Insights for Leaders Navigating
Visibility, Credibility, and Growth.
From media strategy to reputation management, we explore the trends shaping public perception and share the approaches that drive measurable results for growing brands.
The ways that journalists report on news – and the way that their audiences consume it – is changing day to day.
Earlier this month The New York Times ran its first augmented reality (AR) feature story previewing the Winter Olympics, allowing readers to “meet” and watch Olympic athletes in 3D through their smartphones. As the article explained, “Through your phone, the room around you looks just as it is, except the athlete is in it with you.”
Graham Roberts, the director of immersive platforms storytelling for the Times, describes the technology: “Augmented reality allows us to bridge the digital and physical worlds; graphical elements can be superimposed on your immediate environment. The Olympics project … demonstrates one of AR’s richest benefits: deepening the explanatory value of visual journalis
m.”
The article about the Olympics “was not just about this single piece of journalism. It was also about exploring what visual journalism may look like in the near future. We are extending stories beyond the inches of a screen — and in so doing, envisioning a world in which devices begin to disappear and the spaces around us become the information surfaces themselves.”
Nonny de la Pena, a documentary filmmaker, notes in a Media Post article that AR “… creates a duality of presence. You know you’re ‘here,’ but you feel like you’re ‘there,’ too. The experience is much more visceral. It’s really a kind of a whole-body experience and is very unique — different than radio, than television, than any other kind of format for experiencing a story.” In de le Pena’s case, AR created a medium to deepen coverage and build empathy from her viewers.
Others (myself included) are skeptical. Digiday’s Sahil Patel, in a 2016 article, (“If they build it, who will come? An anatomy of the VR hype bubble”) writes, “No one denies that virtual reality is cool. Trying on a VR headset and being taken to a time and place that you couldn’t possibly go to in real life is a pretty compelling proposition. But just because something is cool doesn’t mean it will be popular. VR is in the midst of a hype bubble.”
Like Patel, I have mixed feelings about this emerging technology and its implications for journalism.
Full disclosure: Despite the fact that I’ve spent most of my career working with innovative tech companies, I’m hardly a first-adopter when it comes to shiny new personal technology. I clung stubbornly to my compact discs and fought hard against digital music for years (don’t worry, I’ve turned that corner, finally), and I still remain very much on Team Book versus Team Kindle.
And so this new immersive technology that brings news images not just into our televisions and mobile devices, but into our living rooms as actual 3D interactive visuals, makes me a little skeptical about its potential long-term. No doubt its cool factor is high – remember how excited we all were about Pokemon Go? But is AR a viable way to inform the public about important issues and breaking news? I’m hesitant to jump on that bandwagon just yet. It’s a long way off before AR-fueled journalism becomes adopted by the masses.
For one, the technology to create AR content is expensive. It will be interesting to see how advertising will emerge to support AR content. Will you have to sit through a 3D immersive commercial for Doritos, for example, before you can access your AR feature story? And will consumers mind this, or will they accept that commercials need to evolve just as editorial content has?
What about viewing AR content that could be violent or otherwise disturbing, like war footage, for example? Again, the Times describes the technology as creating “a new pathway that can lead away from the abstract depiction of objects and toward a more visceral sense of real-life scale and physicality.” Are consumers going to want to experience frightening or intense content in an immersive, realistic way, even if from the security of their iPhones? In all sincerity, news today is scary enough reading it in print and via Twitter– I’m not sure if I’m ready for it live and in-person.
Clearly we’re in the early days here, and I applaud the Times – newspapers’ Old Gray Lady – for pushing the norms for how stories are presented. The reality is that how people access the news is far different from when the Times published its first issue in 1851. Journalism will continue to evolve, and it will be an interesting ride for media and communications professionals to watch, whether via the traditional printed page, or as a 3D immersive visual journey.
The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals that trust in the U.S. has suffered a record-breaking drop in the survey’s 18-year history.
No country saw steeper declines than the U.S., with a 37-point drop in trust across all institutions. While the survey provides deep insight into the polarization of trust in business, government, NGOs and media throughout 28 countries, what is most applicable to our industry is the dramatic shifts within the institution of media.
The survey reports that globally, nearly seven in 10 respondents among the general population worry about fake news or false information being used as a weapon, and nearly 60 percent indicate it is getting harder to tell if a piece of news was produced by a respected media organization. 
Given this data, it’s no surprise media has become the least-trusted institution for the first time in the history of the Trust Barometer. Putting pressure on trust in media is declining trust in search engines and social media. The irony is that at the same time, the credibility of journalists rose significantly.
Edelman cites the broad definition of media as a contributing factor to the paradox. Some survey respondents consider platforms to be part of “the media” – including social media (48 percent) and search engines (25 percent) – alongside journalism (89 percent), which includes publishers and news organizations.
In 2018, trust in journalism increased five points while trust in platforms dipped two points. In addition, peers are no longer the most-believed source of information as the credibility of “a person like yourself” dipped to an all-time low in the study’s history.
All this to say, it’s likely the decline of trust in social and search, and the credibility of peer communication, are contributing to the overall deterioration of trust in media.
At the same time, there is renewed confidence in experts. Technical experts, academics, financial industry analysts and entrepreneurs with a successful track record are gaining credibility levels of 50 percent or higher. Whereas credibility among journalists rose a mere 12 percentage points and CEOs recorded a seven-point gain.
People’s concern about fake news and their willingness to listen to experts show their desire for knowledge. The media cannot solve this alone. Every institution must play its part in the battle for truth by educating its constituents and joining the public debate, going direct to the end-users of information.
“The United States is enduring an unprecedented crisis of trust,” said Richard Edelman, president and CEO of Edelman. “This is the first time that a massive drop in trust has not been linked to a pressing economic issue or catastrophe like the Fukushima nuclear disaster. In fact, it’s the ultimate irony that it’s happening at a time of prosperity, with the stock market and employment rates in the U.S. at record highs.
The root cause of this fall is the lack of objective facts and rational discourse.” The agency highlighted the following key takeaways when announcing results from the 2018 survey:
- Technology (75 percent) remains the most trusted industry sector followed by education (70 percent), professional services (68 percent) and transportation (67 percent). The financial services industry (54 percent) was once again the least trusted sector along with consumer-packaged goods (60 percent) and automotive (62 percent).
- Companies headquartered in Canada (68 percent), Switzerland (66 percent), Sweden (65 percent) and Australia (63 percent) are most trusted. The least trusted country brands are Mexico (32 percent), India (32 percent), Brazil (34 percent) and China (36 percent). Trust in brand U.S. (50 percent) dropped five points, the biggest decline of the countries surveyed.
- Exactly half of those surveyed indicate that they interact with mainstream media less than once a week, while 25 percent said they read no media at all because it is too upsetting. And the majority of respondents believe that news organizations are overly focused on attracting large audiences (66 percent), breaking news (65 percent) and politics (59 percent).
Read the full report, watch videos and explore trust levels by country and demographic here.
Currently athletes from around the globe are competing on the world’s largest stage—the Olympic Games. The opening ceremonies in Pyeongchang brought in 27.8 million viewers. For the 2016 Rio Olympics, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) estimated that half of the world’s population, roughly 3.6 billion people, would watch at least one minute of the games. That’s quite an audience—and naturally, it is something most brands want to take advantage of.
However, despite the variety of advertisements and marketing materials featuring athletes, brand engagement with the Olympic Games, as well as the athletes themselves, is actually incredibly limited around the time of competition due to Rule 40.
Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter states that athletes competing in the Games may not appear in any advertising or marketing material during the games-time period, typically the week before competition, the two weeks of competition, and the week following competition, without expressed consent from their national Olympic committees. In the case of the United States, this is the United State Olympic Committee (USOC). 
So what exactly does that mean? Well, official partners of Team USA, not to be confused with the IOC, are authorized to feature competing athletes in advertising or marketing materials during the games-time period so long as the content has been approved by the USOC. This makes sense for most material as commercials, billboards and packaging are often planned far in advance.
However, it is quite interesting to see how the rule is being applied to social media. Social media has become a platform for fans and brands to interact directly with athletes, celebrities and influencers. It has also created a way for brands to react quickly to events. For instance, Oreos “you can still dunk in the dark” tweet stole the show during the Super Bowl power outage in 2013.
Similarly, athletes are making history daily at the Olympic Games. Already we’ve seen two 17-year olds win gold medals for Team USA, Mirai Nagasu was the first American woman to land a triple axel at the Olympics, Shaun White won his third gold medal and there’s still plenty of competition left.
However, because of Rule 40, brands cannot interact with athletes publicly unless they are an official partner of Team USA and the content they post is approved by the USOC. Many of these athletes have been supported by a variety of sponsors throughout their journey to the Olympic Games, but cannot publicly wish them good luck or congratulate them on their success until about a week after the closing ceremonies—defeating the purpose of social media.
For some big brands, this may not have as big an impact, but for smaller brands that have invested a significant amount of their marketing budgets in these athletes, they end up missing out on major opportunities for exposure, especially considering many of these athletes have built impressive followings on social media. For instance, Lindsey Vonn, Shaun White, Mikaela Shiffrin, Gus Kenworthy and Chloe Kim all have about 500,000-1 million Instagram followers. One Seattle company, Oiselle, supported a track athlete and was restricted on how they expressed their excitement for her after a very successful performance at the Olympic Trials in 2016. The company shared its frustrations with The Seattle Times.
The IOC explains that the purpose of the rule is to prevent over-commercialization of the Olympics. The games are about bringing together the world’s best amateur athletes in spirited competition that promotes unity. And while it is great to see a historic, monumental and often moving event stay focused on its values, it will be interesting to see if the rule ever evolves to ease up a bit on the limits and restrictions around brands congratulating or celebrating athletes on social media.
We’ll have to wait and see, but until then, good luck to the athletes of Team USA!
In our book, Strategic Public Relations: 10 Principles to Harness the Power of PR, we wrote about the shifting marketing landscape. At the time, close to 10 years ago, we argued that PR was more strategic than ever due to reputation, fragmentation, and saturation. Since that time, these trends have continued to expand at an exponential rate, reinforcing and building the importance of public relations.
Social Media Defines Your Public Relationships
Consider reputation: In our book, we wrote about the power of the internet to rapidly disseminate information about your company, brand and identity. What we did not explore was the dissemination of “fake news,” the changing ways we consume news, and the evolution of crisis and reputation management in the digital age. A tweet from President Trump or an employee/partner misstep or wrongdoing can create a firestorm in an instant that can damage a brand’s reputation.
These changes increase risk to companies and their brands. KPMG’s- Global CEO Outlook 2017 survey found that CEOs cited reputational and brand risk as the third most important risk out of 16 in total. The survey also revealed that CEOs also see “reputation and brand risk as having the second biggest potential impact on growth over the next three years.” Given the role PR plays in building and protecting reputations, the industry is likely to see increased demand for these services, especially digital reputation management.
Healthy Relationships Begin with Trust, Authenticity and Listening
Similarly, fragmentation has continued with more and more sites, blogs and sources available. Data aggregators and solution providers have adapted to these changes, enabling marketers to directly target specific audiences through consumer purchasing behavior, life-event targeting, and search engine marketing. These solutions make it easier for marketers to directly reach their target audiences.
However, the power of marketers to influence behavior relies on delivering content that resonates with those target audiences and fostering these direct relationships in authentic and valuable ways. Lean Cuisine’s “Weigh this” campaign represented a “massive pivot” from its prior messaging and focused on developing an authentic and connected relationship with its consumer. Results from the campaign show a 33 percent increase in positive brand perception and importantly “a drastic spike in sales, reversing a 6 year decline.” The most successful of these content programs integrate with PR, leveraging the team’s ability to build a compelling narrative that reinforces the brand messaging and aligns with the company’s business objectives.
Make the Message Emotionally Valuable to Your Audience
Saturation has increased with the prevalence of mobile devices and social media. Consumers are continually exposed to marketing messages and the noise is overwhelming. This noise and flood of information, makes it harder for companies to establish strong awareness and own a position in a consumer’s mind. With this noise, it appears consumers are more influenced by their friends and family. Data from a recent survey of 2,000 adults in the U.S., UK and Australia shows that “60 percent of consumers (and 70 percent of Millennials) said social content from friends and family impact their purchasing decisions – while only 23 percent said celebrity influencer content was impactful.”
This shift in communication is redefining how we interact as humans, and how brands effectively tell their story to the right audience. Success will be measurable and sustainable for brands that can deliver valuable messaging in a consumable way.
Eight years ago, the advertising industry was facing a significant challenge due to these trends. Traditional advertising was declining and digital ad spending was on the rise. However, since that time saturation, fragmentation and reputational risk have increased, and digital advertising has evolved. Ads are still perceived as less credible then editorial content. To that point, in a recent interview, Publicis Groupe’s Rishad Tobaccowala shared a prediction that advertising to reach consumers will decline 20 to 30 percent during the next five years.
Similarly, the lines between what is driven by PR and communication versus the advertising teams continue to blur. Fortunately, as businesses leverage advertising and PR to achieve specific business objectives, the core principles of our book hold steady for both advertising and PR teams alike.
We plan to revisit the content of Strategic Public Relations: 10 Principles to Harness the Power of PR and provide updates and insights via blog posts moving forward. Watch for tweets with #PowerofPR to follow along. Feel free to tweet your thoughts and comments with this hashtag to participate in the discussions. We hope you will share your perspective along the way.
Recently, it’s become apparent that people will do just about anything, no matter how dangerous, to become internet-famous. Who could have guessed that eating highly concentrated packets of laundry detergent – an activity that can possibly kill you – would become an internet sensation?
For those who are not yet aware, the Tide Pod Challenge is a social-media trend that has inspired countless memes and tweets about eating single-load laundry packets that seem to look somewhat like candies with their shape and bright colors. Apparently the similarity is so striking that teenagers are videoing themselves eating the Tide Pods and uploading the video to social media platforms for bragging rights.
These bragging rights are not worth the potential harm it can cause the human body. Laundry detergent, especially in the highly concentrated form that Tide Pods are, is incredibly toxic. According to Consumer Reports, these pods typically consist of ethanol, hydrogen peroxide and soap. Those three elements combined have the power to “literally eat away at the tissue that makes up your gums and inner cheeks.” After turning your mouth into a caustic chemical wasteland, the same will happen to your esophagus, stomach, and other parts of your gastrointestinal tract. Inevitable intense vomiting and diarrhea will follow, and if you don’t seek medical attention, it is a quick route to seizures, coma and eventually death.
A few years ago, Tide Pods drew negative attention for their harmful effects on toddlers who had accidentally gotten into the packaging. Proctor and Gamble (P&G), Tide’s parent company responded by adjusting the dissolvable plastic to be thicker and harder to bite through, as well as adding a bitter taste to prompt spitting the pod out. Little did P&G know that it would soon be dealing with a different crisis: people intentionally hurting themselves with its product that is clearly marked as toxic.
Since Jan. 1, 2018, the The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) reports that there have been 157 cases of “intentional exposure among teens to single-load laundry packets.” Because the total number of cases in 2017 was just 53, the rate that this internet sensation is gaining popularity is extremely alarming.
In accordance with P&G’s swift response to its crisis with toddlers ingesting the detergent, it has arguably been just as proactive and comprehensive with this latest problem. In an effort to hinder the virality of the phenomenon, P&G moved quickly to work with social media sites like YouTube and Instagram to get the harmful videos removed. On Jan 17., YouTube announced it would be deleting all videos associated with the Tide Pod Challenge, saying that the videos violated a rule that prohibits content that is, “…intended to encourage dangerous activities that have an inherent risk of physical harm.”
Also using social media platforms in their favor, crisis teams with P&G used two-way communication with consumers to ensure its key messages were being disseminated to the right audiences. An example of this communication is P&G releasing a public service announcement featuring the New England Patriots’ Rob Gronkowski.
https://twitter.com/tide/status/951940660499755008
This PSA appears to be constructive because P&G contracted someone with whom teenagers are familiar and who can reach these social media users on a peer level.
After asserting that, “even the most stringent standards and protocols, labels and warnings can’t prevent intentional abuse fueled by poor judgment and the desire for popularity,” P&G’s CEO David Taylor implored the public for help in a Jan. 22 blog post. “Let’s all take a moment to talk with the young people in our lives and let them know that their life and health matter more than clicks, views and likes. Please help them understand that this is no laughing matter.”
P&G’s key messages were very clearly thought out. Because P&G clearly marked its labels with “Keep out of Reach of Children” and “Do Not Ingest”, it was smart for P&G not to apologize for the mistakes of consumers. This way, “They validated public concerns, yet made it clear they don’t consider themselves responsible” said marketing professor Americus Reed.
On Feb. 6, 2018, Assemblywoman Aravella Simotas and Sen. Brad Hoylman of New York wrote a letter to P&G asking for a design change that would make Tide Pods look less appetizing and less like “Gummy Bears.” If P&G were to make this change, it poses the question if an uglier detergent pod will deter teenagers from seeking internet popularity? Or is the potential fame too enticing? Time will tell.
If someone you know ingests a laundry packet or has a question about the risk of exposure to one, immediately contact the national Poison Help hotline at 1-800-222-1222. The AAPCC poison control experts are available 24/7 and free of charge.
At the beginning of each year, I review and sign the PR Council’s “Code of Ethics and Principles” as part of Communiqué PR’s membership renewal. The PR Council is an industry association committed to advancing its member firms’ business and there are more than 100 firms who belong to the organization. Firms of all sizes have joined the PR Council for its proprietary data and research, roundtable and networking events, and for its education programs, which are designed to empower the next generation of communication professionals.
Every year when I read the Code of Ethics, I am reminded of the importance of acting with the highest level of ethical conduct as we provide public relations and communication services to our clients. As such, I thought it would be appropriate to revisit the topic of ethics and explore what it means for our industry.
First, a refresher on the meaning of ethics. According to Wikipedia, ethics, also referred to as moral philosophy, “is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, 
and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.” In the practice of public relations, the PR Council and Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) have well-established and helpful guidelines for ethical behavior and/or conduct that adheres to professional industry standards.
In today’s media and political climate, it is more important than ever to review these principles and to ensure we act in a manner that is honest, transparent and morally sound. We need to conduct our business so we systematically adhere to these guidelines – even when it is difficult or challenging to do so.
Consider the following: In adherence with the PR Council’s Code of Ethics around protecting the integrity of client information, member firms reserve “the option to represent more than one client in an industry sector, but any apparent conflicts must be vetted with relevant clients.”
This means that if a PR firm represents Alaska Airlines, it has the right to provide services to Delta Airlines, but that the partnership must be transparent with both parties. Clearly, this is the right thing to do, because of potential conflicts of interest and representing companies with competing interests could make it difficult or impossible to fulfill one’s duties in an impartial manner.
When representing more than one client in an industry sector, there is also the potential of damaging one’s credibility with journalists. Imagine a PR professional contacting a journalist on a Monday to espouse the benefits of Alaska Airlines over other airline competitors. How could this same PR person possibly call the same reporter on a Tuesday to promote Delta Airlines? This would be damaging to the PR person’s credibility with the journalist. This example is extreme, but it illustrates the point.
Another principle that stands out as deserving special attention is the need to “honor our role in society.” As the PR Council outlines, the services we provide day-in and day-out are vital to facilitating public discourse. The conversations about key issues and initiatives regarding technology, medicine, science and new products are essential to our democracy and society. Oftentimes, when one is working a pitch or campaign, it is easy to forget the importance of our work and how it supports the larger society. However, by supporting the sharing of accurate and timely information with journalists and others, we enable vital education, debate and examination. Just take a look at some of the press releases that communicators have developed and distributed recently:
● Society Under Strain: Americans Struggle with Technology’s Impact, Look to Policymakers and Internet Companies for Solutions
● Robust Job Market for Grads Continues in 2018
● The War on Cancer has Failed
While scanning these press release headlines, one can only imagine the sorts of questions and debates that might arise as journalists write and publish articles, and readers comment and react to them.
In any event, I would encourage anyone in the business of public relations or communications to review the PR Council’s Code of Ethics and the PRSA’s Code of Ethics. There are some powerful reminders about the best ways to conduct oneself as a PR professional.