Transcript for Cutting Through podcast Episode 2

Return to the podcast episode page to listen and find additional resources

Jonathan Holt   Welcome to episode two of Cutting Through, the podcast for corporate digital communicators. If you are in any way involved with a company's website or social media channels, this podcast is for you. I'm Jonathan Holt, head of strategic insights at Bowen Craggs. And today on the podcast, we're going to put on our crash helmets and dive head first into the culture wars. First, we'll take a look at the big picture to try and discern which way the cultural winds are blowing. And later, we'll unpack some concrete and practical steps a digital communicator can take if you're feeling caught in the foray. How to navigate the culture wars is our topic on this episode of Cutting Through. 

Joining me again today in the virtual podcasting studio are Scott Payton, CEO of Bowen Craggs and Georgia Barrett, Vice President USA. Hello, hello to both of you. 

Georgia   Hello, hello to both of you as well. 

Scott   Hello, hello, hello. 

Jonathan   So, the culture wars, this is a pretty electric topic. And I have to say, I'm excited to be having this conversation because for a long time now, I've tended to think of what Bowen Craggs does, you know, analysing and helping companies measure how impactful their corporate digital channels are, as being at heart, an act of cultural criticism. I think nothing illustrates that point more powerfully than the degree to which corporate digital channels have become lightning rods for cultural discord. 

Bowen Craggs, as you both know, runs visitor surveys on quite a number of companies' websites, so we get to see what people are saying directly to companies when they're filling out a survey. Georgia, are you noticing any uptick or changes of tone in culture wars type comments in the surveys lately? 

Georgia   Yeah, definitely. I think it's important to say, like, first of all, that I think we've always had this type of culture wars type comment in the surveys that we're seeing more and more recently. And specifically, we're seeing a lot of people saying that they've come to a corporate website to find out what products or services a company offers so that they can boycott them. And we're seeing that more and more.  

Jonathan   Scott, what are you seeing in the surveys that speak to the state of the culture wars?  

Scott   There's a lot of go woke, go broke type of survey comments. Negative comments do tend to spike on a particular company's website when there's been a specific issue about that company in the news. It's not a constant torrent of flood of anger. 

It does kind of ebb and flow and it's often linked to the news cycle. And it often seems to be part of an at least loosely coordinated boycott or protest. And going back to Georgia's point about people looking for things, what do you sell? So, I know what to not buy. And that does seem to be kind of loosely or maybe not so loosely coordinated on social media, for example. One survey response really stood out to me. Recently, we actually used it in some presentations in New York a couple of weeks ago. And it's a quote from someone visiting a corporate website and writing, you seem to want to change the world to a place where corporations dictate how we live. And that to me sums up the kind of the backlash against companies messaging around a range of social and environmental topics from climate change to, excuse me, diversity and inclusion.  

But as Georgia says, geography is important here, and we are particularly seeing this among conservatives in the US, for example. But it is also important to remember that in our survey responses and elsewhere, we also see people urging companies to take more steps to tackle social and environmental issues like using less plastic. And I think that's a reminder that communications teams need to remember that you can't just react to one side of increasingly polarised social debates because companies are under increasing pressures from both the left and the right.  

Jonathan   Well, that comment you read out really seems existential and illustrates possibly better than anything else the nature of this, the bind that companies are in. Anything they do is probably going to be alienating at least someone, hopefully cheering others. But a lot of the commentators I've been reading lately seem to think that we're increasingly living in a world where literally everything from religion to dating to shopping is defined by partisan or any way political identities. 

Are we at a point where corporate communicators are simply being forced to choose sides? Scott, I know you've been looking at some research from YouGov that might speak to this. 

Scott   I mean, I personally don't think companies should be choosing sides in terms of overall political alliances, or certainly not most of the time. But I do think it's important for companies to take time to understand the political views of their audiences and particularly their views on specific topics. So, the YouGov report, which is free to download, YouGov is not a sponsor of this podcast, but it's a good report, really interesting report, exploring the most polarised and bipartisan brands in America. And it found in essence that under 30%, just 29 % of major American brands are bipartisan. And by that, YouGov means that a significant and equal portion of both liberals and conservatives will consider buying from that company.  

And we'll talk a bit about the most the top bipartisan brands in a minute. But just to give you a flavour of some examples of partisan brands, if that is interesting. So, Ford, Ford is favoured by significantly more conservatives than liberals. So, more conservatives will buy a Ford Motor car than the liberals. The exact opposite is true for Subaru.  

Starbucks is favoured by more liberals than conservatives. More people will buy coffee. More liberals will buy coffee at Starbucks than conservatives. American Express is kind of favoured more by liberals than conservatives, whereas HP and Dell are favoured more by conservatives than liberals. It is kind of, I think political persuasion is part of the kind of the complex demography of buying decisions and companies need to kind of think about that and look carefully at that. So, when it comes to the most bipartisan brands in America, in the top 10 are Amazon, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and a fashion brand called American Eagle. So, they're equally and significantly favoured by liberals and conservatives. Most American companies, it's more biased one way or another, which says a lot of interesting things in its own right, I think.  

Jonathan   Well, you know, it strikes me that some companies might have more cause than others to go one direction or another and embrace that. You know, I think of Ben and Jerry's... 

That's a whole topic unto itself, but that's a brand that has had a progressive or liberal kind of aura around it for a long time. When I was on a ferry to Provincetown in Massachusetts recently, I picked up a can of beer that had progressive messages written right on the can. These are smaller entities in a way that are targeting a very specific audience. Most of the companies that Bowen Craggs works with are much larger and really have to toe some sort of middle ground if they're going to continue to succeed and resonate well with all their stakeholders. So, I'm really struck by the bipartisan companies and I'm wondering, can you detect any commonalities there around the companies that make that list are replicable lessons or is the lesson simply to be aware of how the company you're communicating about is perceived by the wider populace?  

Scott   I think a risk of a spoiler alert for them, possibly the rest of the conversation in this podcast. But one of the big lessons, I think, is that it's the secret to being pleasing as many of the people as much of the time as you can politically. The answer is not to kind of stop talking about these issues at all. So, Amazon is very bold, clear and assertive about its positions on politically contentious issues like climate change, the need to address racial inequality, and even things, highly politically charged topics in the States like immigration policy. So, Amazon is in the top 10 of this list. So, I think one lesson here is that staying silent about contentious topics is not the route to pleasing all sides of the culture wars and that being vocal about these kinds of things can still be possible without turning off customers. But I do agree that I think the main lesson really is that it's important just to be aware of how your company is perceived, not just by customers, but also by employees, job seekers, investors, journalists and other groups. 

Georgia   But to quickly take it kind of away from corporate communications, is it a coincidence that Amazon is used so why, know, everyone finds Amazon really easy to use, and everyone uses Amazon. So, it's the fact that Amazon is such a, like, I know, successful company that plays into the fact it's loved by liberals and conservatives alike.  

Scott   Yes, I agree with that. Yeah, I totally agree. And I think it's the same for Apple. I interestingly didn't read Apple is on this list as well. HP and Dell are favoured by more conservatives. Apple is favoured more by liberals. But Amazon and Apple provide incredibly good valued products and services. And I think that kind of transcends their position on culture. I actually watched the recent iPhone launch from Cupertino in California and it was as if the backlash against ESG and DEI had never happened. It was incredibly inclusive and going large on many of these issues that a big portion of American society is pushing back against. But everyone loves an iPhone and everyone loves Amazon Prime, Amazon Prime and Amazon and Apple were not sponsors of this podcast either. But yeah, I agree. 

Jonathan   Here in the US, there's been some buzz in the business press lately about a conservative activist called Robby Starbuck, who's had some successes in getting well-known companies, particularly ones with largely conservative customer bases, to pull back on their DEI and really wider ESG commitments. Scott, how significant is this pullback? Are these businesses really changing their ways in ways that are detectable in their corporate channels, or are they just throwing red meat that an activist and hoping Robby Starbuck and his social media followers will simply go away?  

Scott   Over the last couple of years, we have definitely seen a few trends on corporate sites that are linked to this. We've seen companies removing the term ESG from their content on their corporate site and replacing it with terms like sustainability or responsibility. Similar thing with regards to diversity and equity and inclusion content. It's still there, but I think in many cases it's been subtly kind of moved deeper into the site and made less prominent. So, it's a case of people who, who wants to hunt out for that information, they can find it, but it's kind of being moved. It's been signposted less prominently. and I think sensible communications teams know that while Robby Starbuck and his followers might want their company to pull back on DEI and ESG commitments. A significant portion of employees, customers, job seekers and others don't want that at all. And they want the company to continue to champion those topics and work hard in those areas. So, I think the key is to continue to cover these topics, but to perhaps where possible avoid politically weaponised terms like ESG and DEI, which has just become so toxic, so polarising that they are kind of self-defeating and they also tend to mean different things to different people.  

Jonathan   Well, we'll come back to the language factor, I think, later on, probably in the second half. But social media pressure campaigns, like the ones that Robby Starbuck and his crews are executing, are nothing new. But this new example does have some new twists, I think. For one thing, he's using companies' digital channels to identify potentially sympathetic senior people internally, presumably using LinkedIn and some of those social channels, to identify people who seem open to a more conservative viewpoint and then, as I understand it, only then using a more conventional, large-scale social media pressure campaign to trigger concessions. What can companies and particularly digital teams do to prepare for such a coordinated line of attack? 

Scott   For me, I mean, it's important to articulate, explain and justify your company's position on potentially contentious topics in detail and do that consistently with both internally inside the company and also externally, for example, on your corporate website. So, you need to explain your positions to employees in exactly the same way as you explain them to external audiences and where possible. 

I think it's important to directly link these topics and your positions on them to the strategic objectives of the business itself. And I think that can be a very effective way of neutralising these attacks because if you link these causes and the priorities and positions to what makes business sense, then it's much harder for external opponents to oppose them.  

Georgia   Yeah, and that's good advice for not taking a stand on every single topic, but deciding where it make the most sense. Is it a cause that is strategically important and relevant to your organisation? Or is it just something that's really big in the news? So yeah, taking a stand where appropriate. 

Scott   I totally agree. And I think it is, I think some companies are making the mistake of leaving the battlefield entirely. But I think now is the time for choosing your battles. Yeah, I totally agree. 

Jonathan   Sometimes the battle may choose you, of course, and as we've mentioned, one of the big targets for right-wing activists at the moment is DEI, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, which also has many other names. But Georgia, I know diversity communications is one area where you spent some time thinking about, would you say that DEI is doomed as one of the core topics for corporate communications or just being given a good shakedown? 

Georgia   I certainly don't see DEI as being doomed as a corporate communications topic. Firstly, yeah, I think it's vital that a company communicates its commitments and the work that it's doing in this area to all of its key stakeholder groups like investors, customers, and job seekers. And that need is never going to go away. And interestingly, we did some research into what the next generation of stakeholders want from online corporate communications, looking at what do people want companies to be saying. And the overwhelming majority of 18- to 30-year-olds that we interviewed said that they want to work for a company that supports their values. And this means not just paying lip service to DEI, but showing it in action. So, publishing statistics, featuring the views and stories of real employees through video and photographs and on social media.  

All of that is background to say that I don't think DEI is doomed. It's just that the way companies are communicating about it is evolving in the current climate. There's a good example of a company that has changed the name. Instead of calling it DEI, they call it culture and inclusion. So, they're avoiding any potentially divisive acronyms. But they still have videos of employees explaining company culture in their own words, they have external partnerships and accreditations that show the work that they've done in this area. And these are all important trust signals that a company is actually doing what it says it's doing, which I think can be one of the sparks in these culture wars is this idea that you can't trust what a company says on this website. 

Jonathan   Well, in some ways suddenly it starts to seem like the cultural winds might be blowing in exactly the opposite direction to how they were going just even a year or two ago. And because back then we had companies all over the world and not just in the US jumping over themselves to declare their support for racial justice and also using their digital channels to set net zero commitments, for example. Now more and more companies seem to be already doing U-turns on those, to what extent is the turnaround a response to pressures and to what extent is reality simply catching up to the message? I mean, even a lot of environmental activists have been sceptical about companies not zero claims from the very beginning. 

Georgia   Yeah, so I read a recent Wall Street Journal article about this and it said companies haven't abandoned sustainability. They're just talking about it less. 

So basically, many companies are recognizing that investing in sustainability is important for long-term value creation. And I know to put that a different way, as the head of sustainability communications at Mars put it when we spoke to him, earlier this year, you can't make chocolate if climate change has caused cocoa beans to stop growing. So yes, there's a trend at the moment towards green hushing, where companies are saying less about ESG. And that comes from this backlash against ESG and also legal considerations, lawsuits. We've seen some class action claims against companies being accused of greenwashing. And that has triggered this green hushing trend. But I like to think that behind the scenes, companies are still doing this work to limit their environmental impact. And if anything, ESG reporting is beginning to look a lot like financial reporting. We have new regulations from the SEC. So, all of this is creating a climate where it's harder to speak about it, but it's also making it more rigorous. So therefore, any work that a company does is set to the highest standards, which means ultimately in the long run, it's going to be better. 

Jonathan   Well, I'm struck by the fact that back in 2016 when Donald Trump took power in the U.S. and sort of declared war on all things ESG even way back then and tried to change the regulatory framework and did change the regulatory framework. A lot of companies paid no mind to that and just quietly kept doing what they were doing because they knew that eventually the pendulum would swing the other way. I have recently been seeing the term sine waves, S-I-N-E, you know, sort of scientific analogy for the way that essentially political winds or movements or moments go. so, 

Barack Obama referred to it as zigging and zagging — said America zigs and zags after, you know, the jolting jump from his administration to Donald Trump's.   

Coming back to the survey comments, we often see that controversies do eventually blow over. For example, right after Russia invaded Ukraine, we could see a lot of people being very irate in our surveys about companies that they thought should have been quicker to exit the Russian market. Those comments have largely faded as the war has dragged on. 

Jonathan   Can we assume that some of the current flashpoints could similarly blow over with time? And if so, what does that say about the way digital teams should proceed? 

Georgia   I have some thoughts about this. And this is this idea of when to say something when a flashpoint is happening in a moment in time versus when to wait for it to simply blow over. And yeah, I think as Scott was saying, often if you ignore an issue, it doesn't mean it's going to go away. And we've seen a, well, there's another quote from this next generation research we did, which is the worst thing an organisation can do during a crisis is to look like they're trying to brush it under the rug. So, over-communicating can be the solution.  

Jonathan   So, we used to advise companies to always opt for engagement when criticisms pop up on their social media channels and more recently the attacks there have become so large and so well organised that a lot of communications teams are deciding to go dark on at least on the targeted channel you know Facebook for example until things blow over. Is that the right approach? 

Scott   The right approach is to clearly, concisely and comprehensively articulate your company's position on the topic in question on your corporate website and position that as the definitive response, the definitive response to this issue, the definitive position of your company on that issue. And that would allow your social media team as well as everybody else in the company to direct people to that definitive response from other channels. It's a controlled and consistent way of responding. And there's so much noise on social media that I think this is a kind of a good compromise between trying to kind of rush around responding to every individual accusation or question and actually having a detailed definitive response on the corporate side. A lot of companies kind of refined their approach to this during COVID actually. And they kind of had, you know, COVID coronavirus information hubs on their corporate side, but they directed thousands of millions of questions on social media about what are you doing about this terrible thing. The company was able to kind of direct people to a kind of the mothership of truth on the corporate side. And I think that's really kind of one approach. And I totally agree with Georgia that you can't say nothing about an issue does not make the issue go away, and it is something it's the sort of thing you say to children you know you can't stick your fingers in your ears and say la la la.   

Jonathan   I wonder though in the current climate whether the opposite might also sometimes be true, that saying something about the issue doesn't make it go away. Another bit of advice that we've long given companies is to try and engage on social media. To the extent that you can have a boilerplate ready that you can link to when there's criticism. But in a lot of cases now, the criticisms are coming so fast and loose that it would be a fool's game to try to respond to all of them, which of course is how I think some companies have got to the point of just thinking, let's just switch this off, not create the paradigm where every post can be a platform for detractors and naysayers to get their message across. But I've noticed something, a new twist on that, at least I think it's new, which I was looking at Unilever's social media channels the other day and their Facebook channel has long been a target for all kinds of criticisms. Unilever is sort of ground zero in a way for companies that get every imaginable cultural pressure thrown at them. And they're essentially just carrying on through that. They're posting about the environmental and social and employee impact things that they're doing.   

Every post carries an entire spectrum of really harsh comments and yet, maybe it almost seems, I almost wonder whether some teams are now starting to factor that into their communications calculus that you just carry on because there's so much noise now that you can almost ride above it by default. What do you think of that? 

Georgia   I think that does speak to this idea of the corporate website being the mothership of your truth as a company. And even if there's a lot of noise on social media, as you say, being able to direct visitors and anyone who is kind of wanting to disagree with you to this largest owned media area that you have, which is your corporate website, is really helpful for transcending that discussion. 

Scott   I also think I was just in when it comes to the sort of the Unilever example, it reminds me of on X formerly Twitter. I follow Alastair Campbell, who is Tony Blair's former director of communications and a notorious sort of notorious figure for his role in the Blair government. And he's now a very successful podcaster. Not as good as this podcast, but it's quite good. The rest is politics. But whenever he tweets. 

He issues a tweet. You get a thousand people calling him a war criminal instantly because of his role in the Iraq war. yeah, I think there's probably some lessons for companies there. There are some long running burning issues that you're going to be hurled abuse about that you can't, in some instances, just keeping calm and carrying on is probably the best approach.  

Jonathan   So, the paradigm, once upon a time where companies felt that they could rise above the fray by just not going there, it's kind of that world is long gone, isn't it? Because the fray is all around them, whether they want it to be or not, and then they have to find a way to keep their nerve in the midst of that. 

Scott   Yeah, and I think as we discussed earlier, the idea that saying nothing is the solution is it's not right because companies have a large portion of their audiences, employees, customers, job seekers, others who want them to talk about these issues, there's another portion of society that wants them to shut up about. So, if you do shut up about the topic, you're just going to make a whole bunch of other people really angry. Saying nothing is not the solution. 

Jonathan   Well, we should start to wrap up this part of this episode. And I have one last question for you both. There's a lot of doom and gloom and discord inherent in all of this, of course. And Bowen Craggs tends to look for the bright side, at least as much as we sensibly can. Georgia, you're the most optimistic person I know. And so, I'm wondering, can you think of reasons to be optimistic about the state of the culture wars? 

Georgia   Yeah, I think we heard a really interesting story from, again, a young job seeker who we interviewed as part of our next generation research. And they were saying about how they are, they chose to work for a big global energy company that had historically been in the news for doing something bad. And when asked why they wanted to work for this company, they said that the company had been very transparent and they've after this thing that they've done in the news that was very bad, they changed the whole structure, the process, they reorganised and they actively made a commitment to change and they communicated this commitment on their website and their social media channels and they didn't shy away from talking about what went wrong and that really encouraged this person to join the company because in their words, they said it's better to be part of it and making a difference rather than condemn and move on.  

So, I think the optimism comes from a trend we're seeing, which is companies are being even more transparent and data-driven and detailed on their corporate channels about things like their sustainability efforts or their diversity, equity, inclusion efforts. They're not just simply stating things. If they are to state it, they are also putting videos, evidence, data, like it's just the whole trend is towards transparency and I think that that is a really good direction of travel. 

Jonathan   Scott, what's your best case for optimism in this current moment? 

Scott   I'm optimistic. I mean, Glass Half Full probably should be on my LinkedIn profile. Maybe, maybe not. But I think as I mean, you mentioned that Obama talking about America zigging and zagging. I don't think that the escalation of anger will last. And if you look at the last 100 years of American history, it does suggest that the cycle will turn. And I was reading an article by David Brooks in The New York Times. He put it better than I could. 

He wrote, there is a rhythm to cultural change with periods of public turmoil giving way to periods when people want to turn inward. So, World War I gave way to the carefree hedonism of the flappers during the 1920s. World War II gave way to the domesticity of the 1950s. The days of rage in the late 60s gave way to the New Age melanists of the mid 1970s. 

And then he said, people can be in arms for only so long. is exhausting. I'm exhausted. It's exhausting. And he says, referring to the US, we're still an exhausted and battered nation. But if history is a guide, then just over the horizon, there is some new cultural moment coming. Shall we all sing Somewhere Over the Rainbow? Let's not do that. We must not do that. 

Jonathan   Well, I'm certainly looking forward to the new age of melanists, if that's what's on the way. May it come as soon as possible. Let's take a short break and when we come back, we'll dig into some of the additional steps that digital teams can take to more confidently navigate the culture wars on their channels. 

Jonathan   If you're new to Bowen Craggs, you might be wondering Bowen Who? In a nutshell, we help large companies measure and get better at online corporate communications, whether it's websites or social media channels. And we do it through benchmarking, consulting, and visitor research. We also have a global knowledge sharing network with both in-person and online events to help corporate digital communicators all over the world connect with each other and the information they need most.  

The digital corner of corporate communications is specialised, but it doesn't have to be lonely. If you'd like to know more about us or get our take on the biggest challenges in corporate digital communications right now, look us up. We're at bowencraggs.com. 

Jonathan   So, we've established that the cultural winds are blowing ever more fiercely in all directions, which makes this a confusing time for corporate digital managers. Arguably, it may also be quite a formative time. To finish out the episode, let's talk through some additional concrete steps and suggestions that can help digital managers to shore up their responses to cultural war pressures. 

Scott, one thing I know that many digital managers are considering right now is shrinking down the amount of information they provide around environmental and social topics as a sort of risk mitigation. And as a way of drawing less attention to these cultural war flashpoints, would that be a sensible choice?  

Scott   I would say no, to be blunt, like Amazon's opposition page. Definitely not. I think as we've discussed a bit before, saying less will actively irritate some audiences, job seekers, employees, customers, regulators and journalists. And another reason I think we're going to talk a bit more about AI search later on.  

The more information you put on your websites, the more likely it will be that you will own or at least contribute a big chunk of the information delivered by organic search as well as AI search features like Google's AI overviews.  

Georgia   Yes, I can give some more context on this at this point. So, what we mean by this AI search overview situation is a fast-developing situation with the way Google is changing the way we search for information online. So, you've probably seen their generative AI overviews on Google and we did some test searches into this.  

An example is we were searching on Google if Nike uses sweatshops. And Google said in the Generative AI overview that, yes, Nike has been accused of using sweatshops. And all of the sources that Google used in that answer were not from Nike or Nike's corporate website. And this was because Nike wasn't discussing this topic using this terminology and it wasn't addressing the concern head on. And because of that, the company didn't have a voice in this conversation on Google. It's kind of like the new challenge of SEO that's supercharged. So, companies that do speak about things in the language of critics and also in a way that's open, honest and direct, like the Amazon example do tend to be featured in the Google overview. So, it's a way to make sure that you're having a voice in important conversations that aren't happening without you.  

Scott   Yeah, and I think in addition to all of that, there's so many reasons why scaling back content is a bad idea. That's a really important and great one. But the other point is, as Georgia mentioned earlier, is about regulations. So as the culture wars rage on and a portion of societies are saying, stop talking about that, stop talking about that, focus on making a profit, regulators in the US, Europe and elsewhere continue to demand more transparency from companies on these issues from a reporting perspective. So, scaling back is really not a great idea. 

Jonathan   Well, and in Canada, there's some new anti-greenwashing legislation where companies can be fined $10 million and up if they are found to be engaging in greenwashing. What should digital teams know about that? 

Scott   Well, to me, again, I think reducing the risk of being accused of greenwashing is not about communicating less. It's about communicating more accurately. And that often means providing more detail, not less detail. So, if you're as detailed, specific, and accurate as possible about your social and environmental ambitions and your actions and the progress you're making, you're better able to support your claims with context and evidence and therefore not greenwash. And as we've said from audiences, from job seekers, to journalists and others, want you to report progress with honesty, even if that progress is behind the original schedule, just like the person that Georgia interviewed for the Next Generation Research. The stakeholders will prefer that over dishonestly claiming perfection. 

Georgia   Yeah, or even just a string of success stories that reads like a highlight reel. It's more transparent to show the steps along the way towards achieving a goal. And if that goal has not been achieved, to be able to say openly that that is not the case.  

Jonathan   Well, as I said at the start of this part of the discussion, there's a potential for all of these pressures to be formative for digital communications, all communications, in the sense that it's creating an opportunity perhaps for everyone involved to reassess what you are saying. Obviously, one option there would be to cut back, but we've talked about why that might not be a good thing. Is there an opportunity here for digital managers to reassess, to renegotiate maybe some of the levels of transparency that they are achieving on their channel. So I'll give you an example of how that has played out so far with the, to come back to Robby Starbuck from the initial part, where some of the companies that are, well actually some of the, so pausing, some of the DEI professionals who were interviewed for press around that story have said that actually in a weird sort of way these kinds of attacks can be helpful because it means that if there's any kind of laziness or not effective communication or even in the actual programs for that matter but then those can be weeded out and what you're left with is something stronger. Is that your take on this as well? 

Georgia   Yes. No, I mean, well, that's very articulated what I was trying to say earlier, which is, yeah, it seems like diamonds are made under pressure sometimes. So, I think all of this direction of travel, which is driven by these regulations, is creating, because I don't think having a target of reducing your carbon footprint by 2025 by X, like that's meaningless in terms of actually reducing your carbon footprint if it's an unrealistic target. So, I think it's just very good to have meaningful targets that can actually be achieved. 

Scott   Yeah. And I think there's a herd mentality, I think, in times in the business world. A few years ago, we must have a net zero goal because everyone else has one. Or we must have a DEI subsection of our websites. So, let's quick, quick, quick rush, rush. Let's put one together. And I'm sure there were some companies messaging around net zero and diverse and inclusion that was flimsy. was sort of, and not necessarily linked as robustly as it could have been to actions. and, and, credible evidence. So, if that's kind of, if that sort of, being sort of flushed out and companies are under pressure to really sort of back up their actions, back, back up their words with actions that are kind of that are taken in the context of the broader strategic activities of the business. And that can only be a good thing. But I think as ever, there's different aspects of this depending on where you stand on the political spectrum. 

Jonathan   Well, and yes, I think that's a really good point that some of the companies that have already, you know, are readily turning their backs on DEI and ESG were some of the late comers who were kind of just riding the bandwagon and probably hadn't really thought it through and therefore there's not a huge amount of loss if they're U-turning. On the flip side, a lot of companies have been doing these things for a very long time. They have very well-established departments devoted to these topics and disciplines. That can create blind spots as well because this is the way we've always done, DEI communications. 

I'm thinking of the research we did last year with some high performing digital teams talking about how, you know, the mechanics of how they get things done and a lot of that has to do with taking the authority to say, yes, but... 

And in this case, yes, we've been doing it this way, but look at what's happening in the culture and is there now an argument for us doing it another way? So, the best way to come at that for our purposes in this conversation, I think, is to get into some of the specifics of things that digital teams might be wondering about and where they might be able to take the reins a bit more. The first one is a fundamental one, and we've alluded to it, but let's get a little bit more into it, which is that a lot of people may be wondering what to call their ESG or DEI sections given all this blowback, what can we tell them? 

Scott   Well, just to give some specific examples, you mentioned Unilever earlier, Jonathan. They opt for, on their global website, unilever.com, they call their primary section addressing these issues sustainability. And that section covers social and environmental topics, as well as equity, diversity and inclusion topics, as well as things like human rights. And interestingly, Nestle has gone for the same label sustainability and it is an interesting word because beyond the culture wars everybody can surely agree that it's sensible for companies to have a business model that is sustainable in the sense that it can successfully last in the long run in a fast changing world. So, it's not as emotive as other terms like ESG. 

There's some research that we're talking about in a bit called by a New York language consultancy called Muslansky and Partners. They are suggesting that the word responsibility is a word that when you're talking about these issues, it kind of has bipartisan appeal. It's not going to make a portion of society, froth at the mouth or angry, red in the face. It's a calm and unemotive word that people can agree on, that it's a good thing for companies to do. 

Georgia   This company found that in the US, over 85 % of Democrats and nearly two thirds of Republicans agree that companies have a responsibility beyond serving shareholders to make a positive impact on the world. And nearly 80 % of Americans agree that companies that are environmentally responsible are more likely to succeed financially. 

The kind of evidence is that it seems to me that it's like a language problem, but that underneath all this language debate, 96 % of people think that, you know, if you're a company that takes care of your employees, you're more likely to succeed. And that being a responsible company means you are a financially successful company. 

Scott   And this data makes me genuinely highly optimistic, highly optimistic. Because if you strip away, I think underneath the culture wars and the shouting matches and the vile hate storms on Twitter, ex Twitter, underneath it, there is actually a huge amount of common ground.  

And I think some of these issues that companies are dealing with and need to talk about like environmental responsibility or ESG or ensuring that everybody in society has an equal opportunity to succeed in the business world and elsewhere. There's a lot of common ground about that but specific terms and specific policies have been weaponized, have been weaponized and I think we haven't, I've only used the word woke once and I don't want to use it again.  

But think woke is a really interesting example of the weapon of political weaponization of terms and how that weaponization can make them and turn them into empty vessels. Because if you ask the word woke means different things to different people, it's been rendered meaningless. It's been rendered truly meaningless. And I think the same thing has happened with the term DEI because diversity, equity and inclusion has a rich sort of history in terms of the kind of a collection of policies and ambitions in the business world to introduce greater equality. But that term has been weaponized. Kamala Harris has been accused as being a DEI presidential candidate. And Donald Trump was asked during the recent election campaign, what he meant when he called Harris a DEI candidate. And he threw it back at the questioner and said, well, what do you think it means? What do you think it means? He didn't even want to take ownership of the meaning of the term that he used. So, I think underneath all of this, if companies choose their language carefully, they can help, they can navigate all of this because underneath it all, underneath the shouting, there's a lot of consensuses. That's optimistic, isn't it? 

Jonathan   Very. And you know, one reason why those terms like ESG and DEI can be such lightning rods is because, as you say, they don't really mean anything, acronyms on their own by definition, by default, do not mean much to a great number of people. However, those are meaningful technical terms to some audiences. My opinion is that ESG is a term, well, it may evolve now because it has become so much of a flash point. But for the time being, that continues to be what it always was, which is an investment acronym and that so therefore perhaps it makes sense to continue to use that in your investor communications. Do you agree that these terms do have a place and that communicators need to be just conscious of who they're speaking to when using them or should they be dropped at all cost? 

Scott   My view is that given where we are now in the evolution of the debates about ESG, it should go back into the world of non-financial reporting and into the world of the investment community where it started and where it kind of has a natural home. has become, its use, its wider use has become so toxic. I think it's kind of, you're better off talking using a different term. When you're talking to a generalist, wider audience. But I don't see why it can't continue to have a place as a sort of an investment community term. 

Jonathan   Perhaps until something better or clearer comes along or some new framework. I want to stick with this, the labelling question just a little bit longer because you gave a couple of ready-made examples of sustainability and responsibility being if you just don't know what to call your ESG section, then those would be very good choices because they're becoming a kind of standard and a norm.  

But what I'm wondering is, is there scope still for some companies to do their own thing as long as it's meaningful? And one example I can give is one of these companies in the US that had sort of probably somewhat belatedly moved into ESG territory and has made something of a public U-turn, and that is John Deere, the tractor company. They have a report, and it's called the stakeholder management report. A quite innocuous, but at the same time kind of meaningful term. And if you click through into it, it has everything. Everything that any ESG communication could ever hope to have, really. It covers all of the bases. So, is there room for some creativity? And if companies are going to improvise, what are the parameters? What should they be thinking about? 

Georgia   Yeah, I think the parameters should be focusing on terms that are immediately understandable to anyone. And we often see inside out terminology used, which makes sense inside the company, that is meaningless outside the company, like it might refer to some kind of internal initiative. So, avoiding that inside out, avoiding any jargon and just being as clear as possible and you can see that on Nestle's corporate website they have very clear terms they call their section about their use of water just water and that is it. 

Scott   And I think it's also, it can help to be just kind of related. It can help if companies are very, really quite specific about what they're talking about. So rather than kind of saying, you know, transforming to a better tomorrow or using technology to improve lives, if you're, if you're very specific about how you're harnessing technology to improve lives or what you're doing specifically to, address climate change, then suddenly it becomes, it doesn't become a sort of a generic thing that people get angry about. It's simply a company talking about a specific topic and its role in the world. So again, I think being specific is a good way of neutralising any potential kind of backlash. 

Jonathan   I'm wondering how the corporate purpose statement, something that's been quite fashionable in corporate communications and on corporate websites over the last few years, is going to fare in this new and more hostile climate. Should communicators be purging these from their sites or maybe holding onto them but making them more relevant somehow? 

Scott   Well, I think it's a similar point. Lots of companies' purpose statements have been too woolly, non-specific, non-distinctive, and they kind of as a result of that, can be they can feel a bit like virtue signalling, virtue signalling. And I think good purpose statements do say something specific and distinctive and meaningful. And I think that will remain true amid the changing culture wars. And I know it's a famous example, but Johnson and Johnson's credo statement, which was first written in 1943, is enduringly powerful. And you can read it in full on the JNJ website, jnj.com slash our credo, our hyphen credo. But the first paragraph goes something like this. 

We believe our first responsibility is to the patients, doctors and nurses, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services. In meeting their needs, everything we do must be of high quality. We must consistently strive to provide value, reduce our costs and maintain reasonable prices. It goes on like that, is old-fashioned, but it's really specific. And I think it is so much better than so many totally empty purpose statements that have clearly been written by a committee. And they do go along the lines of building solutions for a better tomorrow or innovating for a better world. How many companies have you seen you go onto their website and that's their statement completely empty? So be specific like J&J.  

Jonathan   So, if we're saying that this is a formative time where there are opportunities to retool and improve, that this might be a candidate, a candidate for that. 

At Bowen Craggs, we have also for a long-time urged companies to tackle controversies and sensitive topics in a similar way, being specific and clear on their digital channels. And I've been told lately by one corporate digital communicator at quite a well-known company that anyone would have to be a little bit crazy to do that in this current climate. I respect that sentiment and can certainly understand where it comes from, but...  

I don’t think I agree, do you? 

Scott   I do not. Again, just to talk a little bit more about Amazon's Our Positions page, which is gloriously blunt and unambiguous. And as we discussed earlier, it is still in the top 10 most bipartisan brands in America. And just to look at the language that they use on their Our Positions page, they write, human-induced climate change is real and serious. 

Action is needed from the public and private sectors. It says the inequitable treatment of black people is unacceptable. And they say we strongly support the rights of immigrants and immigration reform. And it goes and there's some supporting text there too. It's incredibly direct and blunt and yet incredibly rare in corporate communications that companies have been so... 

Scott   So blunt, but I think it's again, as Georgia says that there is a huge thirst among many people for companies to be direct, open and honest. And I think if you do that, it really kind of, you can't really be accused of virtue signalling. You can't. One important point is that in this political climate, you cannot please all of the people all of the time. So, I think in some in some cases, companies do need to accept that. 

Georgia   And that is where to go back to the point about empty purpose statements, it's even more important to have a meaningful purpose statement that is rooted in meaningful company values, because in a time of crisis, when you don't know if you should speak on your corporate channels, or if you should stay quiet, or when you're choosing your battles, the values can, they should be your north star in that situation to help you choose, guide the company strategically.  

Jonathan   Well, and should we say a little bit about what we mean also by the specificity around some of these topics? Obviously having a clear point of view may be part of it, but putting data where you have it front and centre and also, I guess, human stories. What are the components of a specific open, honest communication that might have a chance at, if not rising above, at least ploughing through the culture war the culture war ploughing through okay ploughing through the culture war conundrum.   

Georgia   A great quote from the next generation research is, there's this underlying mistrust of companies. And it's this idea that a company will always give itself five stars no matter what. And the way to cut through that is through, as you said, data, evidence, stories, showing the real-life impact of actions instead of just stating bland statements. And we have some, again, some research from our surveys that we run on corporate websites, which shows that the average session duration for websites, for a website visit is one minute and 49 seconds. But for the sustainability section on a corporate website, it's six minutes and 30 seconds. So people are actually spending a lot of time or like way more time than average looking at sustainability content. So having it as informative, engaging, like chock full of infographics and data, also external accreditations and awards as value because people are actually reading it and engaging with it. 

Jonathan   Well, I'm glad you mentioned external validations and awards because to me that's one of the trends that's running alongside all of these difficult challenges in communications. And just to give an example on their website Unilever, well they cite quite a number of awards and organisations that they partner with around environmental and social issues. One of the most prominent ones is that a number of their products are now certified by PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which is quite something really, because that's an organisation that has typically in the past been adversarial for companies on the other side of pressure campaigns. My question is, can these sorts of partnerships, external dialogues, when threaded into digital comms, help to bring the temperature down? 

Scott   I think it's a bit of a double-edged sword. By and large, yes. They also, external validations, if they are literally validated on the website and there's an external link, that's another good trust signal for traditional organic search as well as AI search. And they can certainly play a positive role in terms of demonstrating that commitments have substance, like the Unilever PETA example and that they also are a great way of demonstrating that this topic has a life of its own beyond the corporate communications department. But in some instances, corporate partnerships with environmental campaigns or diversity and inclusion campaign groups and causes have in some cases been lightning rods for the likes of Robbie Starbuck. So, when it comes to choosing your alliances, choosing which company your company wants to celebrate and prominently communicate its partnerships with. I think you need to be quite careful about who you partner with and how you communicate it and ensure that those partnerships are going to be perceived as logical and sensible in the context of your company, its stakeholders and its roles and impact in the world. 

Jonathan   Let's finish off with something that I'll call best practice roundabout. And I thought we could, in this way, end on a positive note by each of us taking a turn, singing the praises, preferably not literally, at least I'm definitely not going to sing, of one company that we think is doing a particularly good job of navigating the culture wars. And the only rule is that it can't be an example that's already been mentioned.  

We'll put all these examples and more on the podcast episode page on the Bowen Cragg's website, of course, so that people can easily explore them after this podcast. I'll go first so that I don't have the last word. And my example is from Puma. You may both say Puma, an athletic footwear and clothing company based in Germany, which and they have published a microsite called foreverbetter.com, which addresses virtually all of the cultural issues that we have been talking about today and in an immensely transparent and actually kind of cool way.  

Now, I wouldn't normally be putting forward a microsite as something that others should emulate because there's always a caveat there whenever you take something away from the central websites that you create some problems. But in this case, there's probably more positives than negatives in the sense that this is allowing Puma to communicate directly to what is undoubtedly an important audience for young progressive people who will be pleased that this company that they buy products from is engaging in environmental and social good. And what is refreshing about it is firstly the lack of cliche, the lack of any of these problematic terms actually, but also the content. They're threaded in interesting videos, podcasts, episodes, TikTok, all sorts of things. And so, while it's not something that, you know, I'm literally saying that other companies should emulate as in a microsite of this kind,  

There is a lot here that could be inspiring for other companies. The ultimate takeaway, I think, is that it's an example of how it is still possible in one way or another to bypass the contentiousness and speak directly to audiences in their own language. Georgia, what's your example? 

Georgia   So that was a great example. And my example comes from Mondelez, who are a global snacking company and they make Oreos and Milka. And what they do on their corporate website is really a gold standard. And they are transparently communicating their progress against their environmental and social targets.  

And they do this in HTML tables directly on the corporate site under the sustainability section, which is interesting, given all our talk about language called Snacking Made Right, which is creative, as you would agree. And they have HTML tables, but they also provide this data in PDF and Excel format as well. And this is really helpful for investors and analysts who actually want to interrogate this data. So, yeah, I think that is a good example of a company doing this well.  

Jonathan   And it's an example that, you know, it'd be great if a lot of other companies started doing what they're doing or at least doing something very similar. Scott, what's your example? You get the last word.  

Scott   Great. I think I'm not sure if I'm going to break your rule, but I'm going to slightly fracture it because we might have loosely mentioned this company earlier in the podcast. But I do think it's a really good example to finish on because it is Apple because Apple is putting its vast amounts of money where its mouth is when it comes to diversity. 

It's making diversity a core product development driver in terms of making its products life enhancing for as diverse a range of people as possible. Hearing impaired people, sight impaired people, people who can't use a keyboard. And Georgia and I were lucky enough to attend a speech by Sarah Herrlinger, who's Apple's Senior Director of Global Accessibility Policy and Initiatives. And she said, 

At Apple, accessibility is not about compliance. It's about customisation for a huge and growing audience. And I think you can kind of say, you could say exactly the same thing about communications around diversity and some of the other topics we've been talking about today. So, I think Apple is a great example. 

Jonathan   Well, that didn't sound like it duplicated anything that I had heard earlier at all. Actually, it's a great place to end. I also don't think we, all right, I don't think we have had the last word by any means on this topic. We'll probably be continuing to discuss it for some time to come. But I do myself feel more optimistic after having spoken with you both about this. And hopefully our listeners will feel that way and also better equipped as well. It's always a pleasure talking with you. Thank you. 

Georgia   You too, thank you very much. 

Scott   Thank you. 

Jonathan   That's it for this episode of Cutting Through. You can find links to articles and best practice examples discussed in today's show, plus a variety of further reading at bowencrags.com forward slash podcast. If you liked what you heard today, please consider sharing the podcast with a colleague. All episodes of Cutting Through are available for download on Spotify. 

All episodes of Cutting Through are available for download on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. We hope you'll join us again next time for another conversational foray into the issues, conundrums, and opportunities facing corporate digital communicators today. But for now, thanks for listening. 

Return to the podcast episode page to listen and find additional resources