Transcript for Cutting Through Episode 3

What now? Digital communication after the US Election

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

Jonathan Holt   Welcome to episode three of Cutting Through, the podcast for corporate digital communicators.

Today on the podcast, Donald Trump won a decisive victory in the recent US election and he did it with, to put it mildly, an unconventional communications approach. For communicators, there's a lot of lessons and cautionary tales in this, not least in terms of understanding how the media and communications landscape is changing. We'll dig into the roles podcasting social media and yes, humour played in the election result.

And we'll explore just how far corporate communicators can go in harnessing, or at least coexisting with, the new media realities that helped secure Donald Trump another term in the White House. As always, we'll ground it all in examples and practical advice. What the US elections revealed about the changing communications landscape is our topic on this episode of Cutting Through.

Joining me yet again in the virtual podcasting studio are Georgia Barrett, Bowen Craggs' Vice President USA, and Scott Payton, our CEO. Scott and Georgia, this has been called “The Podcast Election” by some people for reasons we'll get into, but I think we could just as easily call it “The New Media Election” because while podcasters did seem to have an outsized sway over the outcome, so did Elon Musk's X. Even gaming platforms and betting websites seem to have more influence over some of the critical voter groups on November 5th than the mainstream press.

This really does give us a lot to unpack on behalf of corporate digital communicators. And I think since one of Boeing's crowds is stocks and trade is reviewing websites, why don't we start there? What can we learn from the way Donald Trump and Kamala Harris use their campaign websites to make their pitches to the electorate?

Scott Payton   It's a really interesting question, Jonathan. And a couple of weeks before the November 5th elections, I read a piece and I think I sent you both an article by Nate Silver and it was called, the headline was, “Likeability isn't Enough.” And Nate had spent some time looking at the both the Trump and the Harris campaign sites. So that prompted me to do so too, because as you say, that's what we do at Bowen Craggs. And I think the main lesson for corporate communicators is that being specific is better than being generic. Both Kamala Harris was famous for tapping into a vibe and I think Trump tapped into a vibe too on both of them on their websites and beyond.

But I think the lesson from those two websites and the content on them and from the campaign generally is vibes need to be followed up by specific promises that resonate with your audience's personal and professional priorities. And frankly, Trump's campaign website did that more effectively than the Harris website. I should say that neither of them, I've been looking at campaign websites as well as corporate websites for many years, neither of those campaign sites was as good as Barack Obama's 2008 or 2012 campaign websites, because both of them were really, really good at talking specifics, things like tax cuts.

But just to give you an example from the Harris campaign website in terms of not being specific enough, it read;

"Vice President Harris and Governor Walz are fighting for a new way forward that protects our fundamental freedoms, strengthens our democracy and ensures every person has the opportunity to not just get by, but to get ahead".

Blah, blah, blah. Then it says that

"Harris promises to be a president for all Americans, a president who unites us around our highest aspirations and a president who always fights for the American people..."

... goes on like that quite a lot of Kind of feel-good stuff, but not very specific. There's not much specific detail and promises there. Contrast that from the with the Trump campaign website just two weeks before November the fifth. Are you ready for some Trump verbiage? Quite a lot of vibe stuff too. 

"America needs determined Republican leadership at every level of government to address the core threats to our very survival."

Here comes some specifics: "Our disastrously open border..." quite specific. "Our weakened economy, crippling restrictions on American energy production, our depleted military and attacks on the American system of justice..." blah blah blah. More specific already.

And then there's a link to 20 specific promises that the Trump campaign was promising the American people. I'm not going to read out all 20, but there's things like end inflation and make America affordable again, carry out the largest deportation operation in American history, seal the border and stop the migrant invasion. You get the idea. But I think there is a kind of an important lesson for corporate communications from all this. And we've talked a bit about this in recent episodes of this podcast. It's, again, it's being specific is much more likely to land well or resonate with people than being talking generics about making the world a shinier, better place. You need to explain how you're going to make specific people happier, better.

Jonathan   And we know that a lot of companies tend to err towards the shinier, happier, sort of hollow language, don't they, on their sides. So, what's the direct takeaway for companies here given that one of these candidates won the election and the other one did not?

Scott   Well, think a major health warning here is I think the quality of the campaign websites is probably not the, didn't necessarily swing it, but I think it's a very good indicator of the kind of the language and the communications from both, more generally from both campaigns. And I do think that, again, one of the lessons for companies seeking to, communicate with various audience groups about social issues, environmental issues and other issues is that you need to be find things that your company really cares about and can take a stand on and find things that your audience groups really care about and communicate in specific ways and not in generic ways.

Georgia   Yeah, and if I was to add to that, we have heard some research from Maslanski Partners, who I believe we've quoted on this podcast before.

And they said that the election really came down to a lack of language and clarity. And I think that message can really apply to companies too. And we discussed this in our last episode, but who you are is who you are. So, there's a very strong value in being very clear about what you believe in and addressing that head on and taking a stand when it is important and relevant to do so. And that applies to companies, but also to politicians.

But around all of that, you also need to, I think in today's climate, be very careful about how you're communicating that. And an example from the election, which also came from this Maslansky Partners research, is that some of the words like college-educated and flyover states, they get tossed around a lot. They're quite common. You see them in the polling and everything. But they're actually very loaded terms that can be offensive and divisive, even if we say them every day. 

So, I think just being aware that certain language has power can really shape how you communicate, even if you're a company as well.

Scott   And I think another lesson is from the campaigns is you can't try to please all of the people all of the time. And if you do try to please all of the people all the time, you're not going to excite or really engage any of the people any of this time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? But I do think some of the kind of the cautious language, often leads to caution, often leads to kind of generic, generic communications.

And if you are too cautious, you end up being too generic. And I think in this increasingly polarised world, I do think companies and communicators just do need to accept that they cannot please all of the people all of the time. So, they need to choose some specific issues that are meaningful to the business and meaningful to key audience groups and take a stand on them.

Jonathan   And that seemed to be an underlying strategy for the Kamala Harris campaign, not to get too much into the political side of things, but it appeared that the Harris campaign was trying to walk a tightrope between keeping their democratic base on board and also certain Republicans and conservatives. Very much people ideologically opposed to her outlook behind the campaign and hoping to have a sort of winning coalition there, but it failed spectacularly. In part, it seems, because the base did not turn out to nearly the degree that they had for Joe Biden a few years ago. So, there does seem to be a pretty pointed lesson for any company that is trading in generalisms and the hollow statements that would seem to be intended to please everyone, possibly increasingly in this harsher communications reality are not pleasing anyone. 

Scott   Yeah, I think it is. You just need to get real with your messaging and make sure that it kind of comes from the heart or it comes from a heart rather than it coming from a kind of some kind of committee.

Georgia   Yeah, you need to know what you believe in as a company and then that can guide you on what issues you speak out on and what you don't speak out on. And I think there's a lot of thought that can go into that before you decide to speak out on something.

Jonathan   And there were repeated criticisms during the campaign that Kamala Harris, people didn't understand what she believed and that that wasn't being clearly articulated. Speaking of getting real, we have talked previously amongst ourselves and recently at an event about the worrying rise of misinformation. And that's not just in the US, but globally.

It's hard not to think that to some extent misinformation won in this election. I mean, you know, even in some of the extracts, Scott, that you were reading out earlier from the Trump website, there are traces of misleading statements in there, or there's sort of some potentially misleading assumptions. So, my question is that—

Are we, and have we entered a new paradigm where the facts aren't enough and in order to get your viewpoint across, you've got to do something else to win hearts and minds? mean, typically, as we've been just discussing, corporate communicators tend to tilt more towards playing it safe.

Scott   Yeah, mean, think in our launch episode of this podcast when it was hotter and sunnier and indeed summer, we had a discussion about the success of Charlie XCX's album Brat, and I think it which tapped into a cultural rebellion against the vanilla and the safe and possibly the AI-generated the machine manufactured rather than the person made content. And I think you could probably say the same about the similar things about the popularity of Trump and Trump's messaging. I think, he too, has tapped into a cultural rebellion in some portions of American society against the measured, the airbrushed, the vanilla and the safe.

Georgia   Strangely, I think there's like a, I've seen stuff that has linked to the kind of rise of conservative fashion on TikTok as a trend, which is the polar opposite of the brats vibe, that this, you know, even stuff like long maxi skirts or dressing more formally for work or, I don’t know, nice handbags from the 80s. It's kind of a return to a more conservative fashion. And I've seen that linked to the rise of Trump that were kind of moving towards an era of conservatism, which I think is just quite interesting. And sometimes the ethos of Brat is the opposite of conservatism. 

Scott   Sure, but I think, and I think I was seeing, it the kind of stay, there's a sort stay home wife, stay home girlfriend trend? Trad wife, trad wife. Yeah.

Georgia   Yeah, shrad- shradwife, like traditional- traditional wife. That kind - yeah. And that's been brewing for years, which is interesting.

Scott   But I think I totally agree. But I think they're both in both cases, they are a rebellion against something else. If you see what I mean. So, I think Trump is a Trump ism is a rebellion against possibly kind of what is some is perceived by in some quarters as the kind of the liberal elite. Massive inverted commas. Whereas Brat, I think, is a rebellion against the kind of corporate mass marketed music, so I'm moving perilously outside my comfort zone here, but I think they are both rebellions against something else in the culture which has been perceived as being the mainstream.

Jonathan   Well, and Charlie XCX burst into the political scene by saying on social media that Kamala Harris was Brat. But I think, can we agree that Kamala Harris turned out not to be as Brat as Charlie XCX might have assumed that she was going to be? Because...

The great criticism of the Harris campaign at this point seems to be that it did not feel like a rebellion. It felt like a defense of the status quo at a time when, as we can now, I think, see pretty clearly, a lot of people are not very happy with the status quo. Also, Charlie XCX appeared very recently at a corporate-sponsored free concert in London for a banking app called Revolut, which is trying to gain new visibility and pivot towards offering new services, particularly aimed at young people, I believe. So, there's a kind of, the summer has come full circle in a way, and Brat is, the definition of Brat seems to be now expanded to include corporate goals.

Scott   Yeah, think the thing with Brat is it was never it was actually kind of as kind of corporate produced as an album as any other. But it was just it was the optics rather than anything else. I can't possibly speak for Charli XCX herself and her views. I have no idea. But it was the it was more the optics rather than the kind of reality. 

Jonathan   Well, let's move on. This is a podcast that we're recording right now. So I think we owe it to ourselves to return to the notion that maybe this was, in fact, at least partly, the podcast election. A tipping point of some kind seems to have arrived in the media landscape. One small point of evidence for that is that Chris Wallace, who's a veteran Fox News journalist who had jumped ship to CNN not that long ago, said right after the election that he was resigning from broadcast media entirely and was going to turn his hand to streaming, by which I guess he means podcasting, because he said that seems to be where the action is. At the risk of going all meta, given that we're having this discussion from inside a podcast, what is it about podcasting that resonates so much with people?

Scott   Well, I think there's a theme coming growing here in this podcast, isn't there? Because again, think podcasts have fewer legacy conventions than other media and certainly seem to have fewer conventions. So, they feel freer and more authentic, particularly political ones, but also other podcasts about news, culture and anything else. They podcast thrive on niche topics like corporate digital communications.

And just like online community forums have always thrived for years, for decades on specific, specialist topics and podcasters and listeners can find each other and talk about specialist things in what feels like a safe space that's uncorrupted or perceived as uncorrupted by corporate censorship or potential corporate censorship. I think it's a big parallel with local radio in America, which has long been massive and I think still is. And podcasting is an extension of that, but it's connecting people. Local radio connects people by geography, but podcasts can connect people by interests nationally and globally. And this is a sweeping generalisation. But for people who are listening, some of these podcasts, the world's most popular podcasts. 

Each episode is kind of three hours long or can be three hours long or more. So, people at work driving all day or working out at the gym or going for a run, spending a lot of time potentially on their own listening to podcasts that they grow to get to know and grow to love. Podcasts can become seen as, you know, confidants and companions, particularly if the podcaster, the people on the podcast, say things that the listener doesn't feel like they're getting from the quote unquote mainstream media or companies or politicians. And particularly if the podcaster says things that really resonates with the listener. So, there's a sense that this person really gets understands me and my life and what I'm really interested in.

And I think it's a coincidence that some of the most popular podcasters in Europe and America, they've kind of achieved almost kind of like rock star status among their adoring fans and they're kind of selling out the O2, which is a bit like Madison Square Garden for our American listeners, but not as nice. Yeah, so I think it's fascinating, the success of podcasts.

Georgia   Yeah, I really agree with your point about friends and confidence and I think podcasts are so trusted because you really start to develop a relationship with the host and you start to view them like this friend and advisor and there was an Atlantic article recently about this very thing.

And it said that we like to consume information when it's informally presented via parasocial relationships with influencers. And we enjoy this feeling that there's only a slight gap that separates the creator and the consumer. And I think that just kind of really sums it up. And it also taps into this thing that we're seeing, which is it's getting really difficult to know where genuine influence is coming from at the moment, because it's coming from kind of all directions.

And things like TikTok and podcasts, it's contributing to this kaleidoscope of realities and kind of bubbles and microcosms and echo chambers. And I think we're all in our own echo chamber, but we often don't realize that we are because these algorithms in our lives are just kind of ensuring that everyone is hearing more of the same. And do you assume that everyone else is hearing what you're hearing, but they're not. And that's kind of why. 

There's a, there was a TikTok video which really exemplifies this kind of kaleidoscope of echo chamber thing that we're seeing, and it was a video about a couple, they'd had an argument.

And the girlfriend was looking through the comments of the video and people often use comments as a pulse check moment to see, what does everyone else think? Do they support my point of view? And as she was looking through the comments, everyone was like on her side. And then she showed the video to her boyfriend. She's like, what do you think of this? And all of the comments on his TikTok, the ones he was seeing as the top most popular comments, all supported his view. So, comments that you think are these like objective, you assume that they're ordered in like popularity or something but they're actually not they're kind of algorithms in their own right and they show you it's just reinforcing this echo chamber and yeah that's something that's quite scary because you think that they're objective and they're not.

Maybe we've arrived at this kind of state of division at the moment. But on a more positive note, I do think that this idea that podcasts can give you an unfiltered conversation is part of a wider trend towards greater authenticity in culture and greater transparency and trust and human connection in a way. So, think it can be quite positive.

Jonathan   For anyone who wasn't following the election things closely that the reason why this has been called the podcast election is because the Trump campaign and Trump himself seemed to recognize that there was something brewing out there in podcast land and that if they tapped into that it could really make a difference in it and it does seem that it did because Donald Trump went on something like 20 different row type podcasts and had avuncular conversations that perhaps sounded a lot different, very different to the way that some of us were experiencing Donald Trump in campaign mode because he was just meeting these conversational interviewers on their own terms. But yeah, I agree with you both that there's something there about the humanity of that kind of conversation. And one interesting thing that I encountered recently was that it seems some people are using Google's Notebook LM tool, which has a podcast feature where it can turn any bit of text into a podcast, as their way of digesting big reports and big bits of information. Plug it into there and let it read it back to you as a podcast. And apparently that has great appeal.

Scott   I find that surprising. Yeah, after you, Georgia.

Georgia   Yeah, I mean, I don't find that surprising actually, because it really tallies with the next generation research that we did, Jonathan and I did two years ago. And this was where we interviewed young people. And a lot of them were talking about how podcasts are just so great for digesting information. And it really helps you learn. Obviously, there's different types of learners like audio, visual, physical. But yeah, just the fact that you can multitask and go for a walk, you can listen to it while you're making your cup of tea in the morning. Yeah, I think we've been hearing this for years. That is a great way to learn new things.

Scott   What I find surprising about it is the appeal of an artificially generated podcast, because I think for me that kind of flies in the face of all the things we've just talked about, about what many of the things that make podcasts popular is people getting to know the hosts and it's kind of its intimate, it's real people. So, I was slightly not horrified, but I was kind of alarmed to see that people were kind of proudly kind of saying, well, I can just press this button and turn this into a podcast. think if it's a sort of prosaic, this is a piece of information, if this is something I need to kind of digest and learn, I can totally see how it would be better to turn it into a podcast, even if it's automated and I can stick on my headphones and go and do something else and listen to it.

That's fine. But I think it's sort of, to me, positioning artificially generated podcasts as a kind of something that companies should be doing, kind of en masse to replicate the success of the world's best podcasts, I would say hard no for me.

Georgia   Yeah, I think there's two kinds of different things going on and we're seeing companies doing both of them. And the first is this artificially generated thing, which I think is purely used as an educational tool. So, we see it with Spotify, they have their, all of their social responsibility reporting has had this button where you can hear it read aloud. And that is not a real person reading aloud. It's like a robot, but it's good for digesting a lot of complicated information. Same with Mondelez, they've just released an ESG chatbot on their corporate website so you can interrogate it about their sustainability reporting. So, there's that. And then there's also this more authentic human showcasing experts internally view. And some examples of very successful corporate podcasts such as from Goldman Sachs have internal experts speaking about topics.

And I think that is also extremely valuable. yeah, there's like two different ways of going about it. 

Jonathan   I think that's a really good point to link some of these read aloud options and chatbots that where there's people are getting more and more comfortable with the idea of interacting with artificial intelligence. And that might be one way to understand it.

Although, I have to admit, I've mentioned something that I have not personally tried out, but from what I understand, the Notebook LM podcasts are really quite engaging. Having said that, I totally agree with you, Scott, that we would not be suggesting that any company should be out there attempting that if they're wanting to get into podcasting without having been so far. I was going to ask who's doing it well, and you gave one example there, Georgia, but what can we say about good corporate podcasts as of today because initially a few years ago when companies really started getting into this a lot of the podcasts that I was hearing were very polished they were almost like outsourced radio programs you could almost just say it was it content that they had paid to have Created on in their name or with their sponsorship Whereas I'm assuming that these days we would be hoping to hear from people You know the listeners would be wanting to hear something much more raw and real.

Is that right?

Scott   Yeah, think the key thing for companies is that all companies are experts on something and many of the world's most popular podcasts are experts, people who know a lot about a thing, talking engagingly about the thing to people and it's listened to by people who are interested in the thing.

And all companies are very, very good and know a lot about specific things, whether that's renewable energy or designing buildings or global economics or food production or whatever it is. So, the key is to tap into that expertise and geek out on it, in my opinion. And I think Georgia's example of Goldman Sachs, their podcast is called Exchanges. It's a great example. And the tagline for that podcast is our award-winning podcast features Goldman Sachs leaders on the key issues shaping the global economy. it's Goldman Sachs experts talking about big global economic and social economic and market issues. So yeah, it's just they are being them and they are showing off what they do.

Jonathan   Well, let's move on and talk about another aspect of communications that seems to be radically changing before our eyes. And I want to particularly talk about X, formerly known as Twitter, which seemed to play a very, different role under Elon Musk's ownership in this election than it did just four years ago when Joe Biden won. 

All the moderators and misinformation guardrails were pretty much gone and Elon Musk himself seemed to be using X to promote, well, we could say less than honest sometimes claims in order to rally voters behind his chosen candidate. mean, Elon Musk went all in for Donald Trump. At one point, I was reading that he was living in Pennsylvania, which was seen as the crucial swing state.

And then the New York Times was reporting right after the election that Elon Musk seemed to have moved in to Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump's Florida residence. And so, he's now also in line to have some sort of role in the new administration. My question is, is X now essentially a propaganda machine for the Trump administration? And how long is it going to be viable for large companies, of which there are many on there still, to be able to remain active there without a reputation problem?

Scott   I think according to the internet, so it must be true, 280,000 people close their ex-accounts on US election day. So, there's definitely kind of... 

Jonathan   Though that's out of 600 million total. 

Scott   Yeah, but it's. But I think more interesting, I setting Parking X, the future of X for just for a minute, looking at other I think its definitely worth companies looking at other social media channels and maybe staking a claim on them. Certainly, worth getting to know them. Bluesky is definitely worth looking at. It's gaining during November 2024; it was gaining a million users a day and as of late November that had more than 21 million users. it's certainly worth watching potential kind of usurpers to X.

Because if you look back at the last, I don't know, 15, 20 years, are social media, the popularity of specific social media channels has ebbed and flowed. It is things that have seemed kind of here forever and large media conglomerates of often paid millions of dollars for social media platforms that have promptly kind of fallen over and died. So, I think it's definitely there's no doubt that X is volatile at the moment.

We know a lot of companies that are pausing their overt activity on X and possibly kind of many companies, they're keeping their Twitter accounts open because X remains a of a customer support contact route in some parts of the world and for some companies. But I definitely don't think companies should be betting the farm on X or and I think it seems to make a lot of sense to me that a lot of companies are pausing.

As well as Bluesky, there's Threads, which is Meta's kind of X competitor — definitely worth watching. And I actually went on to threads for the first time in months over the weekend. And it's become a kind of refuge for people who used to use X for friendly banter and debate and that feel like X has become too toxic and acrimonious to do that now. So, I think if your company isn't on threads yet, I think it's definitely worth continuing to look at looking at threads. But the main lesson for companies, for all of this, is you don't control X and you don't control Instagram or TikTok or Blue Sky or Facebook. And they are ultimately or they have the potential to be fads or at least in massive flux. So, you do need to build a fortress of authentic detailed truth on your own corporate website. And then you can use whatever other channels are popular in the future to direct people to it.

Jonathan   Well, as ever, a lot of attention was paid during this election to polling and aggregations of polls. And the polls were either totally off or remarkably accurate, I think, depending on how you look at it. Scott, you mentioned the polling guru Nate Silver earlier, and he was constantly reminding his readers on Substack that both candidates were just, in his words, a normal polling error away from a big win the whole way along, even though the aggregated numbers showed them really in a statistical tie. as someone personally who spent a lot more time than I'd care to admit, poring over the numbers and the analysis in the run up to the election day, I'm not sure I had any more idea who the winner was going to be than someone who'd never looked at a single poll. What I'm wondering is, what does this say about how corporate digital communicators should think about the data that they use to measure the impact of their work?

Scott   The lesson for me is that data science is vital and quantitative data is hugely valuable. And I think if you look at the demographics and the kind of data you can get from analysing visitors to your corporate website, it's not as knife edge as the recent presidential election. So, it's probably easier to get more clearer insights from the quantitative data. But I totally agree that that quantitative, the raw numbers, absolutely must be complemented by constant high quality qualitative analysis. And that means talking to people face to face.  

And it means kind of looking at the kind of the real comments that people are making. So, the emotions and the stories and the feelings and the opinions behind the numbers, you've really kind of kind of got to understand that. And that if you if you don't do that and you can't you can't communicate effectively online or offline.

Georgia   Yeah, and I would say that using data to measure the effectiveness of your corporate communications is really difficult. And it's like often seen as the holy grail in the world of online corporate comms is how do you actually measure the effectiveness of what you're doing. And Bowen Craggs actually does do work around this and we run surveys on many of the corporate websites of the world's biggest companies. And it's just as what Scott was saying about hearing directly from people. So, these surveys give you these free text comments and it shows as well as the data you can also hear directly from your visitors about did they achieve the goal of their visit or what did they think of your company before and after they visited the corporate website, how did this change their perception etc etc.

And I would also say that in most cases the CEO of a company doesn't care about how many views the homepage gets every day. But what they might care about is the conversion rates, which is the number of people who come to your site feeling unfavourable about your company, but leave feeling favourable. So, as well as all of this data and pairing it with hearing from real people, I think you should also be careful about what data you are looking at and choosing the right KPIs, not just sheer number of page views, but more meaningful data points that are useful day to day to you, but can also be reported up to senior leadership.

Jonathan   Really casting a wide net and looking at every available source that you have. you know, knowing that you've got a good conversion rate and understanding why that is can be two very different things. And I think that's why for me personally, when I'm looking at survey data, I really pay a lot of attention to those free text comments, because I think it does give you that added human understanding of what might be going on. You're still sort of reading tea leaves, but you've got something real and authentic there to add into the mix as you try to interpret it. Is that how you experience it?

Scott   Yeah, I mean, think it's one of the things that I think is important. is in. Analysis, quantitative and qualitative analysis of what your audiences are thinking and what they want is more important than ever before, because the world is changing quickly. We've talked about polar, talked about polarization, we've talked about volatility, we've talked about how the media landscape is being turned upside down. So, companies are communicating in increasingly complex and fast changing environments. So, I think my advice is just to keep all data sources switched on, particularly those through which real people can speak their mind. And I do agree with you, Jonathan, that those kind of hard raw data points need to be looked at, alongside real comments, whether that’s praise, criticism, rants, pleas and everything in between from real people.

And I think just to go back to the US election for a moment, there is, I think if you look at Trump, whether it was genius or whether it’s instinct or whether it was a fluke, I don’t know. Well, I do know, but setting aside, I have thoughts on that. Setting it, there’s no doubt that what he was saying kind of resonated. Hit the kind of the hearts.

Emotionally resonated with his target audience. So, but I think for companies, they really do need to kind of use data now more than ever to kind of really get under the skin of what their audiences are, what they want and how they think and the kind of language they use. So, both quantitative and qualitative data is important, but use them together and also get outside, go out and talk to people with people in a coffee shop, that’s good too. Do that. Some people do.

Jonathan   People still do that. Guess some people do. Well, this seems like a good point to take a short break. When we come back, we’ll talk about the influencer economy, the evolving role of humour in the public discourse, and our key takeaways for any communicators who are still feeling maybe a bit stunned by the election result or wondering what 2025 is going to hold.

[interlude]

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. 

 [end of interlude]

Jonathan   One way to understand the new communications landscape is that we've now tipped well and truly into the influencer economy where anyone with a microphone or a bit of social media savvy can have an outsized role in shaping what people are talking about, what they know and how they think. You are the media now is how Elon Musk put it. Here in the US, there's new research from the Pew Research Report, which found that around 20%, one in five of Americans now get their news from content creators instead of from traditional news sources and they found that among people under 30 that number almost doubles or that figure almost doubles to approaching 40%. Does this suggest that companies need to have a rethink around how they do their media outreach? 

Scott   I think it absolutely does. But I think the challenge for companies is media relations departments and like investor relations departments, they're a bit like oil tankers. They take a heck of a long time to change direction and they have done kind of historically as new technologies have come along. But it's definitely high time that companies do take a look at their press sections, their media sections of their corporate websites to cater for a wider range of media people and the definition of journalists, whether or not you agree with Elon Musk saying we are all the media now. There's certainly the kaleidoscope of the media landscape is there's definitely more kind of content creators out there.

And it's really surprising if you look at the most the vast majority of corporate websites, it's as if the media hasn't really kind of changed for the last 30 years in terms of it's really just catering for the traditional journalist who's looking for the press release and the name of the head of media relations. And it kind of really does need to see the election result on the election campaign is a massive wake-up call, I think, for companies and corporate websites. Corporate website managers really kind of need to kind of knock on the door of their colleagues in the press department and say, look, you know, this is get out of the 90s, folks.

Georgia   Yeah, and I think some companies are definitely doing that already and they're starting to think about how to change their press section.

Bosch is an example because on their media contact page, they address it to journalists, but also bloggers and influencers. So, they're specifically acknowledging that this is a group that is a member of the press. But I think in general, just the you are the media now comment, I think is really in step with the idea of platforms like TikTok, which is very different to Facebook and Instagram. Because if you think about more traditional social media platforms. You're seeing content from your friends and your family and people you know in real life. And TikTok and other platforms like TikTok are kind of the opposite. Like you don't follow people you know, really. You don't see updates from your friends. The idea is that you are seeing content from strangers all over the world. And it's kind of this idea that anyone who has a phone can create content about their day. So, it’s kind of is true. Like everyone is the media. Everyone is creating these videos about their life and about basically anything. And as a side note, that's kind of where a lot of misinformation comes from because it's like anyone can say anything that they want and no one's checking it and that's fine.

But companies I think should tap into this and especially when it comes to job seeker communications, employees like showcasing your internal talents. I think that's a really exciting use of this new media in a really positive, interesting way.

Jonathan   There seems to be, if we wanted to think about the influencer economy, it's a murky world. It's a fragmented world. And not only is everyone the media, but everyone is consuming media to suit them. And so, we're way beyond the point where everyone was seeing, tuning into the same news broadcasts or reading the same newspapers or whatever. It seems that political operatives perhaps have started to understand more and more how to manipulate would be one word, but influence the influencers in order to get them to be talking about the things they want them to talk about. you know, this is a huge topic that we can't completely unpack here in this single podcast episode, but, you know, the world saw Joe Rogan interview Donald Trump and Elon Musk and that that seemed to have a real effect on the final stages of the election 2024. Tens of millions of viewers. mean, that is superstar status as Scott said earlier where media is concerned. But that was just the tip of the iceberg.

There had been a lot of activity for at least four years, if not going back right to the time when Trump first ran, to try and change people's minds, particularly young men, I think. mean, that's the target. Men and young men are the real core audience for some of these now newly influential podcasts. So, on the media, a radio show, stroke podcast, that I like to listen to that I find quite insightful, had a segment on this recently and sort of exploring the murky relationship between money and influencers. And I think there's probably going to be a lot more research into this and we'll have lots more to say about it in the future. But certainly, it does seem that it's possible to, as I said, influence the influencers and we see this perhaps playing out with companies being on the receiving end as well as election results. So, when companies are targeted with organized social media campaigns and that sort of thing. My question, I guess, is how should corporate digital communicators be thinking about the influencer economy in relation to their communications goals? And are there lessons here that can be applied back into the corporate digital channels?

Scott   Big question, Jonathan, mahusive question. But I think, yeah, I on the day after the morning after the US presidential election, I got a taxi to the airport in the UK and the driver spent the entire journey and thankfully it was a fairly short journey, criticizing the Kamala Harris campaign for willing out was a US politics junkie fan and following the campaign closely. And he was really lambasting the Harris campaign for willing out traditional celebrities to endorse her. So, Oprah, Beyonce and so on. And in his view, it only amplified many Americans view that Harris stood for the rich liberal mainstream establishment, quote unquote, rather than real people feeling like they're being let down and left behind by Washington and corporations and the liberal elites.

And I do think for millions of Americans and people elsewhere in the world, podcasters, social media commentators, influencers, as Georgia says, they've become friends, least friends in their minds. So, they're much more likely to listen to them. So, the lesson for corporate communicators is when it comes to messaging about social topics, environmental topics and also recruitment related messaging. Companies need to, corporate communications departments need to, social media teams, web teams need to work hard to build a grassroots network of supporters and amplifiers online. And I guess, as Georgia says, the obvious place to start is with employees.

Georgia   Yeah, there was a recent Forbes article about this and they were calling it EGC, which is employee generated content. And it's the idea that your employees are the influences for your company. And Bowen Craggs has been saying this for years about the importance of showcasing employees and internal talent on your corporate website and on your social media channels. So, it's quite interesting seeing it get this like new name from Forbes. But yeah, they say that employee generated content is vital for building trust and it's a cost-effective way to promote your culture and it's a great recruitment tool. So yeah, I think it's really important to showcase your employees on your digital channels.

Jonathan   But even now, you know, there are different flavours of that and many companies are risk averse, take the risk averse version of it, which is very filtered, carefully produced, edited versions of employee content versus those who are learning to trust their employees to do what they're probably going to do anyway and be the influencers. Are there any examples of companies that are doing the latter well?

Georgia   Yeah, some examples that spring to mind for me are Estee Lauder companies. They're really good at trusting their employees to just go out and make social media content. So, there's a lot of day in the life videos, outfit videos, like what is your favourite Estee Lauder product. They go behind the scenes into the lab and they look at how you actually make make-up in a laboratory. They have the CEO doing a tour of the shop floor. It's all very behind the scenes and authentic.

Verizon is also a really good example. And so is quite interestingly, an Australian mining company called BHP. And I find that interesting because Verizon and Estee Lauder, it's kind of more in their wheelhouse to be authentic and funny online. But if you're a mining company where there's kind of environmental and safety things happening, then I think it's quite interesting that they're taking to TikTok.

And this is what they're doing very successfully, like they're showing their employees and I think this is a good recruitment tool for them because it shows that it is a safe place to work and that they do take matters very seriously.

Jonathan   There seems to be a parallel between the influence of the economy and all the dynamics of that and paid social media, which we know a lot of companies put a lot of stock in. And I'm thinking that given this new and more chaotic communications landscape, a lot of corporate social media teams might be tempted to retreat into their safe space of targeted posts on LinkedIn, which is a really favourite channel for paid social media activity. Would that be a good idea to retreat behind the fortress of a known space that you feel comfortable in?

Scott   Well, to me, it depends on what you want to achieve. But if what you want to achieve is to reconnect with a large portion of society that has exhibited signs of being increasingly disconnected with the interests and the ambitions of your company and business generally, as we've seen through the kind of prism of the culture wars and the backlash against terms like ESG and DEI, if you want to kind of build bridges with those portions, sections of society with those portions of your employee base or your potential customer base, then those people aren't necessarily going to be on LinkedIn. So, you need to go and find that go to channels that they use because I'm not a betting person, but I would wager that a large portion of those people are not on LinkedIn every day.

So, if you want to reach if you want to build bridges with people who have reacted negatively against your organisation, then you need to go beyond LinkedIn.

Jonathan   Well speaking of going beyond the comfort zone, let's talk about the role of humour in the campaign because I think there some interesting lessons here. And of course, we know that many companies struggle with the use of humour in their communications even as we're living in a increasingly, you know, irony laced world, especially on certain social media channels. Kamala Harris's team were really good at churning out funny memes on TikTok, speaking of social media channels that are irony zones often. And it seemed like for a brief moment there that that might help her to run away with the 18- to 29-year-old vote. But in the end, a significant percentage of young voters chose the other candidate, the one with the dark comedy routine.

So anyway, that's how he has described what he was up to in his rallies when he was talking about the late great Hannibal Lecter and the weave. And so that version, that type of humour seems to have won out over the version where the candidate said she was going to be the president of joy. What does this tell us, if anything, about the evolving role of humour and irony in the public discourse?

Scott   I was very taken by Georgia's point about the kind of kaleidoscope of echo chambers and the fact that there are, all think, we might think that we're all listening to the same thing as everybody else, but we're not. And I think that's, it's particularly true with humour. And I think humour and irony is great for resonating with your, with the converted, with the people who already like you and solidifying support for people who already like you. But it's not great for converting people. And I think it's really interesting to kind of see what things that a Trump supporter would find hilarious, a Harris supporter would find less so.

Georgia   Yeah, and I think the whole new media landscape is a move towards more direct and more authentic communication and humour is by its very nature part of that. And I do think it's harder for companies to kind of tap into this, but stuff like podcasts and social media and showcasing internal talent, all of this can help you be authentic and use humour in a good way. And we know of one. It's one of the biggest companies in the US. They have an internal policy now of not using teleprompters when their senior leaders are speaking. And the aim there is to just really show the human side of the company. And I do think humour then can be a byproduct of this sort of more unfiltered, more authentic communication.

Jonathan   Well, interestingly, the Trump campaign, or guess really Trump himself, is said to have relied on Baron Trump, Trump's 18-year-old son, for advice on how to reach out to young men on the internet during the campaign. Can we say once and for all that if companies want to connect with young people as consumers or as job seekers or as brand advocates or whatever, that they need to be recruiting talented and culturally savvy young people to open those doors for them?

Scott   It's a hundred percent yes from me, but with a big massive caveat, which I think that the who you choose to do that, it needs to reflect the demography of the people you're trying to produce content that resonates well with your target audience. And I think what we've seen with the polarization of political opinion between along gender lines in many countries in the world is since younger men are getting more conservative and younger women are getting more liberal in South Korea and the US and the UK and Germany, young people quote unquote is an unreliable determinant of what they think. And as Georgia says, there's a kind of all sorts of complex and interesting trends, politically charged cultural trends going on among young people at the moment.

So, you kind of really need to, I think, good. Let's hire a young person to write to produce young people's content for young people. That's just too crude. Now you kind of really need to kind of understand who you're trying to resonate with and then recruit accordingly. 

Jonathan   So, to come back to where we started with this episode, it's going to be really important over the next four years for companies not to mince words on their digital channels to know when to speak up and what they stand for. We've talked previously about how Amazon is really good at using its digital channels to stake out unvarnished positions on a whole range of contentious issues. Are there any other examples that you can point people to of companies that address difficult topics authentically and with a ring of clarity on their websites or social media channels.

Scott   One example from me is Rio Tinto, the mining company, and on its corporate websites, it's got very open, soul-searchingly honest and detailed and practical information on the lessons and the steps it's taking following the ... In 2020, in Australia, Rio Tinto inadvertently destroyed some caves that were considered sacred by local indigenous people. And there is that incident and there's lots of backlash and controversy around that incident that is addressed incredibly honestly and openly on RioTinto.com. So why check that out.

Georgia   And I would add that Nestle has its Ask Nestle. It's an example that we've spoken about before, but it's notable for its encyclopaedic approach to a range of issues. Any sort of issue that you want to know what the company's, what's its opinion of it, it will tell you. It's like a very detailed FAQ. 

Jonathan   I am a big fan of Ask Nestle. It's been around for a long time and maybe it's a little bit like the conservative fashion on TikTok, know, that some things do eventually come back around. It's certainly something that a lot of companies have struggled to match, but it's enduring proof that it is possible to answer the difficult questions on your website.

Let's finish off with a quick round of key takeaways roundabout. If you had to distil election 2024 and what it revealed about the changing communications landscape down to one thing, digital communicators should remember as they prepare to face the Trump years, what would it be? As usual, I'm going to go first to avoid having the last word. And so, my key takeaway would be keep your ear to the ground, pay attention to what's being said in the quieter parts of the internet, and don't get too wrapped up in what is likely to be uncertain, fact, almost certain to be a very noisy time. Donald Trump was elected to be a chaos maker, and the mainstream press coverage is going to be focused on that. But every so often, make sure that you are turning to other sources like Reddit.

A lot of the influencer economy is fed by sources like that, by subreddits and very specific niche areas where content is bubbling up and being covered by the streamers. And if you are paying attention to what's going on under the surface there, you may have some advanced warning around anything that's coming related to your company or your sector.

Georgia, what's your key takeaway?

Georgia   My takeaway is to really focus in on this authentic, unfiltered, transparent mode of communication. And I think for companies, the best way to do this is by showcasing the people who are in your team, in your organisation, and making them more of the focus of your comms strategy. And that could be through social media posts, through TikTok videos, podcasts, articles, interviews, photos instead of stock photos have pictures of real people just as much as you can do to show the real human faces that are in your company. 

Jonathan   Thank you, Georgia. Scott, what's your key takeaway?

Scott   I think companies should, mean, corporate communications teams should sit down with a cup of coffee and identify three to five things that their company is genuinely passionate about, genuinely cares about, and then look at three to five things that your company's main audiences are genuinely passionate about. Look at where all that overlaps and then focus at least a large part of your communication strategy around that. But it does have to be heartfelt and it has to feel real. And I think one more point, you've asked me one thing,

I agree with your point, Jonathan, too, about looking ahead into 2025, the risk of corporate reputational crisis has increased due to the incoming US administration's overt political strategy of unpredictability. So, companies, communications teams do need to prepare for the unpredictable and get there, line up their facts about everything. Cause it's going to be, it's going to be an interesting period. 

Jonathan   We certainly seem to be coming into newly interesting times.  

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 other reading at bonecrags.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, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.

We hope you'll join us again in January when we'll be taking out our crystal balls and daring to make a few more predictions about what communicators can expect from what is undoubtedly going to be an eventful year 2025.

But for now, thanks for listening.

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