When politics changes the rules of social media, should companies follow?

Gavin Newsom's X feed is not what you might expect from the Governor of California.

Newsom's communications team has attracted considerable attention for its enthusiastic use of capital letters, memes, exaggerated praise and pointed jabs at political opponents. Much of it deliberately imitates Donald Trump's distinctive social media style, turning the president's own online language back on him.

It's certainly a shoutier approach than we've traditionally expected from an official government account. But it has also proved remarkably effective at attracting attention. Newsom's press office gained more than half a million followers in August 2025, while individual posts have generated millions of views.

Whatever your politics, it's a fascinating example of how political communications is evolving. The conventions of the traditional press office are giving way to something faster, more personal and considerably more willing to experiment.

And it raises an interesting question for corporate communicators: as politicians change the way they communicate on social media, should companies be changing their approach too?

The new rules of political social media

Donald Trump didn't invent provocative political communications, but his use of social media has demonstrated how a politician can bypass traditional media, communicate directly with supporters and turn individual posts into news stories.

Newsom's approach offers an interesting variation. Rather than rejecting Trump's style, his team has adopted and exaggerated it, using the same conventions to communicate a very different political message.

The posts are immediately recognisable, easy to share and often designed to provoke a response. They're also written for the platform, rather than sounding like press releases that have been squeezed into a social media post.

And the shift extends beyond the US.

Across Europe, politicians and political institutions are adapting their communications to platforms that reward personality, immediacy and participation. A 2026 study of Members of the European Parliament found that 374 of the 719 MEPs examined had adopted TikTok.

The European Parliament itself uses TikTok to explain its work through short videos and behind-the-scenes content, making institutional information accessible to audiences unlikely to seek it out through traditional channels.

A European Parliament explainer has little in common with a Newsom X post mocking a political opponent. But both reflect a wider shift: political institutions are increasingly communicating according to the conventions of social platforms, rather than expecting audiences to adapt to the conventions of institutions.

And companies are operating in exactly the same environment.

When the loudest voice gets the attention

Corporate communicators have spent years trying to make their organisations sound more human. Less corporate language, more personality, fewer carefully staged executive photographs.

Political communications offers an interesting glimpse of where that instinct can lead.

Social platforms reward a sharp comeback, a provocative claim or an argument unfolding in real time. A carefully qualified statement explaining the complexities of an issue is rather less likely to dominate anybody's feed.

For politicians, confrontation can serve a strategic purpose. Mobilising supporters, drawing distinctions with opponents and attracting media coverage are all part of political communications.

Companies have a different job.

A multinational business needs to maintain the confidence of investors, employees, customers and journalists with different expectations. Winning an argument on X is unlikely to be much consolation if the exchange damages those relationships.

But the answer cannot simply be to retreat into the safest possible corporate language.

As audiences become accustomed to politicians speaking directly, responding quickly and expressing recognisable opinions, the carefully polished corporate statement can look increasingly out of place.

The challenge is to be more interesting without becoming more inflammatory.

A little more backbone, a little less shouting

One lesson companies can take from changing political communications is that having a recognisable voice matters.

Even regulators are recognising how much the social media landscape has changed. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority, for example, has updated its guidance on financial promotions on social media to explicitly address memes, reels, gaming streams and influencers. It's a useful acknowledgement that organisations are communicating in formats far removed from convention.

Monzo offers an example of what this looks like in practice. Its TikTok account uses humour, popular trends and relatable financial situations to engage audiences, rather than simply repurposing traditional banking content.

Perhaps more interestingly, Monzo's published tone-of-voice guidelines encourage a distinctive, accessible personality while establishing boundaries around how the brand communicates.

It's a useful distinction. Being relevant on social media requires personality and a willingness to experiment, but that doesn't mean abandoning the judgement expected of a financial institution.

For companies, that might mean allowing an executive to challenge an industry assumption, letting an expert explain why a popular idea is wrong, or responding directly to criticism rather than issuing another carefully worded statement about being committed to listening.

The point isn't to manufacture controversy. It's to stop treating a clear point of view as something that needs to be edited out.

When the institution becomes a personality

Another feature of modern political social media is the increasingly blurred distinction between the individual and the institution they represent.

Newsom's press office is an obvious example. Its distinctive voice is closely tied to the governor's own political identity, rather than the traditionally impersonal language of government communications.

Corporate communicators face a similar question. Should the company itself develop a more recognisable personality, or should it increasingly rely on the people behind it?

Richard Branson is a paradigm of this in action. With almost 19 million followers, his LinkedIn presence is an extension of the Virgin brand, combining personal anecdotes, business advice, commentary on current affairs and updates from across the Virgin businesses.

His posts range from reflections on entrepreneurship and leadership to more personal stories and opinions on global issues. The result is a recognisable individual voice that reinforces Virgin's long-standing identity as an unconventional, outspoken business.

Of course, few companies have a founder quite as recognisable as Branson. But the principle is relevant well beyond Virgin. Executives, scientists and employees can give organisations an identifiable voice and perspective that an anonymous corporate account often struggles to achieve.

The challenge is to give those people enough freedom to be interesting without turning every employee into a carefully managed corporate spokesperson. This recent article from Bowen Craggs explores this authenticity paradox.

From joining the conversation to shaping it

Perhaps the most interesting development in political social media is that politicians are no longer simply using their channels to comment on the news. Increasingly, they're using them to make it.

Newsom's X posts are a case in point. By adopting and exaggerating Trump's distinctive communication style, his team has created content that journalists and commentators discuss in its own right. The social media post becomes the story, rather than merely a means of promoting one.

There's a lesson here for companies, although it doesn't require picking arguments with competitors or developing a sudden enthusiasm for capital letters.

Corporate social channels are still too often treated as distribution mechanisms: somewhere to announce financial results, share a press release or celebrate an award. All perfectly legitimate activities, but hardly an ambitious use of platforms designed for conversation.

IKEA offers a useful alternative. Its 2025 sustainability campaign, 'Do something, change everything', deliberately challenged the idea that companies should remain quiet about sustainability for fear of accusations of greenwashing. Rather than simply publishing another set of environmental commitments, IKEA used social content and its own people to explain the practical actions behind its claims.

More recently, its chief sustainability officer has used the company's newsroom to offer a perspective on changing sustainability reporting expectations, explaining why companies may need to recalibrate targets without necessarily abandoning their ambitions.

Neither example depends on provocation for its own sake. But both show how an organisation can use its expertise to contribute something substantive to a wider discussion.

For corporate communicators, that might mean challenging a misconception about their industry, introducing original research or giving an expert the opportunity to explain an issue before somebody else defines the narrative.

Political communicators have become adept at recognising that social media can set the agenda, not just follow it. Companies could afford to be a little more ambitious too.

Borrow the confidence, not necessarily the confrontation

None of this means corporate communications should become an imitation of political campaigning.

Politicians and companies have different objectives, audiences and responsibilities. What helps a politician mobilise supporters might make a multinational business look unnecessarily divisive.

And there is an important distinction between attracting attention and earning trust. A post generating millions of views tells us something about its reach, but rather less about whether people understand or believe the company behind it.

Still, political social media is changing the conventions of institutional communications. Audiences are becoming accustomed to more distinctive voices, faster responses and organisations that participate in conversations rather than simply announcing things.

Companies can learn from that without adopting every tactic. They can give experts more visibility, respond with greater confidence and use social channels to introduce ideas worth discussing.