberger pointed out that large organizations must especially consider who to mobilize in a crisis to ensure that information flows quickly to decision-makers when it matters most so that the right information reaches the right people at the right time.  

• Get your information in order: Outline who your audiences are and what each stakeholder set expects. Although Weisberger said that in his experience, “the public is reasonably accepting and forgiving … they do expect us to be accountable for whatever parts of a crisis that they feel we should be able to be accountable for, reasonably.” Leaders must be ready to address core concerns transparently and empathetically. 

Finally, Weisberger advised viewers to keep their crisis plan updated. “Make sure you’re refreshing that knowledge on some manner of recurring basis, even if it’s just within the comms infrastructure of your organization or within your firm or within your practice.” 

After all, preparedness isn’t only about predicting the next crisis, but about developing the awareness and adaptability to respond effectively when the unexpected occurs.  

“The faster you can mobilize in those first moments of a crisis, the better off you’re going to be,” Weisberger said. 

Learn more about crisis preparedness at Ragan and PR Daily’s 2024 Future of Communications Conference, during Comms Week, Nov. 12-15.  

The post Adjacency and ripple effects: Thinking dynamically in the face of crisis  appeared first on PR Daily.

Nicole Tidei is a vice president at Pinkston, a Washington, D.C.-based strategic communications firm.

Hurricane Milton struck the Gulf Coast of Florida Wednesday night, bringing 100 mph winds and multiple tornadoes that left millions without power. This is only two weeks after Hurricane Helene struck from the Florida Gulf up through Western North Carolina, killing more than 220 people and causing an estimated $47.5 billion in property damage.

News media is central to preparation and response efforts, spreading vital information to and about affected areas. However, as Americans increasingly get their news through social media, local governments and emergency response organizations must adapt to a more effective means of spreading life-saving information. Partnering with social media influencers who have built trust with millions of followers allows response teams to amplify their impact and quickly share their message.

Social media reaches more than 90% of Americans and, in the case of TikTok, provides the news for nearly 40% of young adults in the U.S. Organizations such as FEMA often have only a few hundred thousand followers, making it difficult for them to reach the broader population. Influencers with a million or more followers, however, can disseminate information and spread awareness for FEMA and other groups, allowing them to provide vital information to countless people.

Quick access to accurate information can save lives in a crisis. Influencers can reach millions in real time while sharing crucial information on key evacuation routes, safety guidelines and local resources. For example, Dr. Meghan Martin, known on TikTok as beachgem10 for her content as a pediatric ER doctor, has millions of views on videos discussing how to prepare for and clean up after a storm. With hundreds of thousands of shares, her videos provide followers much-needed information without any wasted time. Dr. Martin – and dozens like her – can impact millions.

Many influencers can also leverage their platform to drive disaster relief donations. Well over half of Americans who make more than $100,000 a year are on Facebook and Instagram, making social media campaigns particularly impactful. Whether it’s posting a link to a story or hosting a fundraising event or donation matching, social media influencers are powerful partners in encouraging unaffected followers to take action in the face of natural disasters.

We also live in an era where misinformation can run rampant. The aftermath of Helene made this all too clear, with inaccurate information about federal disaster relief assistance quickly spreading across social media, sometimes preventing crucial information from reaching the people in these areas. Working with influencers to provide fact-checked and verified updates is an effective way to counteract false narratives by quickly spreading the truth across social media. Particularly in a time where America’s trust in the more traditional media has hit record lows, teaming up with influencers, who build their brand around being recognizable and relatable, can go a long way toward ensuring timely, accurate information reaches Americans and is delivered in a way that they feel they can trust.

Social media influencers can also combat feelings of loneliness or helplessness after a natural disaster. Catastrophes such as hurricanes take a heavy emotional toll on those whose homes or lives were impacted. By sharing stories of resilience and recovery, influencers can provide emotional support to their followers. With more than a third of Americans going to social media as a way to cope with stress, ensuring that there are positive messages on these platforms is key to promoting a quick recovery.

Partnering with influencers allows disaster response teams to promptly get important messages across through the most effective channels. These social media personalities have incredible influence over the average American – and it comes with responsibility. Let’s encourage them to use their voice wisely to make a real difference when it’s needed most.

The post The role of influencers in natural disasters appeared first on PR Daily.

A PR nightmare ignited in Springfield, Ohio, in early September when baseless claims about a surge of Haitian migrants into the community started spreading on social media. A few days later, Donald Trump added fuel to the growing crisis by repeating the already disproven rumors during a live presidential debate.

“They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats,” Trump falsely said of the legal immigrants in the small community outside Dayton. “They’re eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what’s happening in our country.”

Although the Springfield Police Department had already debunked Trump’s message, the quote and the sentiment around it persisted in the political discourse as well as through widely shared memes and social chatter.

Following comments, the area experienced more than 30 bomb threats at state and local government buildings and schools, prompting closures and heightened security measures. Many local Haitians also voiced fear for their safety.

The Springfield team did a solid job of responding to the situation with correct information and positive talking points after the fact, said Kathryn Metcalfe, a former CCO of CVS Health and Deloitte, but said it felt like the city was caught off guard. She didn’t fault them. In fact, she said most organizations would be these days.

“Companies are not ready for misinformation and disinformation, and the American public isn’t really ready for how to determine if something is real or not,” she added.

The Springfield incident was a perfect storm of circumstances – a presidential election, a small town caught off guard, and a sensational narrative to share online. The speed and volume of misinformation should have been an “alarm bell for all communicators,” Metcalfe said.

For Springfield, the ordeal began after a lengthy Facebook post from local resident Erika Lee. End Wokeness, a politically conservative account on X, shared the post, which contained almost entirely bad information about a neighbor’s missing cat, things spiraled from there.

“Springfield is a small town in Ohio.\4 years ago, they had 60k residents.\Under Harris and Biden, 20,000 Haitian immigrants were shipped to the town.\Now ducks and pets are disappearing.”

These situations are difficult to handle for any organization. But Metcalfe said there are best practices that can help address them before they do real damage to their reputation or bottom line.

Establish a proactive narrative

Metcalfe, currently a professor at NYU, said the situation in southwest Ohio showed how quickly misinformation can spread, even when faced with factual refutation.

The falsehoods had been debunked before the debate, yet Trump shared them anyway. Debate moderated David Muir immediately corrected Trump on-stage. Yet the false information continued to spread.

This highlights the importance of having a “proactive narrative” in place to combat misinformation or bad headlines with the story you want to convey, Metcalfe said. That involves delving deep into an organization’s inner workings to identify potential vulnerabilities. Understanding those will allow you to come up with responses to questions or maybe even reframe the story. But that’s difficult when the organization in question is a town of 60,000 most had never heard of with a small communications staff.

Springfield did have a proactive narrative, to some extent. Days before the lies about immigrants hit critical mass, a major story ran in The New York Times that highlighted the immigrants – both the challenges and the successes. “By most accounts, the Haitians have helped revitalize Springfield,” the story noted.

After being thrust into the national spotlight, Springfield created a frequently asked questions page specifically focused on immigration. It sits prominently on its homepage. The page plainly dispels the unfounded rumors about eating geese as well as those about

Haitians committing crimes. It also provides a counter-narrative of why the city experienced an increase in migration, noting that it was primarily due to an influx of legal immigrants looking for a great place to live and find a job. Immigrants are working factory and warehouse jobs, according to the FAQ, and they’ve also started 10 businesses, including restaurants and grocery stores.

“Springfield is an appealing place for many reasons including lower cost of living and available work. These conditions are thought to be the primary reasons for immigrants to choose Springfield. Now that there are numerous immigrant families residing in our community, word of mouth is adding to our population, as this communal culture is sharing their positive experiences about living in our community with family and friends who are also seeking to leave the impoverished and dangerous living conditions of their home country.”

“Having your thoughts, story and data ready at a moment’s notice is crucial, because these situations move fast, as we saw,” Metcalfe said.

Leverage third-party messengers

Part of recovering from a reputational challenge like the one in Springfield is setting the record straight and advancing a different narrative. One way to do that is to identify key messengers and influencers who can help share your story with targeted communities.

In Springfield, those messengers included Lee, responsible for the original Facebook post about her neighbor’s missing cat. She went on national TV and stated on the record that she had no firsthand knowledge of an immigrant’s involvement in the disappearance.

“It just exploded into something I didn’t mean to happen,” she told NBC News.

The city also received public support from Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Springfield native. He wrote a more than 1,200-word guest column for The New York Times entitled “I’m the Republican Governor of Ohio. Here Is the Truth About Springfield.” The piece outlines that the city has faced challenges, but it remains a great community largely because of the residents, including the new Haitian arrivals.

“The Springfield I know is not the one you hear about in social media rumors. It is a city made up of good, decent, welcoming people. They are hard workers — both those who were born in this country and those who settled here because, back in their birthplace, Haiti, innocent people can be killed just for cheering on the wrong team in a soccer match.”

For a company facing a similar situation, Metcalfe emphasized working to identify the most important influencers, whether it’s through on-camera appearances, community meetings or social media, to help share your message in the New York Times.

“The mission disinformation problem is so big, it’s going to easily overwhelm any one company, organization or municipality,” Metcalfe said. “You can’t go it alone.”

Casey Weldon is a reporter for PR Daily. Follow him on LinkedIn.

The post PR lessons from falsehoods about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio appeared first on PR Daily.

In the last week alone, mis- and disinformation has engulfed the United States. A variety of misleading or purposefully wrong information around hurricane aid is hampering relief efforts and clouding evacuation efforts. Layer that on top of targeted, state-sponsored disinformation from Iran, Russia and China related to the election and it’s clear it’s harder than ever to tell truth from fiction.

That constant press of disinformation helped inspire Edelman to start a new Counter Disinformation Unit to help serve organizations striving to correct the record and protect themselves from false information.

Dave Fleet, Edelman’s head of Global Digital Crisis, said over the past few years, they’ve seen more organizations approaching them looking for help with this rising problem.

“We’re bringing in dedicated resources,” Fleet said. “We have a number of different partnerships with different vendors, and we’re really seeing this as a response to the increased challenges in this area that our clients are facing.”

While Edelman has offered mis- and disinformation services since 2021, the big difference now are the resources being applied directly to this threat, including the newly appointed Simon Paterson, as U.S. head of counter disinformation.

Here’s what Fleet attributes the rise global disinformation to – and what organizations can expect to face in the future.

Why disinformation is booming

Fleet outlined several areas he believes are driving the explosion of disinformation.

First is what he calls the “weaponization of culture,” which includes political polarization and decreasing trust in experts, such as academics, scientists and others who were once looked to as sources of truth.

“This belief that I can just go do my own research, my Google search is just as valid as a credentialed expert, leads to leads to a lot of misinformation,” Fleet said.

The overall geopolitical state of the world also contributes, with mis- and disinformation arising from foreign and domestic sources – and both targeted and organic origins.

And, of course, there’s AI. “That is increasingly impacting the work itself, but I also think it’s had an exponential impact on the visibility and the awareness of mis- and disinformation as a threat, and it’s led to it being at the top of corporate agendas,” Fleet said.

Some of those AI threats remain hypothetical, but others are here and real, Fleet said. Deepfakes can not only cause reputational harm by creating false narratives, they also impact businesses through cybersecurity risks, such as impersonating an IT leader to get a password reset.

“The core is, it’s getting it’s getting more difficult to counter, both in terms of its quality, its quantity, [and] its accessibility,” Fleet said.

How organizations can protect themselves

With so many threats looming, tracing back to from grandparents sharing AI memes on Facebook to nation states, what’s an organization to do?

The most important factor is to prepare. Now.

“What are the core aspects of your business and your core narratives that you need to be ready to defend?” Fleet asked. “Because you’re not going to be able to fend off everything; no one has the resources to tackle every little rumor. But what are the core narratives to defend? Who is actually active against you? What are the tactics, techniques and procedures? We call them, TTPs. What are they using?”

Once you understand the risks, it’s time to plan – which can look very different from planning for a more traditional crisis.

“I’ve done simulations with incredibly well-drilled companies, and from a crisis perspective, their processes just fall apart when a disinformation angle is introduced and it throws a wrench,” Fleet said.

It’s important as part of planning to train your employees to identify disinformation.

“It’s a pretty universal idea that you’re going to react negatively to being manipulated,” Fleet said. “And so teaching people the warning signs of manipulation and what to do if they see those warning signs:  Running down the sources, going looking for a second source of information, actually looking at the credibility of the outlet, things like that — that’s really important.”

But manipulation can be more subtle than a deepfake image or a rumor on TikTok. Fleet said there have been instances of bots being used to make an event seem more significant than it is on social media, thus feeding the algorithm to show that content to more people and inflating its importance. Reports indicate that has been the case with anti-DE&I social media campaigns that were waged against John Deere, Tractor Supply Company and others.

“It’s a broader understanding of media literacy, but just as importantly, it’s understanding some of these signals, that something, some kind of manipulation, is afoot,” Fleet said.

That clarity is much easier to have before a crisis strikes.

“I think that the key for companies is not to wait for it to hit them,” Fleet said. “It’s for them to take the action now, to build that preparation and resiliency so that when it happens, they’re on the front foot.”

Allison Carter is editor-in-chief of PR Daily. Follow her on Twitter or LinkedIn.

The post Why Edelman started its Counter Disinformation Unit appeared first on PR Daily.

American Water’s Ruben Rodriguez vividly recalls the moments in February 2023 after a Norfolk Southern train derailed near East Palestine, Ohio.

Rodriguez is the senior director of external communications for the corporate side of American Water, one of the largest publicly traded water and wastewater utility companies in the United States.

The 51-car derailment of a train carrying toxic chemicals prompted the evacuation of nearly 1,500 people living nearby. A controlled burn created a chemical spill of toxic vinyl chloride into the Ohio River near the Pennsylvania border.

Although no one was seriously hurt in the derailment, the burn created a visible plume of chemicals in the river, sparking widespread panic about the safety of drinking water throughout the Ohio River Valley.

The American Water communications team prepares for derailment-type situations through regular crisis training exercises. But Rodriguez said a major part of their preparedness for what happened in eastern Ohio was the strong rapport they’d developed with state emergency organizations, regulators and customers through regular communications. The company sends customers two emails every month, which include industry news, safety updates and the results of year-round water quality testing, that helped develop a level of trust with customers.

Those strong relationships enabled American Water and its partners to respond fast, Rodriguez said.

“There is a trust factor equal to no other utility,” he added, noting that water is the only “ingestible” utility.

Get the message out fast

Immediately after the Norfolk Southern derailment, American Water tailored its communications strategy to its customers along the Ohio River in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois and Indiana. Communications worked closely with the operations team on the ground to understand plans and next steps.

But the corporate response was an all-hands-on-deck, with team support and resources coming from company branches across the U.S.

Denise Venuti Free, senior director of communications and external affairs for New Jersey American Water, advocated for the importance of not having a one-size-fits-all approach to community engagement.

“More and more people are going online to pay their bills, view their bills, receive emails and texts from us, and use our customer service portal to tell us how they want to be contacted,” she said.

During the weeks-long ordeal on the Ohio River, American Water issued consistent messages. West Virginia American Water, for example, sent at least two updates daily. The company also posted regular updates on its website and social media as well as those of its partners, such as the U.S. EPA, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources.

The goal was to create what Rodriguez called a single “source of truth” to ensure customers had the latest details and, more importantly, the most accurate information.

No fluff: Need-to-know info only

Messaging focused not only on the status of the massive toxic plume floating down the river but also on reminding customers that American Water and its partners were working together to keep them safe.

Some messages were direct and specific. Graphics, for example, were bold, simple statements focused on need-to-know information and linked to updated information on social media.

Press releases offered more details but were still brief and written in plain English. Most were only a few paragraphs long and avoided delving into scientific jargon. Instead, they focused on the most important thing: whether or not the water was safe to drink.

The crisis comms team also tapped into third-party messengers, such as Dr. Matthew Christiansen, state health officer and commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, to serve as trusted messengers.

“Water quality testing indicates that all water leaving the Huntington Water Treatment Plant meets state and federal drinking water guidelines,” a message on Feb. 17 reads in part.

More details were available on website FAQ sections.

“By getting ahead of the situation and keeping customers informed, we boosted the trust factor and showed that we were prepared to treat the water or find an alternative source,” Rodriguez said.

Dealing with a crisis requires year-round commitment

For utilities, crises can occur at any time of the year. Not all are as severe as a train derailment that pollutes a major body of water. But even a water main break that requires a boil advisory presents a valuable chance to communicate clearly with customers.

“Just because we’re not in a competitive marketplace doesn’t mean we don’t have to communicate,” Venuti Free said.

According to Venuti Free, research from the Value of Water Campaign and other organizations shows that you can’t over-communicate with customers, in good times or bad.

American Water’s communications team sends customers and other stakeholders a range of materials throughout the year – newsletters, social media posts, emails and more. The goal is to build a sense of trust. That way, when a crisis hits, the relationship with customers will pay off.

“They want to be informed,” Venuti Free said of customers. “They might not always respond, but they want to hear from you.” American Water sends out at least two emails a month to each of its 24 states, and the response tracking is excellent.

As of June 2024, American Water has distributed close to 17 million informational emails to its customers this year. Rodriguez estimated that the company will have sent close to 25 million by the end of the third quarter. The general open rate for those emails is about 40%. After the derailment, engagement rates on American Water’s emails were “extremely high,” with a 47%-52% open rate and a 30%-39% click-through rate.

“People actually read them; they want to see them,” Venuti Free added. “The days of simply including a bill insert are over.”

After an event like a train derailment, the communication bar gets higher, Venuti Free said.

“People (engage more) after situations like that because you’ve shown them you’re communicating proactively and transparently,” she added.

Casey Weldon is a reporter for PR Daily. Follow him on LinkedIn.

The post PR insights gained from the Norfolk Southern train derailment response appeared first on PR Daily.

When it comes to successful communication, nothing is more important than being able to trust the messenger. Unfortunately, the world is awash with misinformation and disinformation these days.

It’s the job of the PR professional to not only correct inaccurate facts but also do what they can to stop them from spreading in the first place. One way that communicators can do that is by shoring up internal messaging strategies, according to Patrice Smith, a lecturer in the Journalism & Public Relations Department at California State University, Long Beach.

“Misinformation is a human behavior issue, not a technology issue,” Smith said during PR Daily’s recent Media Relations Conference. “Even without the internet or AI, misinformation and disinformation would still exist because they are being spread by humans.”

During her presentation, Smith underscored the need to maintain clear, consistent and well-informed internal communication practices. At a large organization, it’s easy for one person to misunderstand the message and then take that to a reporter, and “now your message is lost,” she said.

That’s a lesson Smith learned the hard way while working as a congressional press secretary on Capitol Hill when a senator she worked for went on a cable news network and started “spewing out all these different types of statistics” about gun control that turned out to be inaccurate.

That led to her team having to do a “walk of shame,” apologize and explain that they weren’t couldn’t share where the facts came from.

Smith doesn’t believe the congressperson was spreading bad data on purpose. But they were “getting so much information thrown at them, and when you’re scrambling for an answer, you just recite what you heard.”

To that end, only 40% of people say they consistently trust information reported through news media, the Reuters Institute recently reported.

To combat that type of scenario, Smith emphasized the importance of regular all-hands meetings and comprehensive staff training on messaging and media literacy, particularly for those in external-facing roles. Of course, fact-checking data and sources in all communications – internal and external – is a must-do as well.

Smith also stressed the need for a designated and trained crisis communications team capable of responding swiftly to emerging threats that could fuel the spread of falsehoods.

In public relations, there’s an unfortunate misperception that the field is full of “spin doctors” trying to peddle false information, Smith said. While there are times when a PR team may try to shape a situation or a narrative, the presentation must have its roots in fact and truth.

PR professionals have a responsibility to the public to ensure that the information they’re disseminating is truthful and reliable. Anything less than that may risk undermining the trust that stakeholders place in the brand or company behind the messaging.

Smith suggested adopting general ethics guidelines, such as those created by the Public Relations Society of America, to reinforce best practices for content sharing across the organization. PRSA updated its policy late last year to reflect the expansion of artificial intelligence tools.

“We are telling stories, and our stories have to be accurate,” Smith said.

You can watch the full presentation below.

Casey Weldon is a reporter for PR Daily. Follow him on LinkedIn.

The post PR’s role in proactively combatting the spread of misinformation appeared first on PR Daily.

Being able to deliver proactive, transparent and timely updates during a crisis is a PR pro’s most important tool.

At times, communications professionals may nitpick every word and phrase to make sure it’s just right. But in those truly critical moments, every second counts. Even if the details are still unfolding, it’s important to let people know something; otherwise, someone else will.

“If you’re not telling your story, they’re just going to tell it for you or let someone else tell it for you,” said Linda Barnhart, director of crisis communications at APCO Worldwide. She delivered her comments during a recent workshop on crisis and reputation communication at PR Daily’s Media Relations Conference.

Having a comprehensive crisis communications plan is important, Barnhart said. It provides a framework for who to speak to, key talking points and building organizational confidence. Yet, it shouldn’t be a playbook so much as a guide that is adjustable to the given situation.

She emphasized the need to “rely on your instincts and work with the environment with the information you have” at the time to help get ahead of a potential public relations threat.

Joe Buccino, communications director of Spirit AeroSystems, stressed that being honest and expedient with messages is better than silence, even if all those updates aren’t perfect. He called that vital to helping maintain some control over the storyline in a supercharged “information environment” that’s “thriving, surging” all around us.

“It’s in our phones. It’s in our earbuds. It’s in our cars. It’s on our TV. It’s on Instagram,” Buccino said.

During the presentation, Buccino, a former colonel in the U.S. Army, recalled the disappearance and murder of Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2020. In that situation, the Army stuck to its tradition of “shutting down communication” because it involved a missing soldier, Buccino said.

The Army should have communicated with the family and the local community about its investigation and what they were trying to do to find her, Buccino said. Military leaders could have led with “empathy.”

Their media strategy didn’t do any of that, though.

As a result, the attorney representing Guillen’s family told local and later national media that she believed the Army was keeping them “in the dark” about the investigation into her disappearance.

The military should have allowed their communication team’s instincts to kick in, Buccino said. He said PR pros understand the media landscape, and they know their audience and what potential negative storylines could do to a reputation.

PR pros must feel confident in leaning into their skills and training in those big situations. Just as important, they need to feel support from leadership to use them.

“In a situation like this, if you’ve got a crisis playbook, you’ve got to think about throwing it out, dumping it, and just leaning on those instincts,” Buccino said. “You’ve got instincts.”

Casey Weldon is a reporter for PR Daily. Follow him on LinkedIn.

The post Trusting your gut in crisis comms appeared first on PR Daily.

Many of the world’s largest technology and social media companies face legal or regulatory challenges that threaten to turn those industries on their head.

Google faces the possibility of being broken up. Meanwhile, the European Union charged Apple, Meta and other companies for failing to comply with its Digital Markets Act that aims to rein in the power of big tech companies. The China-based owners of TikTok are fighting to remain operational in the United States.

NVIDA, a leading computer chip manufacturer, faces an antitrust probe from the Department of Justice.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the future of these companies, it’s vital for them to have an approach that not only fuels customer confidence, but also reassures investors.

“Just as you want the best legal minds representing you in the court room, you need experienced communications professionals to help you navigate the court of public opinion,” said Erin Schmidt, a longtime PR pro who formerly worked for Google and has provided comms counsel to healthcare clients navigating legal and regulatory matters. “Winning a major legal battle requires mastery of both arenas.”

Legal matters add new wrinkles to crisis comms

All the usual crisis communications best practices still apply in legal or regulatory matters. But, when it comes to a high-profile court case, Schmidt strongly stressed the importance of having a grasp of the legal landscape, the arguments on both sides, and potential outcomes for the business or brand.

In United States v. Apple, the federal government and 20 states are suing Apple for monopolizing smartphone markets. In its initial public response, Apple said the case sets “a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology” and threatens the principles that set the company’s products apart in a competitive consumer market.

“That statement was undoubtedly shaped by a clear understanding of the legal landscape (Apple has every intent to fight; this will be a years-long battle), the arguments on both sides, and the broader implications for both iPhone and Apple’s ecosystems at large,” Schmidt said.

Schmidt, who is now founder and CEO of Lilypad Strategies, highlighted deciding when and how to respond as a company and when to lean on third-party allies and coalitions to carry the needed messaging. An example is TikTok’s decision to allow users of its platform to make the company’s case before Congress. Influencers and small businesses spent a day on Capitol Hill talking to lawmakers about what TikTok means for their livelihoods.

Have an established relationship

Beck Bamberger, founder of tech-centric PR agency Bam, said the effects of tech crises can spread like wildfire, especially among publicly traded companies. NVIDIA lost nearly 9% of its stock value in one day upon reports that it would receive a subpoena from the DOJ.

Overall, the PR team’s relationship with company leaders must “first, be superb and second, be absolutely trusting,” Bamberger said. She described the comms team as being the “in case of emergency contact.”

Bamberger emphasized that the response may come down to whether or not the company’s chief executive is in “founder mode,”  and “obsessed” with the details of their organizations and adamantly “in the weeds,” like NVIDIA’s CEO Jensen Huang, Bamberger said. She described him as being vocal and public, but “not rash nor random.” He is precise and cautious, she added, noting him famously saying that pain and suffering is part of resilience, which he claims is a must for great companies.

In those types of situations, it’s the job of the comms team to take an “arm but allow” approach with the company’s leadership, Bamberger said. That means, give them the training, ruthless feedback and preparation needed to allow them to flourish with the media.

“You ‘allow’ them to interact with the media, if not encourage it,” Bamberger said. She noted that this may feel risky as many PR pros may want to “shelter” or “protect” a CEO from unscripted and on the record situations. But most “founder mode” CEOs want to play a key part in “defending their baby.”

“The DOJ case has just emerged, and I’m sure in timed, when strategically and legally appropriate, Jensen will be speaking out on the matter,” Bamberger added.

Transparency

Court cases can last months or even years, leading to extended periods of uncertainty about the future of the company. Typically, the communications teams are on the front lines of crafting responses from the public and investors – issuing statements, handling media inquiries and ensuring messaging aligns with legal and regulatory strategies.

“Work with your legal and regulatory teams to map out the likely scenarios and stakeholder reactions and have a response plan and messaging for each scenario,” Schmidt said.

While waiting for those decisions to come down, communication with customers, investors, personas – all the people you interact with, including employees – must be as transparent as possible.

“Transparency usually leads the day,” Bamberger said.

“And by transparency, I don’t mean, ‘Oh, we’re waiting for the court to decide.’ No, instead, it can be, ‘Hey, we’re obviously in a legal situation right now, on this date ‘X’ will be determined and after that after that happens, we’ll navigate our business accordingly.”

Messaging doesn’t have to delve into all the possible scenarios and prescribe responses to each one of them. After all, they’re not going to want to show the entire playbook to competitors.

The most important aspect of these situations is providing reassurance to your stakeholders.

“It’s about humans and relationships,” Bamberger said. “It doesn’t matter if it’s the investors buying your stock or it’s the consumer buying the latte, or it’s the CTO of a Fortune 1000 buying your software, there’s still a human on the other side of that buying decision.”

Join us during Comms Week at the Future of Communications Conference in Austin, Texas, Nov. 13-15, where we’ll host discussions about navigating crises and stepping confidently into the future.  

Casey Weldon is a reporter for PR Daily. Follow him on LinkedIn.

The post Comms strategies for navigating high-profile legal challenges appeared first on PR Daily.

It’s practically impossible to encounter a space in which people aren’t discussing politics at the moment. Whether you’re setting policies around interpersonal workplace discussion or helping external comms professionals who work with your organization determine when, where and how to navigate choppy political waters, keeping your comms world steady is a tall order. 

There’s no sure-fire, one-size-fits-all way to ensure that tensions won’t flare whenever political (and politicized) topics arise — or that your organization won’t accidentally stumble into a political brouhaha in the public sphere.  

“Fair and consistent methods are ideal, obviously, but the legal and cultural environments that we’re in,” said Christina Frantom, internal communications lead at Mercedes-Benz U.S. International Inc., during a recent Ragan webinar. “It’s like you’re walking a tightrope in heels.”  

But Frantom also offered some practical, actionable advice for training your comms muscles to stay balanced in those stilettos. Read on for her best tips. 

Start with respect and clarity 

At Mercedes-Benz, a global organization with employees all over the world, comms is responsible for defining what respect looks like in the different cultural and political environments where its people and marketing appear. 

“This kind of information is really important, not only to have on the books, but also to communicate clearly and to make sure that you’re communicating in all of the different cultural and language areas that you need to be,” Frantom said. 

It’s not possible to get it right every time, to monitor and discuss behaviors in a wholly neutral way in every environment and interaction. But standardizing policy and procedure helps. 

“Having a general, respectful workplace policy is really important,” she said. And it must stay as adaptive as possible. 

Comms isn’t alone in this venture, and it shouldn’t be. Legal and colleagues in other HR roles should be treated as teammates to help comms leads iron out the different sensitivities across markets and business operations when developing and distributing policies that empower employees to remain informed and respectful. 

The power of memory and positivity 

Frantom recommends what she calls “remember campaigns” that raise visibility and awareness of important cultural moments and political issues that might impact employees or public discourse. It’s a reminder that “hey, we’re here and we’re committed to providing a safe and fair and respectful work environment,” as she puts it. 

Digital signage on comms platforms serves as a visually neutral, positive heads-up for employees that can incite congenial activity and celebration rather than rewarding conversations about news headlines or points of division. 

Frantom emphasized the need for positive reinforcement rather than punitive measures when possible. Rather than “making examples” out of people for less respectful and more harmful choices, try thanking and calling out people who show respectful behavior like celebrating others and navigating difficult topics with grace. Frantom also says it’s important to respect privacy, emphasizing that monitoring private channels is counterproductive unless a complaint arises. 

Of course, conflict has to be addressed when employees don’t respect others.: “Where we draw that hard line is with any kind of inflammatory, aggressive or threatening behavior,” Frantom added. 

Channel manager mentality 

Comms professionals are in the unique position to emulate and influence behaviors through example. While you might write and distribute policies, you’re not an enforcer — and that gives you the ability to connect with employees at their level. 

“The number one goal and the number one role of comms professionals: We are more channel managers than we are executioners of a particular policy or procedure,” Frantom said. 

That includes both internal and external social channels, intranets, newsletters, town halls, Q&As and beyond. 

“If you’re not engaged in social listening, then you’re behind,” Frantom said, and advised comms pros to ensure that social channels are monitored at least eight to 10 hours per day. 

Being that mediator and moderator can be tough, but she encouraged comms pros to take heart, because “there are ways to do it that everyone can get involved in where everyone wins.” 

Remember that most politically or culturally motivated disagreements stem from a lack of understanding and cultural differences rather than malicious intent. 

In case of emergency 

It’s impossible to avoid all politically motivated conflict in the workplace. When that happens, it pays to be prepared with templates and approved language that can be deployed for employees and for press at a moment’s notice. 

Employees can also be an asset in these scenarios. Having your brand’s priorities, position and mission articulated and aligned with employees ahead of time also can save you stress and minimize pitfalls. 

“Understand how you’re representing yourself as a brand, but more importantly, how your organization wants to represent itself to its employees,” advised Frantom, “then flip them to brand ambassadors so that they’re armed with the information they need in their communities or in their work environments.” 

Sometimes that alignment can ensure that employees know what the brand won’t comment on; other times it’s providing policy information.  

The bottom line 

Ultimately, voting is a right and employers must respect that. Unfortunately, the act of voting itself is sometimes a topic of contention around election days, but the best bet for any organization is to ensure that their employees have the space to make their voices heard. 

Encouraging voting participation means ensuring that everyone is aware that employees should have a lighter meeting load, flex time or a work-from-home policy on election days and whenever employees need to participate in their local election process. 

Post-election, join us during Comms Week at the Future of Communications Conference in Austin, Tex., Nov. 13-15, where we’ll host discussions and post-election reflections on lessons learned for tomorrow, and for the future. 

The post A tightrope in heels: Comms advice for politically contentious times  appeared first on PR Daily.

You might have heard that there’s a little election coming up in the United States in about two months.

The last time Americans went to the polls to pick a president, it ended in days of uncertainty about the winner, a last-minute power grab from the defeated candidate and violence at the U.S. Capitol.

And executives are concerned it could all happen again.

New data from Gravity Research, gathered via interviews and polls with corporate executives, found that 79% of respondents are worried about post-election violence — yet only 40% have a plan to address that scenario. Another 73% are concerned about a contested election, but just 26% of respondents have a plan for possible responses.

Luke Hartig, president of Gravity Research, says at least part of that lack of preparation could be chalked up to businesses feeling that these topics are external to their organizations and not topics they would have to directly address via a communications strategy.

“I think there will absolutely be pressure on companies to weigh in in those types of scenarios, and I think preparing for that right now is a prudent thing to do,” Hartig said. “I’m a little bit surprised that not more companies are doing it, but I totally get the reasoning for it, a lot of them are saying these are sort of external events, and they’re worried more about the things that are going to directly impact them.”

Anecdotally, Hartig said that companies within the Fortune 500 tell him they have taken steps to protect employees, especially those that work in potential flashpoints such as Washington, D.C., by instituting work from home days and other safety measures on election day. However, what many organizations lack is a communications plan to address potential complexities in what could be confusing and contentious moments.

But many organizations are already planning to keep mum if one of the candidates (most likely Donald Trump, who continues to falsely claim the 2020 election was “stolen”) refuses to concede in the election. Fifty-seven percent of organizations said they plan to keep quiet in the event of a contested election. Another 40% are undecided, while only 2% plan to issue a statement.

Even among the 12% of companies who spoke out about the contested election and Jan. 6 insurrection in 2021, 60% said they’ll keep quiet this time around.

This is part of a broader trend of organizations seeking to stay out of politics, even if they’ve been involved in those arenas in the past. One utility executive even noted in an open-ended question that employees are putting increasing pressure on companies to speak out on a variety of issues, which is “out of line with where corporates are.”

Hartig said that employees are not only demanding speech from their companies but they’re also expressing themselves politically at work. Managers are finding themselves in the position of policing small matters of attire — is it OK to wear a Pride pin at work? What about a Palestine pin? Or an Israel flag pin?

“Probably the clearest thing that we’re seeing emerging as companies are thinking about this is training sessions for managers in which they are discussing with their managers how to handle political discussion, how to channel conversations back to the overall mission and intent of the company,” Hartig said.

What executives expect from the election

The data found that, overall, 88% of executives feel at least somewhat prepared for potential chaos around the elections.  Consumer staples companies were the most likely to feel very prepared (57%), likely due to their greater pressure from both politicians and the general public. They’re used to feeling the squeeze and know how it might manifest this election season.

Notably, at least 75% of respondents said that their CCO was involved in planning for every election-related crisis scenario — more even than chief government affairs officers. Finally, communications pros are getting a seat at the table — and what an important seat it is amid this unprecedented election.

The shocking shakeup of the Democratic ticket upended not just the political world but also business expectations for the election. Fifty-four percent of respondents marked themselves as “less concerned” about the election since Kamala Harris took over for Joe Biden; just 17% said they were more concerned. However, there was a stark difference between B2B and B2C companies in this regard: 33% of B2B companies were more concerned about the outcome of the race with Harris, compared to just 8% of B2C companies. This could be due to a perception that Harris would continue the Biden administration’s expansion of regulations.

Hartig urges businesses to start planning now, if they haven’t already. Whether that’s planning for civil unrest or a change in the business environment under a new administration, things will certainly change come Nov. 5.

“You’re never going to get it exactly right, but just the process of thinking through some of the ways that that could develop is helpful in building muscle memory, so that when those crises actually do hit, you have a sense of what you’re going to actually do.”

Allison Carter is editor-in-chief of PR Daily. Follow her on Twitter or LinkedIn.

The post By the Numbers: What executives are most worried about in the 2024 elections appeared first on PR Daily.

Usually, Rachel Parrish’s TikTok channel is stocked with videos about “What a publicist thinks” or behind-the-scenes at various events she attends as a sports marketer.

But early on the morning of July 15,  the PR professional and owner of Rae Christine Agency posted a video that was a little different. She was in Las Vegas for the NBA summer league and went out clubbing with a friend.  After eating a post-party breakfast, she began filming a video sharing her thoughts on fashion at the club.

@raechristine___ Don’t get me wrong I believe in being comfortable but I don’t think the club is the place for that #lasvegas #fyp #nightlife #clubbing ♬ original sound – Rae Christine

“(The video) was so outside of my niche,” Parrish told PR Daily. She admits that she broke her number one rule for merging personal and professional presences online: don’t act like you’re in the group chat. She assumed the video might be seen by a few hundred people and garner a few comments, max.

But the video she posted that Vegas morning has garnered 20 million views and 70,000 comments.

“I don’t know what’s happening to club culture, but the girlies are not wearing heels in the clubs anymore,” the now-infamous video starts. “And as a 34-year-old – I know I don’t look my age – but as a 34-year-old, do we need to come out of retirement and teach the girls how to wear heels?”

Later in the video, to prove her point, she reveals a full-body shot of her outfit. She looks like a woman who’s been out clubbing all night – makeup a bit worn away, eyelashes a bit off. She wears a bright green minidress from Fashion Nova and a pair of chunky white Michael Kors sandal heels.

While they do indeed have a tall heel, they maybe aren’t what you’d expect when you hear club shoes. They’re giving brunch. They’re giving church picnic. Maybe not flashy Vegas nightclub.

The internet immediately tore into Parrish, many of them attacking Parrish for her fashion sense, her quip about not looking her age and more.

Parrish is well-versed in social media crises and general nastiness. She helped launch the online brand of Jake from State Farm and was with the Chicago Red Stars after systematic abuse was revealed on the women’s soccer team.

But for the first time, she became the center of the controversy rather than the fixer.

This is how she navigated it.

Handling the comments

Parrish stopped reading the comments almost right away.

“I think I was uniquely prepared for an experience like this just because I have a very healthy boundary when it comes to social media and I recognized right away that people weren’t talking to a person. I quickly became ‘Green Dress Girl,’” she said. “And so, with that I didn’t take anything personally, but I did have to navigate that there was a narrative out there attached to me.”

But even as she protected herself from the vitriol, she still had to chart her next move.

To do that, she went through a checklist to determine whether or not this was a true crisis. The first item was asking what is the question here? Were they questioning her integrity or who she was as a person or was she part of a greater social commentary? The answer to that was no: they were stunting on her fashion sense. The second question was, are the people close to you offended by it? For Parrish, that meant her parents, her nieces and nephews on TikTok, her close friends. Again, the answer was no.

“So, then I knew my appropriate action just had to fall within knowing the science of social media and how to kind of navigate when the right time to respond was, understanding the nuance of people in responding and community management,” Parrish said.

Many commenters urged Parrish to delete her video, which can be a strong instinct in the midst of a social media crisis. But Parrish rejected that idea.

“I knew if I got rid of the video, even though it was out there, people would still be coming to my page and they would flood all the other good content that I have,” she said. “And then that would just be lost.”

So, Parrish kept the video up and bided her time.

The right moment

Parrish waited a full week to create a follow-up video. And there was a very specific reason for that.

She wanted to get paid.

In order to monetize a video on TikTok, you must have 10,000 followers. Parrish watched as her follower count grew from 3,100 to the required number.

“I would just like to at least get paid to get made fun of,” she joked. She now has nearly 45,000 followers.

When she did finally post her follow-up video, she went back to her core brand: “What a publicist thinks,” recentering who she truly is and what her channel stands for. She speaks without a script in the almost 6-minute-long video, the infamous green dress hanging from the wall behind her – an intentional choice to lean into the branding.

@raechristine___ I’m still trying to wrap my mind around it all, but I do want to thank people who have sent supportive messages! #girlinthegreendress #greendress #greendressgirl #girlinthegreendress ♬ original sound – Rae Christine

“When I come on screen and I say, ‘I’m Green Dress Girl,’ and you automatically see the green dress and the heels behind me, you have that that brand association,” she said. “Then it was just a little bit of playfulness. I’m not hiding it. I’m not afraid of it.”

In the video, Parrish restated who she was, what she did and worked to humanize herself beyond her meme status. She noted the support she’s had and that she’s weathered the criticism just fine. That many of the memes and videos were hilarious, even if some were hurtful.  But the comments on that video, which has 2 million views, were extremely positive.

“She’s an icon. She’s a legend. And she IS the moment!” the top comment crows.

“You’re a queen for coming back, I’d be hiding under a rock for 60 business days,” another reads.

The outcome

The intense attention has attracted media hits from around the world, including articles in USA Today and Newsweek. She was a guest on the TMZ podcast and has had interest in appearing on a talk show. Someone even wants to write a song about Green Dress Girl.

“Every day I open up my email and it’s something new and I say to my family, ‘I can’t believe this is real life,’” she said.

But the noise has begun to die down. Parrish’s channel has returned to her “What a publicist thinks” roots, with plenty of reactions to women’s sports at the Olympics.

“While this is a moment and obviously a defining moment within my brand, it’s not my full brand and I don’t want to be defined as Green Dress Girl,” she said. “I would love for people to define me as Rae Christine, who had a viral moment.”

For others who might have a viral moment, Parrish has some advice.

“If you find yourself as the main character of the day, take a breath first, and ask yourself what is at question here and after you have that answer, act accordingly. Also, try not to be the main character of the day,” she said with a laugh.

The post What a publicist thinks about weathering a viral controversy as ‘Green Dress Girl’ appeared first on PR Daily.

Companies beloved in the American heartland are being targeted, one by one, by activist Robby Starbuck. In his sights are their corporate DE&I practices.

So far, Tractor Supply Company has entirely dismantled its DE&I programs, ended carbon emissions goals and stopped participating in Pride parades and voting campaign drives. John Deere didn’t go quite as far, maintaining DE&I activities while also cutting out Pride parades. And now Starbuck is focusing on Harley Davidson for activities such as donating $5,000 to the Milwaukee Repertory Theater, which hosts Pride events.

The @harleydavidson foundation gave $5,000 to the Milwaukee Repertory Theater where they have Pride Nights featuring drag queens and a show about “two queer black women”.

Minors are allowed at these ‘Pride Nights’.

Are Harley riders cool with funding this theater? pic.twitter.com/hTLoDLCoQQ

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) July 26, 2024

While Harley Davidson has not yet responded to these attacks, two major American companies have drastically altered their internal and external policies in response to audience outcry fomented by the film director and former Congressional candidate.

Starbuck is explicitly going after companies which he believes have a conservative base. He told the Wall Street Journal, “If I started a boycott against Starbucks right now, I know that it wouldn’t get anywhere near the same result.” He also attributes his success to a slow, steady drip of information rather than dumping all of his opposition research in one go, thus maintaining a steady level of outcry.

Even now, after John Deere changed some policies, he continues to point out those that still displease him.

Corporate speak doesn’t work Justin.

Just address this:

• Is Deere moving manufacturing of skid steer loaders and compact track loaders from America to Mexico by 2026 as reported by FOX?

• Are you keeping your DEI department?

• Is Deere participating in HRC CEI scoring?… https://t.co/eQnki0EyUy

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) July 25, 2024

It’s unclear if these companies faced only social media outcry on these topics or if they truly impacted the bottom line. For instance, Starbuck took credit for a Wednesday dip in Harley Davidson’s stock price, but by Friday it had rebounded to a monthly high of $36.83 per share. When Starbuck began attacking Tractor Supply Company on June 6, the company was already in a slump – and prices actually rose between the start of the campaign and when they walked back DE&I initiatives nearly two weeks later.

But more companies are likely to come under Starbuck’s scrutiny – or another activist. Liberal activist issues might be different, but they have also been known to hit companies for their stances on the environment – remember plastic straw bans? – and not being pro-LGTBQ+ enough.

But this new wave of conservative-led boycotts and campaigns are notable for the speed and efficacy with which they have reshaped major corporations.

“The shifts that are happening remind me of the old Groucho Marx line,” said Anthony D’Angelo, professor of practice and department chair in Public Relations at Syracuse University and upcoming instructor for PR Daily’s Crisis Communications Certification Course. “These are my principles, and if you don’t like them, well, I have others.”

Determine where you stand now

Many DE&I policies came into being in the immediate aftermath of the murder of George Floyd more than four years ago. At the time, many major companies stepped up with new promises on diverse hiring, inclusive marketing and more.

But four years is a long time. D’Angelo suggests it’s time for organizations to take a look back at those promises and see if they still fit in 2024.

“Very few things are permanent, right?” D’Angelo said. “You want to do temperature checks continually. When it comes to your strategic planning, do you do that systematically? If you don’t, you might be waiting for something to erupt, like a viral attack.”

But walking back all DE&I efforts could prove to be short-sighted, D’Angelo said, especially in a rapidly diversifying America.

“I can’t imagine any company saying overtly that, ‘No, we’re not into diversity and inclusion hiring. We only want middle aged white guys.’ That’s not going to happen, because one of the other factors here that companies have to take into account is the shifting demographics,” D’Angelo said.

D’Angelo recommends taking into account all constituencies, including your internal groups, who many of these initiatives are aimed at. Understand what they want, what their expectations are and what’s in your best long-term interests.

“You’ve got to understand you’ve got more than one audience, and you have to really prioritize those audiences as you think about, OK, why do we show up in the morning with what we make and why we do it?”

Prepare now

Every company should now be on notice that this could happen. While conservative activists are currently applying the most consistent pressure, liberal activists could take inspiration from their tactics and begin new fronts in this conflict.

“Never assume that you’re invincible, that this could never happen to us. It could,” warned Karen Freberg, professor of strategic communications at the University of Louisville.

A crisis plan or framework to navigate these situations is a must. But in these situations, a little extra work is required.

Freberg recommends starting from a place of understanding – both for the activists and for your customers.

“It really comes down to understanding the human behavior of these activists and external parties and saying, ‘OK, what are the things that motivate them? What is their goal? What are the things that they are hoping to achieve?’ If we can anticipate that and incorporate that, we can make sure to address in our strategies and our messaging and in our communication, we’re going to be better prepared,” Freberg said.

She also recommended focus groups to understand how your audiences truly feel about these divisive issues, including DE&I, LGBTQ+ support and more.

“Ask them, what are things that would be of concern that that the company is doing?” Freberg said. “Just so you’re able to get some insight into a better understanding their perspectives, so then you can anticipate what are the things that they would be using as part of their narrative and how you could incorporate that in terms of your messaging strategy, so that you’re not losing the narrative.”

When to stand your ground

It’s also important to keep in mind that in communications as in physics, to everything there is an opposite reaction. When Tractor Supply Company eliminated its DE&I initiatives, it earned cheers from Starbuck and his followers. But other constituents, including The National Black Farmers Association, condemned it in the strongest possible terms.

“I was appalled by the decision,” John Boyd Jr., president and founder of the National Black Farmers Association, told the AP. “I see this as rolling back the clock with race relations — because the country is so divided on race, especially in rural America.”

Giving in to pressure might not always be the wisest move.

D’Angelo pointed to the case of Nike choosing to stand by former NFL quarterback Colin Kapernick, even after he faced backlash for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police violence against Black people.

“(Nike) said, ‘That’s okay with us. We stand behind Colin Kaepernick and what Colin Kaepernick is standing up to. And you know what? Their sales went up because they know their market,” D’Angelo said.

Ultimately, people want to do business with companies they like and whose values align with them. Determining what those values are before pushback arrives is the difference between a crisis and a recommitment.

“It’s a lot more than ‘we’re the most reliable lawn tractor,’” D’Angelo said. “That’s important too. But people want to know what else is a part of your corporate character, and you need to have a rigorously defined answer for that.”

Allison Carter is editor-in-chief of PR Daily. Follow her on X or LinkedIn.

The post How to prepare to be targeted by activists appeared first on PR Daily.

Today, everything feels political. It can feel hard for a company to say anything at all without catching flack from the public or politicians. 

But some topics are even more explosive than others — and will remain so for the foreseeable future, according to a new analysis from Gravity Research. 

Gravity Research’s Q2 2024 Risk Index examined a number of hot-button topics, particularly in America, to assess just how much of a threat they pose to organizations. The index is designed to give an apples-to-apples comparison of the risk inherent in addressing various social issues as an organization. 

Luke Hartig, president of Gravity Research, said the index can work to ground companies and help identify what topics are worth avoiding, and which risks might still be worth taking. 

“There are plenty of loud issues that don’t have a lot of corporate implications. And there are plenty of things that are really relevant to companies that are not particularly loud,” Hartig said.  

Their methodology weights business impact at 50% and staying power, polarization and volume at an additional 50%.  

The highest risk topics 

Anyone who watches the news will be unsurprised to hear that the two topics posing the biggest risk to businesses are DE&I/racial equity and climate and sustainability topics. Both ranked an 8 out of 10 on Gravity Research’s scale, a significant jump from Q1, when DEI rated a 7 and sustainability and climate ranked at just a 6.5. 

The issue of DE&I has escalated as organizations have dealt with the fallout from the Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action, which has had ripple effects through private industry DE&I programs, seeing many begin to abandon programs begun during 2020. 

But even outside of legal necessities, some members of the public are also beginning to dial back or even eliminate DE&I programs, most notably Tractor Supply Company, which entirely halted its DE&I initiatives after criticism from its conservative customers and commenters. Now, progressives are beginning to push back against the pushback, demanding greater commitments to diversity, leaving some companies in an unwinnable situation. 

Some organizations are addressing the situation by continuing DE&I activities but using different vocabulary. 

“The terms that we’re seeing grow most prominently are things like diverse perspectives, diverse viewpoints and diverse experiences,” Hartig said. “Belonging” is also a surging term.  

ESG is also facing pressure from both the left and the right. Hartig attributed at least part of the bump in its risk index to the end of ESG report season, when the volume increases, but there are other societal factors at play too. A Texas school fund terminated an $8.5 billion contract with BlackRock over investments in ESG funds. At the same time, activists and consumers are also targeting companies over their use of plastics and demanding more accountability for putting items in landfills. 

This activity is leading some organizations to keep quiet about their ESG efforts, including carbon emissions programs, even as they continue with them as planned. “Most companies are moving forward operationally with their ESG programs, but not publicly touting them, or describing them in different ways,” Brad Karp, chair of law firm Paul Weiss, told the Wall Street Journal in January.  

The perceived need to remain mum, but proceed with programs that meet regulations around DE&I and ESG, may send communicators and PR pros looking for other aspects of the business to tout. 

LGBTQ+ issues and voting rights 

While addressing DE&I and ESG issues were deemed the biggest risk to a company’s bottom line, they aren’t the only items to watch out for. 

Topics around LGBTQ+ equality, especially around transgender rights and queer youth, were also of increasing concern in Q2, jumping from a 6 to a 7 between Q1 and Q2. Hartig attributed at least part of this to June’s Pride month.  

Pride was mostly quiet after a tumultuous 2023. And while Hartig doesn’t see these issues disappearing, he also doesn’t think they’re likely to worsen in the coming months.  

“We think that’s going to kind of hold steady, maybe increase if the presidential campaigns engage on it,” Hartig said. “But we don’t see a factor right now that’s gonna lead to a surge on LGBT issues.” 

One predictable issue that certainly will grow louder in the coming months is voting rights. The topic increased from 5.5 to 6.5 quarter-over-quarter as the election grows nearer. The interconnected issues of voter fraud and election integrity and security are seen as an area of deepening concern.  

The index was completed before the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, but Hartig believes that seminal event will serve to alert companies for the need to plan for a number of scenarios that once seemed unthinkable. 

“If we’d talked month ago, my view would be that companies were kind of sleepwalking into this, this (election) … I think they’re no longer able to do that,” Hartig said. “And the events over the weekend certainly have the effect of waking them up from that.” 

In addition to scenario planning, Hartig advised leaders and communicators to find a group of like-minded companies to plan with, in case the politically unforeseen happens. 

“So that if you get into a situation where there’s one of these tough election-related scenarios, you have an idea of who you can rely on and what some sort of a group action might look like,” Hartig. “Because I think going it alone on this is going to be very difficult.” 

Allison Carter is editor-in-chief of PR Daily. Follow her on X or LinkedIn.

The post The riskiest topics for businesses to address in the rest of 2024 appeared first on PR Daily.

Kennyatta Collins is a freelance brand strategist. Follow him on LinkedIn.

Adobe has joined the list of major tech companies that have found that the even the idea of using AI in some products can cause fear and mistrust.

After a terms of service agreement update, which included a provision giving Adobe a “non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free sublicensable license” to use or reproduce user-created content at the company’s discretion, went viral on X, Adobe found itself in direct conflict with many of its users. The updated terms of service also included the right to “access, view, or listen to your content through both automated and manual methods,” prompting many artists to encourage a boycott fueld by speculation  over whether their data would be used to feed Ai models. It didn’t help that users were prevented from interacting with their Adobe products, including uninstalling them, until they opted into the new Terms of Service agreement.

Adobe’s initial attempt to rectify the situation, claiming the terms were only updated to improve content moderation, fell flat. The response failed to clarify privacy concerns and leaned heavily on legal jargon. Vaguely established parameters in when and how Adobe will access user content such as “operating or improving the services and software and to enforce our terms…” or “our automated systems may analyze your content and Creative Cloud Fonts using techniques such as machine learning…” fueled paranoia as arguments for boycotting the service provider mounted. If the systems are automated, could they access content without the company knowing? What constitutes “improving the services and software of Adobe”and what falls outside that boundary?

Chief Strategy Officer and Executive Vice President of Design and Emerging Products at Adobe, Scott Belsky, addressed some of the harshest responses to the blog post on X with further attempts to put things into perspective.

the typical “for the sole purpose of operating…” license that every cloud content company requires to function / host and modify content for certain features etc has been in Adobe’s for ~11 years. this is not new.

but here’s what is clear: modern terms of service in the…

— scott belsky (@scottbelsky) June 7, 2024

As users attempted to cancel their subscriptions to Adobe services, many discovered a 50% cancellation charge. The attention surrounding these cancellation fees grew so large it caught the attention of the United States Justice Department and the FTC, which are now suing the company and two executives for allegedly violating the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act. The lawsuit alleges Adobe “imposed a hidden Early Termination Fee on millions of online subscribers and that Adobe forced subscribers to navigate a complex and challenging cancellation process designed to deter them from canceling subscriptions they no longer wanted.”

Mike Nellis, founder of digital fundraising and advertising agency Authentic and Quiller, an AI fundraising tool, underscores the need for more transparency and situational awareness by tech companies. “People are afraid of what they don’t understand, and you can’t rush unclear messages to market and not suffer the consequences that come with shocking the system,” says Nellis. “This is the issue inherently — it’s basically the Wild West out there.”

While the terms of service update didn’t mean Adobe was using user information to train its generative AI model, the company’s lack of clarity and its haste to address the scrutiny without understanding the severity of the moment provoked further distrust, resentment, and unintended consequences.

Adobe later clarified the terms of service and its commitment to being a creative partner to its users in a new blog post. The tech company agreed with the need to make the terms of use better reflect the company’s commitment to its users while making clear that it has “never trained generative AI on customer content, taken ownership of a customer’s work, or allowed access to customer content beyond legal requirements.”

But could it be too little too late?

The post Adobe’s lack of transparency is coming at a great cost appeared first on PR Daily.

U.S. Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen was reported missing from Fort Hood in southwest Texas on April 22, 2020.

On July 3, the Army confirmed that remains found near the Leon River in Texas belonged to Guillen.

During those two months when Guillen was missing, the U.S. Army was tasked with leading a crisis response as her disappearance became first a regional and then a national news story. And, according to former U.S. Army colonel and current communications director at Spirit AeroSystems Joe Buccino, that response did not always put empathy front and center.

Buccino spoke at PR Daily’s 2024 Media Relations conference about the U.S. Army’s crisis response to Guillen’s situation. He shared where their response fell flat – and what communicators can learn from their mistakes.

From his experience in both the Army and the corporate world, Buccino says to throw out your crisis comms playbook and instead lean on instinct.  Rejecting the rigidity of a crisis framework allows for a faster response because a formula may not fit situations that are complex and require empathy.

In those instances, it is important to get out fast with updates, even if they are ugly. “If there’s a void in information, somebody’s going to fill that void. Something is going to fill the void,” Buccino said.

The headlines might be difficult, but updates are key to positioning your organization as truthful.  Buccino recommends sharing the actions your organization is taking and explaining them in detail. In doing so, you’ll engender goodwill and avoid bad press.

When the investigation revealed that Guillen had been sexually assaulted while at Fort Hood, many took to social media to share their own stories of abuse and assault while in the army. The hashtag #iamvanessaguillen circulated. To bridge the gap between the situation and the social media movement, Buccino called Fort Hood and told them to use the hashtag to post about the search. They didn’t, and the hashtag remained its own entity, not a uniting factor between the groups.

This case demonstrates how the U.S. Army had many opportunities to get their response right, from sharing information early on, to using social media, ditching the playbook framework, and working proactively to prevent the structures that allowed this to happen in the first place. But in keeping quiet and allowing social media to run its course, the crisis became one that damaged the U.S. Army’s reputation.

<iframe src=”https://embed.ustudio.com/embed/DtypiMjIaIGX/UdAawb81YFNk” width=”426″ height=”239″ frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no” allowFullScreen=”true” webkitAllowFullScreen=”true” mozAllowFullScreen=”true”></iframe>

The post Lessons in crisis communication from the U.S. Army appeared first on PR Daily.

Every PR pro knows they have to plan for crises. A crisis striking your organization is a when, not an if proposition.

This planning has long looked like a detailed playbook with plans for various scenarios, ranging from a natural disaster to your CEO putting his foot in his mouth.

But best practices are shifting, and many are beginning to move away from the playbook to a more flexible, adaptable crisis framework.

“No one’s gonna look at a 100-page document if something’s on fire,” said Linda Barnhart, senior director at APCO, during PR Daily’s recent Media Relations Conference.

Playbooks, she argues, can be great documents. But the tendency is to create them once and then … never look at them again. They can feel set in stone and not able to adapt to the moment that’s presented to you.

Frameworks, on the other hand, allow you to “rely on your instincts and work with the environment and the information you have to mitigate the threat at hand and make sure you come out of it on the other side,” Barnhart said.

The framework won’t have all the answers — nor should it, Barnhart noted. The world just changes too fast for that. But a good framework can help guide you where to go in the moment without being overly prescriptive.

And a framework still takes plenty of prep before a crisis ever happens. Barnhart recommends identifying:

• Risks: Look both at the evergreen threats your organization faces on a daily basis — product recalls, government action — as well as more existential threats, like geopolitical conflicts. This doesn’t need to be an exhaustive list, but understand what’s most likely to happen rather than preparing for black swan events.
• Stakeholders: Who needs to hear your messages, internally and externally?
• Approach: How will you address those stakeholder concerns in a timely, authentic way?

If you deeply understand these three factors, Barnhart said, you can adapt to any crisis the world might throw at you.

Then, you essentially want to create an outline rather than that more rigid playbook. Barnhart suggests mapping out these items:

• Crisis management team: Who needs to be involved? Think cross-functionally.
• Protocol: When will you assemble that team? Who leads it?
• Proactive vs. reactive: How will you engage stakeholders?
• Escalation criteria: What is your threshold for increased engagement?
• Defining spokespersons: Who will publicly speak for the company? Don’t forget media training!
• Ongoing intelligence: How are you measuring the impact of the situation and the response to your communications?

If this framework approach sounds similar to your existing playbook — congratulations, you must have a pretty good one. The key mindset shift is in outlining people and processes versus exact responses, allowing for a customized response that adapts to the moment rather than trying to make a three-year-old template work in the heat of the moment.

Watch Barnhart’s full presentation.

The post Why you need a crisis framework appeared first on PR Daily.

In April, a bizarre case emerged out of a Maryland high school. An audio clip seemed to depict the principal making abhorrent, racist remarks.

But it turned out the clip was a fake. It was allegedly created with generative AI by the school’s athletic director, who now faces a multitude of criminal charges.

The incident draws attention to just how easy it is to spoof anyone, from the most powerful people on the planet to an obscure school principal. And somewhere in between those two extremes are the principals at your organization, whether those are CEOs, government leaders and other key figures.

Mike Nachshen, the president and owner of Fortis Strategic Communications and former head of international communications for Raytheon Missiles & Defense, is sure we’ll hear about more such cases in the near future.

“Why am I so confident? Because I know people and people are going to people,” he said wryly. “I mean, it’s truly as simple as that.”

Nachshen is an old hand with mis- and disinformation, having combatted Russian operations in Europe, and sits on the cutting edge of AI technology use. AI, he says, has “democratized disinformation.”

He says that while organizations must be aware of AI’s potential, the risk of deepfakes isn’t an all-consuming emergency. It’s another potential crisis that must be planned for, the same way you’d prepare for a tornado or a mass shooting.

“Communicators need to understand this technology and understand how to use it,” he said. “And not just how to use it, but how it can be used against you. How it can be weaponized against your organization.”

Here’s what communicators should know about the risk of deepfakes — and how to prepare your crisis plan for a worst-case scenario.

It can happen to anyone

A deepfake, whether it’s a video, an image or an audio clip, can be made of anyone if there is enough data. Audio deepfakes are particularly easy to make at this juncture, requiring just a few minutes of someone’s voice to train on. With the onslaught of video recording so much of the time, there’s likely enough data on the internet right now to replicate most people.

And while some AI programs prevent cloning the voices of prominent politicians to avoid just this kind of issue, that leaves the rest of us little people vulnerable to deepfakes.

“If there can be deepfakes of the president, there can be deepfakes of you,” Nachshen said.

And at the moment, there’s no real way to prevent this content. Nachshen said he’d be deeply skeptical of anyone who offers a preventative technological fix for deepfakes.

So because prevention is all but impossible right now, it’s necessary to create a reactive deepfake plan as part of a comprehensive crisis strategy.

“There’s not a cookie-cutter approach,” Nachshen said. “Every organization has unique needs and approaches. The way a school might react is very different than the way a publicly traded company is going to react.”

But there are a few best practices every organization can follow. And many of these will sound very familiar to most good crisis comms practices. First, get all the relevant stakeholders in a room when there is no crisis. A deepfake is going to involve stakeholders from IT, HR, legal and, of course, communications.

“It’s establishing that connective tissue, thinking through the different scenarios and contingencies and how you’re going to respond,” Nachshen said. “And making sure that the first time you’re having this conversation isn’t when the you-know-what hits the fan.”

That’s all pretty standard crisis planning. But there are some unique circumstances to consider when prepping for a deepfake crisis.

The first is determining if it is, in fact, a deepfake and not just an embarrassing incident.

“God bless ‘em, some people say stupid stuff on camera and TV all the time,” Nachshen pointed out.

Indeed, there have already been incidences where people have claimed videos were deepfakes when they may in fact have been real. A Turkish opposition candidate claimed that a sex tape that appeared to depict him was a deepfake created by the Russians. Real or fake, he withdrew from the race.

In addition to asking the person depicted if something is a deepfake or not, there are also forensic tools that can help separate fact from fiction. These tools were used in the Maryland case.

Organizations such as Intel have also developed commercialized deepfake detectors for cybersecurity purposes. Tools like this detect barely detectable changes in skin tone caused by blood flow that are invisible to the human eye.

But even if a deepfake is real, that doesn’t mean it requires a response. It depends on who is reacting to and talking about the piece. Just because there’s social media chatter doesn’t mean you need to elevate the issue with a formal statement.

“Again, this is where the planning piece comes in, identifying who the audience is that you’re trying to reach, how you’re going to convey (something), how you’re going to reach out to them,” Nachshen said.

There’s nothing new

If this all sounds familiar, it should. Nachshen maintains that deepfakes don’t present a particularly novel challenge.

“It’s not necessarily the fact that there’s anything magical or special about that AI created this information other than the scope, the speed and scale, and also the quality of it,” he said.

But overall, a sound, classic crisis communications strategy prepped in advance can help fend off even the cleverest deepfake.

Allison Carter is editor-in-chief of PR Daily. Follow her on X or LinkedIn.

The post Crisis comms strategies for protecting against deepfakes appeared first on PR Daily.

Maria Stagliano is a director at Leidar. 

Experiencing a cybersecurity incident is no longer an if, but a when. Whether you’re on the consumer end receiving the letter about your exposed data or a Fortune 500 company being ransomed for millions of dollars, data breaches have become a familiar event in our lives. According to Forbes, in 2023 alone there were 343,338,964 victims of cyberattacks.

In our experience working with hundreds of companies experiencing cyber incidents, we have found that organizations are increasingly prepared for contingencies and business continuity – but underprepared for any potential reputational fallout.

As the saying goes, “failure to prepare is preparing to fail.” We’ve seen evidence of this during cyber incidents, when the legal, IT and operations have a remediation plan, but the communications teams have not fully gamed out the possible implications in advance and misstep as a result. Following are some of the most common errors we’ve seen during cyber incidents.

Self-inflicted wounds on social media

Though seemingly harmless at a glance, overlooking a scheduled social media post can be embarrassingly mistimed during a full-blown cyberattack.

In the midst of halted operations, inoperable websites and delayed services, consumers scrolling across a cheery “Cybersecurity awareness!” post or a call to action to “Try our digital services!” can make a brand look disorganized during a crisis. This oversight can quickly snowball into an online social media storm of screenshots, comments and shares that reduce consumers’ overall confidence in a brand.

What to do: While many response plans call for tightly controlling details within a small core team, the communications team needs to have an awareness about the incident in order to properly vet upcoming content, and temporarily shut down scheduled posts that are not related to the event. Reading social media teams into a situation with enough detail to avoid self-inflicting wounds helps ensure that there will be one less issue down the line for companies to worry about.

Overcommunicating without all the facts

During a crisis, executives tend to feel a heightened and urgent pressure to say something to their stakeholders. Further, communications teams who are used to being able to share information with the public may feel an overzealous desire to publish a press release and media statement about the incident as quickly as possible. This is almost always the wrong strategy.

You only have one chance to get the facts right and get your story on record, or risk being consumed dealing with misinformation — not to mention potential legal liability. Without a conclusive forensic investigation, anything can happen and nothing – nothing – is ruled out. You may feel confident that data exfiltration hasn’t occurred initially, but in a week discover that hundreds of thousands of files were exfiltrated and personally identifiable customer information was accessed.

What to do: Prioritize internal collaboration and agree on what can – and cannot – be said before any external communication begins. Teams need to be on the same page about the facts, understand who can or can’t speak externally, and fully process the limitations of what can be said. Establishing clear talking points, FAQs and phone call scripts to guide conversations will reduce the chances of having to make corrective statements later.

Forgetting to be empathetic
Understanding the impact of exposed data can be highly emotional for consumers. Certain types of exposed data — private health information, photos of minors, or police reports of sexual assault crimes, for example — tend to spin up emotions among the potential victims. All personal data can be weaponized, and there are plenty of examples of individual harm.

It’s easy to fall into a boilerplate message strategy, especially if there are legal liability concerns. But it is important for communicators to put themselves in the shoes of the victims and reflect empathy and understanding for what they are experiencing.

What to do: Avoiding detached, corporate-speak responses and instead opt for meaningful communications for select groups. Since many larger data breaches are managed via call center scripts, the written communications strategy for these groups must be thoughtfully integrated into mass messaging with clear escalation protocols in place for those who raise personal concerns.

While it is tempting in a cyber incident to see consumers as data sets, an empathetic approach can preserve trust and maintain positive relationships with customers.

Treating employees like customers

Whether burdened with technical disruptions, phone calls from frustrated customers, or a fear of their own data being exposed, employees are just as affected by a cyber incident as customers. While it is important to have consistent messaging to explain what’s happening, employees will expect to be read in and not given a scripted, standardized response. Management must address employees and other internal audiences with a different mindset and tone.

What to do: Addressing employee frustration in a breach requires management to clearly define the situation and express the limitations of what can be shared in real time. If in the middle of an investigation there are limited answers, acknowledge the frustration employees feel. Acknowledge that they may be part of the data set affected by the incident. Acknowledge that their job may be made more difficult by managing frustrated customers and having to conduct certain tasks manually.

An all-hands meeting to discuss the incident at a high level is a great method to reduce anxiety among staff and make sure everyone is on the same page. This is also an opportunity to ensure employees are reminded of the company’s media inquiry protocol – which should mitigate chances of someone accidentally sharing unauthorized information with a reporter.

Conclusion

At their best, data breaches are a minor annoyance to the consumer. At their worst, data breaches can cause irreparable reputational, financial and operational damage to a brand — especially when mismanaged. By avoiding common pitfalls during a data breach, organizations can protect brand confidence and maximize public trust.

The post 4 communication mistakes to avoid during a data breach appeared first on PR Daily.

When it comes to creating your crisis communications plan, it can be tempting to make a massive, 300-page binder that covers every possible bad thing that can happen to your organization, from the CEO stubbing her toe to an asteroid striking your processing plant.

But Liz McGee, communications director at the Institute of International Finance and upcoming speaker at PR Daily’s Media Relations Pre-Conference, says there’s an easier way.

She encourages communicators to think of themselves as chefs preparing for the evening rush by preparing their mise en place — that’s ensuring all the ingredients are clean, cut and ready to be put into a dish.

“Instead of thinking about scripts and myriad templates, it’s more so, what are the key ingredients and tools that I’m going to need in the moment so I can respond quickly and effectively,” she told PR Daily.

Instead of prepping for any crisis, prep by category

Even the most morbidly creative person won’t be able to think of every disaster that might befall an organization.

But in McGee’s experience, almost all crises can be divided into one of six different categories. She calls this the IHELP model:

Information security: Think security breaches, AI disasters, hacks, cyberattacks and more. McGee predicts many of the biggest crises in the next five years will come through this category, including through AI dis- and misinformation campaigns.

Health and safety: This includes crises of physical safety, from natural disasters to active shooters to pandemics to workplace accidents.

Ethics and politics: Maybe a presidential candidate mentions your organization in a not-so-flattering way on the campaign trail or a boycott erupts. That’s this category.

Legal and regulatory: The other side of the political coin, this is when members of the government aren’t just talking about you, they’re making laws that impact you. This could be Congress trying to ban your app in the United States unless you divest, a new regulation mandating the disclosure of all fees and so on.

Performance and product: So, it turns out your hoverboards burst into flames. Or your stock price tanks due to low earnings. These are problems.

McGee says that rather than planning for any individual scenario, you instead need to plan for these large-scale buckets.

“Every organization, every industry is going to have different needs,” McGee said. “They’re going to have different deliverables depending on what your C-suite wants, what your regulators want. But at the end of the day, I have yet to encounter a crisis that didn’t fall under at least one of these categories.”

Once you have those broad-based categories in place, look to the past as a prediction of the future to help narrow down the fields to the most likely events rather than planning for a few black swan disasters.

“You want to ask, what are the biggest communication crises that my organization has had in the last 10 years?” McGee said. “I think that’s something that a lot of people tend to miss or skip over when they start a job is thinking about what your predecessor has faced, or what you have faced in the past? And the same thing with your competitor or peer organizations.”

She also recommends sitting down with your legal department, your HR department and other internal stakeholders and asking what keeps them up at night, as well as looking at the political landscape to see where your vulnerabilities lie.

This will give you a much better idea of what crises are likely rather than going into a massive brainstorm where everyone tries to think of all the outlandish scenarios that could happen.

But it’s critical to define what a crisis actually is. It’s not just some event that had the comms team running around madly.

“If it doesn’t impact your bottom line, it’s not a crisis,” McGee said flatly.

Prepping the response

So now you have identified the most likely events to happen in a handful of categories. In other words, you’ve set the menu, but now you can go about preparing your mise en place.

This can include:

• Contact information for people who will have critical answers you’ll need.
• Approval trees of who needs to sign off on communications.
• Identifying spokespeople.
• Backups, including contact information, for all these.
• Regular reporters you work with who might help share your story in a crisis.
• Other relevant reporters you may need in a crisis.
• What information will they need if something goes wrong? Think the five Ws. You won’t have the answers, but you can create a checklist.

But remember, you’re focused on prepping ingredients right now, not the final product. If you have eggs, cheese and bacon, you could make an omelet. But you could also make a souffle. You’re going to need this information, even if the final form differs from what you initially envisioned.

Prepping measurement

Naturally, you’re already measuring benchmark KPIs even when there’s no crisis in sight. But during a crisis, you’ve got to ensure that you’re layering business KPIs on top of your communications measurements. Otherwise, you could wind up with a skewed picture of the final results.

“Maybe I only get one story written about my crisis, but it’s a huge story in The New York Times and it tanks my share price,” McGee said. “That’s not an effective crisis response, right? Even though I have the data that says, ‘Oh, well, it was only one article.’ “

Regardless of your business model, always consider the broader business implications of a crisis. That’s where communication really proves its worth.

Allison Carter is editor-in-chief of PR Daily. Follow her on X or LinkedIn.

The post Mise en place your crisis prep: A flexible framework for the worst appeared first on PR Daily.

Julianna Jacobson is SVP of marketing communications at Hot Paper Lantern. 

Recent backlash against three separate advertisements from Bumble, Swehl and Apple made headlines after public outcry reached such extreme heights that all three brands’ ads were pulled.

From a marketer’s perspective, the ads aren’t groundbreaking, but they are funny, intriguing, and just a bit provocative. Each ad speaks to its audience, ties into trends and conversations within its community and seamlessly highlights its product to spark conversation. They’re generally innocuous.

Product ads are designed to enhance brand reputation, increase sales, and generate buzz. However, in the case of Bumble, Swehl, and Apple, each ad infuriated consumers who responded in overwhelming droves, sparking a firestorm of controversy around the brands. Let’s take a closer look at why this may have occurred.

Brands and consumers are disconnected

Looking at these ads and reading consumer commentary, it’s easy to see both sides and identify where each brand missed the mark. But how, and even why, did it happen?

The remarkable similarity in consumer response to all three different advertisements prompts a crucial question: Are companies not investing enough thought in their marketing strategies, or are consumers over-scrutinizing? Where is the internal breakdown and what is the consumer-brand disconnect? Why are ads being misinterpreted?

Brands should always prepare for the worst

Even with the best intentions, anything can be misconstrued in this politically charged world. And if brands continue to miss the mark, reputations will continue to tarnish. Likewise, digital chatter will never end, and it’s impossible to please everyone. But if a brand plans properly, it should be able to stand behind what it releases externally. Knowing this, brands must either strategize their ads more effectively to anticipate potential backlash or better prepare to handle it. Swiftly retracting ads after release is not a sustainable solution.

Since product sales ultimately rely on consumer behavior, brands should always have a robust crisis communication plan ready. This way, organizations can reduce the impact of consumer criticism and maintain their reputations among stakeholders and the public.

Brands must also remember that everything they release should align with their mission and values. These guides exist for a reason, and brands would do well to follow them without wavering. Additionally, ad teams should lean on focus groups, utilize sensitivity readers, run crisis scenarios and determine how the brand will respond to backlash before releasing any campaign to the public.

Consumer distaste, distrust and intolerance

At the same time, tolerance levels are lower than in previous years. Consumers are more vocal and easily access various channels to voice concerns. They are no longer willing to remain silent when something conflicts with their personal values. While this passion and readiness to advocate for beliefs is commendable, consumers must remain balanced and consider that not every ad carries a political message. Sometimes, an ad is just an ad.

Looking ahead with better intentions

Overall, both brands and consumers must remember that the tone and intent of communication play significant roles in message perception. Brands and consumers can sometimes fall into a groupthink blackhole, which can lead to misdirection and misunderstandings. Therefore, it’s crucial to maintain a thoughtful approach in all interactions.

The post What the Apple, Bumble and Swehl ad controversies have in common appeared first on PR Daily.

One of the most tumultuous academic years of the last few decades is drawing to a close.

The pro-Palestinian protests have captured America’s attention with their tent cities, occasional violent clashes with police and some antisemitic sentiments. They turned the last few weeks of the semester on their head in many cases, and even led to cancelled commencement ceremonies.

As we ease into the summer and what is likely to be a relative period of calm on campus, university leaders are surely already thinking of next year. While it’s possible the Israel-Hamas conflict will end by then, it’s unlikely the issues it raised will entirely dissipate. Universities will need to deal with well-rested crops of students, the anniversary of the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks that began the conflict and the U.S. presidential election.

To understand how higher education should plan over the coming summer months, PR Daily sat down with Phil Singer, owner and CEO of Marathon Strategies. Singer began his career in Washington, D.C., working for high-ranking Democrats including Senator Chuck Schumer and the Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential primary campaign. He’s since transitioned to the world of communications and PR, including a strong higher education practice.

“A perfect storm has ensued that has put higher ed in the spotlight in a way that it hasn’t been in many, many years, if ever,” Singer said. “And as a result, I think it’s created a unique set of communications challenges that colleges and universities haven’t faced in a fit in a long time.”

All eyes on universities

With his background, Singer is quick to put the current scrutiny of higher education into its political context.

With the culture wars still raging, Singer says that higher education makes “an attractive target” due to its ivory tower reputation, allegations of “wokeism” on campus, the high cost of a college education and, yes, the Palestinian protests.

And that means that colleges have to deal with new constituencies they may never have considered before: Congress and the political community and the general public.

That means changing messaging and language. Singer pointed to the disastrous Congressional hearing that brought about the resignation of the presidents of both Harvard and UPenn.

“A lot of that testimony felt like it was geared towards keeping the university communities,” Singer said. Their responses were often criticized as being “legalistic” because they were speaking in the careful terms of academia.

“It felt as though they were speaking to the faculty, student body and others in the ivory tower,” Singer said. “So, I think, one, you’ve got to keep in mind that you’re speaking to a broader audience now, and you’ve got to speak in English.”

Singer also recommends using the same rigorous media and Congressional training he and his colleagues used to follow when prepping Schumer for the Sunday morning shows. That means “murder boards,” the political term for tough questions from a panel of harsh questioners to prepare for a grilling.

Read more: How CEOs prepare for Congressional hearings

He wryly noted that these were “very cathartic for the staff.”

“You’re not serving the chancellor or the president if you don’t ask tough questions,” said Singler. “But I think sometimes there’s a bit of reticence when it comes to doing so. Don’t pull your punches because members of Congress certainly aren’t.”

Handling chaos on campus

But the core constituency of institutes of higher learning are still students, staff, donors and parents. The most professional Congressional hearing in the world won’t save you if you’ve lost the faith of those audiences.

Singer said that two of the most important things for universities to determine is what do they stand for and what won’t they stand for.

“What is the role of the university is ultimately the question that all of these different schools have to ask themselves,” Singer said. “Is it to take a position on world issues? In many respects, universities are mini-nation states: they have police forces, they have health systems. But is it their role to take a position on the news of the day and current events? Or is it their position to convene and to educate?”

He points to the University of Chicago – his alma mater – as a school that has done a good job drawing its line in the sand.

“Once the (protestors’) demands veered into the university taking a position and compromising its academic neutrality, (the president) said, ‘that’s not negotiable. And so we were breaking up the encampment.’ And that’s straightforward.”

Just after the University of Chicago’s encampment was dismantled, President Paul Alivisatos issued a statement making it clear where there was common ground – and where they couldn’t yield.

“Over multiple days, including through the weekend, we engaged with the representatives of the encampment to work toward a resolution. There were areas where we were able to achieve common ground, but ultimately a number of the intractable and inflexible aspects of their demands were fundamentally incompatible with the University’s principled dedication to institutional neutrality. As such, we could not come to a resolution.”

The other area where Singer says there can be no compromise is on public safety.

“One of the things that we’ve been advising clients is, public safety is a non-negotiable,” Singer said. “The right to assemble, free speech, is sacrosanct for sure, but when it infringes upon or threatens public safety, you got to move in. And so from a communications perspective, that’s clear-cut, easily conveyed, and something that is easily defended.”

Relatedly, he said that while communications should work “hand in glove” with operations, this is a situation where operations should lead the way in creating clear policies that communications can disseminate to the community.

“If the policy is unclear or ambiguous or they’re trying to have it both ways, you could write a Lincoln-esque statement, but it’s not going to do anything, because there’s confusion as what the policy is,” Singer said.

As we look ahead to the fall, the biggest suggestion Singer has is to start planning now.  Understand your non-negotiables and don’t expect the situation to resolve itself.

“Plan for the worst, hope for the best,” said Singer. “Because it could be fine or it could be really could be a really intense fall.”

Allison Carter is editor-in-chief of PR Daily. Follow her on X or LinkedIn.

The post After a spring of protests, how colleges should plan for the fall ahead appeared first on PR Daily.

Chantal Riley is managing director at Midnight Fox. 

As a Eurovision fan, I am used to the disappointment associated post-event when you realise you have another year to wait, or potentially your favourite didn’t win this year. However, watching this year’s contest, I was less dazzled by performances and more aghast at the behind-the-scenes spectacle that is still playing out.

For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about, Eurovision is not just a Netflix movie but a yearly song contest spectacular, where countries from Europe (including Australia, don’t ask) compete by showcasing their original songs and performances. It’s a colourful and vibrant extravaganza that brings together diverse cultures, musical styles, and languages on one stage (or at least that’s what is supposed to do). Viewers from around the world tune in to watch the performances, vote for their favourite acts and celebrate the joy of music and unity. With its iconic stage productions, fierce competition and passionate fanbase, Eurovision has become one of the most anticipated and widely watched events in the world of entertainment.

And then 2024 happened. From communication missteps to organisational blunders, several incidents from the event serve as cautionary tales for PR practitioners. By examining these mistakes, we can uncover important lessons that can help brands avoid similar pitfalls and safeguard their reputation in the face of adversity.

1. Neglecting crisis preparedness

One of the most glaring PR blunders at Eurovision 2024 was the apparent lack of crisis preparedness demonstrated by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which owns and operates Eurovision. From refraining to properly comment on the first disqualification in its 68-year history (don’t get me started on this one, I am still raging *sung to the tune of Austria’s entry this year*), to ignoring calls to stick to previous years’ principles and ban a certain country from participating, to failing to address contestant complaints both pre- and post-show, the EBU saying nothing did damage. This clear lack of preparedness not only exacerbated the problems but also undermined confidence in the EBU’s ability to manage crises. I question whether or not the EBU had any PR or communications plans or teams in place. If they did, I would fire them for incompetency.

Lesson: PR practitioners should prioritise crisis preparedness, ensuring that they have robust plans and protocols in place to address unforeseen circumstances promptly and effectively.

2. Blaming others

Another common PR mistake witnessed at Eurovision 2024 was the tendency to deflect blame onto others when things went wrong, or simply not taking any accountability at all. Instead of taking complaints from contestants seriously, organisers were quick to hold what they refer to as “crisis meetings,” but these lacked any response to and correction on the complaints, often citing the matter was out of their hands. Uh, you’re in charge of the entire event – how is anything out of your hands? This approach not only eroded trust and credibility but also detracted from efforts to resolve the issues at hand.

Lesson: PR professionals should remember that accountability is key in crisis communication, and taking ownership of mistakes is essential for rebuilding trust and maintaining reputation.

3. Inconsistent messaging:

Eurovision’s slogan is “United by Music.” The reality turned out very different this weekend. Contradictory statements, mixed signals, and disjointed communication efforts, all contributed to confusion and undermined the overall effectiveness of any communication efforts. No one was united, in anything, at all…except maybe confusion.

Lesson: Consistency is paramount in PR, and organisations must ensure that their messaging is coherent and aligned across all channels and platforms. Failure to do so can lead to mistrust, scepticism, and reputational damage.

4. Ignoring feedback and silencing critics

Despite the fervent passion of Eurovision fans, EBU was quick to dismiss feedback and criticism from viewers and stakeholders in the run up to this year’s finals. This resulted in calls to boycott, mass protests outside the venue in Sweden, certain media having their passes revoked, and even the censorship of participants as the EBU seemed too afraid about what contestants would say “out of turn.”

Lesson: Ignoring constructive feedback and choosing to silence critics only serves to alienate audiences and perpetuate negative perceptions. PR professionals should recognise the value of listening to their audience and engaging in meaningful dialogue, even when faced with criticism. Embracing feedback as an opportunity for improvement can help organisations build stronger connections with their stakeholders and enhance their brand reputation over time.\

5. Failing to adapt and read the room:

Perhaps the most glaring PR lesson from Eurovision 2024 was the consequences of failing to adapt to changing circumstances. Case in point was the ode to Martin Österdahl, which given the climate at the time could’ve easily been cut from the show’s running order, but was instead met with the boos it deserved (and yes, you could hear them over the anti-booing technology). Read the room! By the time the finals aired, the EBU was in deep trouble and instead of adapting, they railroaded ahead as if nothing was wrong.

Lesson: In today’s fast-paced and dynamic media landscape, adaptability is crucial for success in PR. Organisations must be willing to embrace change, experiment with new approaches, and pivot their strategies as needed to stay relevant and resilient in the face of uncertainty.

The story of Eurovision 2024 is one of a divided Europe. For a contest that claims to be apolitical, the EBU’s behaviour this weekend would suggest otherwise. For many fans, the contest’s long-held insistence on so-called political neutrality and fairness to all –- ironically casting itself in the figurative role of Switzerland — is no longer convincing, or even possible.

Sadly, the EBU has yet to own any of its issues and mistakes as of Monday afternoon, and so further crises seem likely. Many contestants have gone public with their experiences (one calling it traumatic and wishing they never went through at the semi-finals) and several country broadcasters threatening legal action for the way in which their country contestants were treated.

But the positive takeaway is that PR and communication professionals can learn a lot of what not to do thanks to Eurovision 2024. By examining the mistakes made during the event, PR practitioners can gain valuable insights and ensure they do better. By heeding this cautionary tale and prioritising best practices in communication and reputation management, brands can avoid similar missteps and position themselves for success in an ever-evolving media landscape.

The post Learn from Eurovision 2024’s brand blunders appeared first on PR Daily.

Edward Moed is CEO at Hot Paper Lantern.

Two seismic scandals recently rocked the global sports landscape, shaking the MLB and NBA fandoms and sparking a frenzy of concerns and speculation across the media. Amid the chaos, these incidents shined a bright light on questions around handling extreme crisis communications and navigating ethical dilemmas in the face of uncertainty.

In the MLB, Shohei Ohtani’s interpreter, Ippei Mizuhara, was fired by the Dodgers in March following allegations of embezzling millions of dollars from Ohtani to cover gambling debts. Just days later, in the NBA, Jontay Porter’s involvement in unauthorized betting and divulging confidential information cast a shadow over the league’s integrity.

The two leagues diverged in their crisis communications strategies, with one emerging as the clear victor. However, both approaches offer invaluable lessons for leaders and organizations in the sports industry and beyond. Below, I delve into the key takeaways, emphasizing the importance of establishing a “north star,” crisis management planning and effective communication – elements that can either make or break brand reputation.

Define your north star and stay true to it

Leagues bear the responsibility of safeguarding their integrity to maintain trust among fans and stakeholders. The NBA’s swift and transparent response to the Porter scandal stands as a testament to this commitment. Its public statement read: “There is nothing more important than protecting the integrity of NBA competition for our fans, our teams and everyone associated with our sport, which is why Jontay Porter’s blatant violations of our gaming rules are being met with the most severe punishment.” The league clearly demonstrated its dedication to its core principles, notably its “north star” of upholding integrity, instilling trust among its stakeholders.

In contrast, the MLB’s delayed and inadequate reaction to statements from Shohei Ohtani and his interpreter allowed speculation to thrive. Ohtani’s representatives initially indicated he had transferred money to help with Mizuhara’s gambling debts, but later disavowed Mizuhara’s account, asserting Ohtani was a victim of theft.

This discrepancy underscores the vital need for leagues and other organizations to establish a clear “north star” that guides decision-making, whether it centers on integrity, stakeholder well-being, or transparency. That north star becomes indispensable in times of crisis; it provides stability, clarity, and demonstrates principled leadership. When an organization loses its north star, it loses its fandom.

Establish your authority and master your domain

In this scenario, the NBA exemplified authority and crisis control at its finest. With quick, transparent action and immediate consequences, it tackled the issue head-on, eliminating ambiguity and speculation. Even amidst challenging circumstances involving one of its star players, the NBA maintained control of the narrative.

Conversely, the MLB’s delayed response to the Ohtani situation allowed rumors to spiral out of control, waiting two days to issue any statement. By failing to intervene early, the MLB jeopardized its standing as an authoritative and credible voice in the matter.

In times of crisis, it’s essential for leagues and other organizations to assert themselves as the primary source of information and authority. As a result, fans and consumers of the media will feel inclined to rely on accurate and timely updates, fostering trust and confidence in the organization’s ability to handle the situation effectively. This proactive stance not only safeguards their reputation but also reinforces their credibility as stewards of the sport.

Have a crisis communications strategy ready to go

No one  knows when a crisis will hit. However, the responses to both scandals highlighted the importance of having a comprehensive communication strategy in place – one that involves a well-defined plan      equipped to gather facts, make informed decisions, and transparently communicate with the public. The MLB’s delayed and disjointed response to the Shohei Ohtani situation exposed the repercussions of lacking such a strategy. By having a robust crisis communication plan ready to go, organizations can mitigate the impact of challenges and uphold their integrity in the eyes of stakeholders and the public.

Looking ahead, the rise of  sports betting undoubtedly forecasts more challenges for the leagues. Yet, these issues aren’t new (think Chicago Blackhawks lawsuit or the Pete Rose investigation), and therefore underscore the timeless need for crisis management and integrity in sports. Leagues must hold fast to their core values, prioritizing integrity, asserting authority and having crisis communication plans in place. Ultimately, the crucial question persists: Will leagues prioritize trust in their foundational principles, or will they yield to the influence of star power? In the end, it’s the fans who determine the victor, and spoiler: they usually opt for integrity.

The post Critical crisis lessons from the recent NBA and MLB scandals appeared first on PR Daily.

Amid another week of campus protests and corporate activism around the Gaza war, it seemed like no organization handled its response properly.

While Google CEO Sundar Pichai attempted to justify the firing of employee activists last week, police cleared an occupied building at Columbia University last night and arrested dozens of protestors. As stories of student encampments and ongoing protests continue to make headlines, communication from university leaders has been minimal. In a multifaceted conflict that engages stakeholders at an intersectional level, many leaders seem to take the route of saying less.

Then, just as it seemed that no institution offered a model response, Brown University announced on Tuesday evening that it reached an agreement with student leaders pushing for divestment. Details of the agreement were further contextualized in a letter by Brown President Christina H. Paxson.

Here’s what stuck out.

Leading with context

Paxson’s message to the Brown Community begins with a sober acknowledgment of what’s unfolding across the country.

“Many of us have watched with deep concern the tensions and divisions that have escalated across the country as colleges and universities have experienced intense confrontations at protests and encampments over the ongoing conflict in the Middle East,” she wrote before distinguishing Brown’s activism and announcing the news:

Brown has not experienced the heightened hostilities we have seen nationally, and I am writing to share that we’ll see a peaceful end to the unauthorized encampment that was set up April 24, 2024, on the College Green. After productive discussions between members of the Brown University administration and student leaders of the Brown Divest Coalition, we have reached an agreement that will end the encampment by 5 p.m. today.

In a moment where many institutional leaders are hesitant to comment at all, this acknowledgement doubles as recognition for anyone who has felt the emotional toll of the war and the protests. Paxson’s ability to contextualize the news and its response as different positions this decision, and her message, as an example to follow from the outset.

The most radical element is transparency

After announcing the agreement with the students who represent the Brown Divest Coalition, Paxson shares a public link to the full document and explains the broad terms:

[T]he students have agreed to remove the encampment and refrain from further actions that would violate the Code of Student Conduct through the end of this academic year, including through Commencement and Reunion Weekend.

The University has agreed that a group of five students will be invited to meet with a group of five members of the Corporation of Brown University while trustees and fellows are on campus for the May Corporation meeting. The meeting responds to the students’ interest to be heard on the issue of “divestment from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territory,” which was a core demand of their protest action. It is important to note that this topic will not be on the Corporation’s business agenda, and there will not be a vote on divestment at the May meeting.

Between linking to the full agreement and unpacking it in plain language, Paxson’s letter further demonstrates an unusual level of transparency from leadership. Rather than impose new guidelines or rules for handling the matter, she holds up the existing Code of Student Conduct and demonstrates a focus on protecting the community’s shared celebratory events.

Her explanation of the upcoming May meeting, and how it will work, simultaneously reinforces documented expectations while acknowledging that student concerns have been heard and will be addressed — another notable example of recognition from leadership.

Paxson then explains how any member of the community can request that Brown divest its endowment from specific companies, even sharing the process of submitting a proposal to the appropriate advisory committee. “I have committed to bring the matter of divestment to the Corporation, regardless of ACURM’s recommendation,” she wrote. “I feel strongly that a vote in October, either for or against divestment, will bring clarity to an issue that is of long-standing interest to many members of our community.”

This level of personal perspective and accountability is rare from leaders, demonstrating Paxson’s commitment to acknowledging and engaging all community perspectives. She continues this in the closing paragraphs.

 Closing on mission

The final sections of Paxson’s letter further bridge her personal hopes and perspectives on the encampment with Brown values:

I hope the meeting between the students and Corporation members will allow for a full and frank exchange of views. As I shared with the protesting students in my letter yesterday, the devastation and loss of life in the Middle East has prompted many to call for meaningful change, while also raising real issues about how best to accomplish this. Brown has always prided itself on resolving differences through dialog, debate and listening to each other.

I cannot condone the encampment, which was in violation of University policies. Also, I have been concerned about the escalation in inflammatory rhetoric that we have seen recently, and the increase in tensions at campuses across the country. I appreciate the sincere efforts on the part of our students to take steps to prevent further escalation.

During these challenging times, we continue to be guided by our mission of advancing knowledge and understanding in a spirit of free inquiry within a caring and compassionate community. We remain focused on four major priorities: (1) protecting the safety of our community; (2) fostering open and respectful learning environments; (3) providing care and empathy to affected members of our community; and (4) taking the strongest possible stance against any form of discrimination, harassment and racism against any race or ethnic group.

Even with this agreement, there remain many differences within our community about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These differences have been heightened in the months since October 7. And, I know that we will continue to have — and express — a broad range of conflicting beliefs and opinions about the situation in the Middle East, and the University’s response to it.

This stands out as a bold, empathetic example of executive comms a time when examples seem few and far in between. It’s also an acknowledgment of the fact that students’ rights to be heard and protest can co-exist within campus codes of conduct, committees for reviewing divestment, and other mechanisms put in place to protect civil, solution-oriented discourse.

Most importantly, the willingness of a leader to offer resources emphasizes Brown’s ultimate commitment to educate, inform and provide a path for progress to its community. That’s where the institution’s mission and actions align.

Justin Joffe is the editorial director and editor-in-chief at Ragan Communications.  Follow him on LinkedIn.

The post Brown University explains end to Gaza campus encampment with empathy appeared first on PR Daily.