As the United States navigates the turbulent waters of a presidential transition, the ripple effects of the presidential election will be felt across the globe. A growing division in society—fueled by media that profits from polarization—calls for a reevaluation of how businesses and organizations communicate.

In this episode, Abbie and Adrian talk about emotional responses to the election results, highlighting the necessity for effective communication in a polarized environment. They emphasize the responsibility of organizations to understand and navigate the policy changes that will impact their operations and interactions with clients.

They also discuss the responsibilities of PR professionals in the contentious political landscape, the role of business leaders in shaping public discourse, and the importance of thoughtful engagement. Abbie advocates for a focus on unifying messaging that resonates with shared values, urging communicators to be proactive in addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by the new administration. By aligning communication efforts with universally accepted goals, business leaders can transcend polarization and foster environments of mutual understanding.

Key Takeaways

• The polarization of public discourse is a growing concern, driving the need for unifying communication strategies.
• Business leaders must find a balance between taking public stands on political issues and maintaining respect for diverse viewpoints.
• Organizations should align their messaging with their mission and values to maintain trust and authenticity.
• The media landscape is increasingly fragmented, and social media algorithms profoundly impact how information is consumed and distributed.
• With an increasing preference for niche media consumption, targeting specific audience segments requires strategic messaging and content placement.

Follow the podcast

If you enjoyed this episode, please follow Copper State of Mind in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast app. We publish new episodes every other Friday. Just pick your preferred podcast player from this link, open the app, and click the button to “Follow” the show: https://www.copperstateofmind.show/listen

Need to hire a PR firm?

We demystify the process and give you some helpful advice in Episode 19: "How to Hire a Public Relations Agency in Arizona: Insider Tips for Executives and Marketing Directors"

Copper State of Mind is a project of HMA Public Relations, a full-service public relations and marketing communications firm in Phoenix.

The show is recorded and produced by the team at Speed of Story, a B2B communications firm, and distributed by PHX.fm, the leading independent B2B podcast network in Arizona.

If you enjoyed this episode, you might also like the PRGN Presents podcast, hosted by Abbie Fink, featuring conversations about PR, marketing, and communications with members of the Public Relations Global Network, "the world’s local public relations agency.”

As you are undoubtedly aware, wherever you are in the world, the United States has just held a presidential election, and the results of that election are resonating throughout the world.

We're going to talk about that today, and I want to open this episode by sharing something that my co host, Abbie Fink, sent to her team the morning after the election. I think it's a nice framing for the conversation we want to have, Abbie wrote:

"For some, the results of the election were devastating, leaving people feeling angry, confused, frustrated and scared. For others, it is a victory with policies that align more with their beliefs.

As an agency, we've stayed away from political clients, preferring to stay neutral in the work that we do as individuals. We have our personal viewpoints.

And if when the conversations have turned to politics, we have been mindful of each other's beliefs, that is a testament to the respect we have for each other."

Communicating in a very contentious world is the topic of this conversation. Abbie, what's on your mind?

Yeah, you know, there hasn't been a conversation, I think, over the last, you know, 115 days or so that hasn't brought up the fact that the U.S. presidential election and the impact of what the potential outcome would be and how that was going to be felt around the country.

And as you said, some were elated with the results and others weren't.

And from a communications perspective and thinking about what this means, whether or not you are actively involved in politics, whether you are a communications firm that focuses in the political arena, there's not a part of the work that we are going to be doing over the next several months, certainly, but over the next four years that is not going to be impacted by the policies of this new administration.

And it's something that many of us are going to have to consider how that's going to play out in our businesses and where and how we're going to advise our clients, if we're an internal communications team, how we're going to advise our management teams on what and how these conversations are going to impact. And again, it's not about whether the candidate you wanted one or not. It's really about now that that has been decided.

There are going to be policy changes at the local level, there are going to be policy changes at the federal level that are going to impact business.

And as communicators, it's our responsibility to understand it and evaluate it and figure out how that's going to impact, you know, the work that we're doing and how, you know, how we're going to help our clients and organizations navigate the communications information that is going to be impacted by the outcome. Yeah.

You know, as somebody who spent decades in higher education, also lived and worked all around the world dealing with some very contentious conflicts in faraway places that certainly have resonated back here in the United States.

I'm torn about this because on the one hand, there are very stark differences at a policy point of view about what should happen about the future we want.

And I think having reasonable and even sometimes heated discussions about those differences matters when it's appropriate and when it can make a difference. But I'm also very much concerned, as you are, about the polarization of public discourse.

And the thing that I keep coming back to is this idea that anger and fear is a business model for so many organizations. It's something that can increase the attention they get and can rally their, you know, their base.

I mean, even if it's not a political party base, maybe not the right word. And that we need to resist. So I don't know where I fall on this issue.

I think we should have reasonable debate when it's appropriate, of course, and then sometimes in work and with clients, it's not. But I also think we need to resist those who want us to be divided, those who want us to think our neighbor is our enemy. That cannot be the way that this plays out.

Right. And however we can craft unifying messaging. There are things across the country that we all believe in.

One of our clients is the center for the Future of Arizona, and they have, over the last several months, have issued research findings about the Arizona we want. And I think it can play out whether we're talking about Arizona or anywhere.

But there are certain things that have come out of that research that really says there's a lot more that we have in common than what we have been led to believe, right? We all want clean air and clean water. We want food that is safe and healthy to eat.

We want to send our kids to school and have them be safe when they get there and come home. And, you know, and I mean these are just common sense, really, but these are all the things that we have in common.

We're in a place right now where I think this. We have to start to really put into action this unifying ability.

And, you know, I'm not here with an answer specifically, like, I don't exactly how these things are going to be done.

And thinking about the types of organizations that we work for and where their guiding principles are, and to the extent that we can know 100% of where they fall on which side of the aisle, if that's still an appropriate way to refer to it. But there are going to be things that are going to impact the way that organizations do business.

And so as an organization, we have to start paying attention, more attention to what that looks like. And what are we saying? How are we saying it? Have we evaluated the impact of coming out on a particular subject matter?

We've been talking about this for months, right? I mean, pick a side, don't pick a side.

But you have to be able to say our organization, our brand, our business are 100% aligned with this statement and we are willing to stand up for it. And so that hasn't changed. That is still something that we need to be talking about with the organizations that we represent.

But how we are doing this might be a little bit different. You know, what is the shift in our culture going to look like?

What is the continuing shift in the media landscape from mainstream media, if that's still the way we want to refer to the evening news and the daily newspaper versus the, you know, the social platforms, where are people getting their information and their news? And are we as brand representatives paying enough attention to that? And are we being responsible about what information that we're putting out there?

And that would happen and should be happening regardless if we were coming out of a presidential election or not. But we have a situation in our country now where, you know, the social media platforms are a driver of information exchange.

You know, during the Obama campaign, he was the kind of the first social media candidate.

Well, for obvious reasons, we didn't have social prior to that, but he was the one that really capitalized on this ability to speak directly to the public that he wanted to reach. And that has just been amplified over the years. And we see it happening whether we're talking about politics or any other brand communication.

It's social. And the platforms that are at our disposal, that don't have the same editorial management, that don't have the same filters, if you will, to ensure that it is objective, that it is equal opportunity and gives those brands a one on one opportunity to speak with their publics, that will continue to be part of how brands and organizations will communicate.

And it isn't about to change and may become even more so as the recently elected president, President elect, capitalizes on social as a means to communicate with the constituency.

This is something that we have talked about extensively in the past and I think even since those conversations, the ground has shifted beneath our feet. It's a very dynamic, fast moving environment.

And I want to explore that briefly with something else that came out of the Center for Future of Arizona's research, which you noted here. "Brands should not shy away from issues that matter to their audiences. Framed correctly, we'll find common ground," is what you have here.

That's interesting because when we talked a few years ago about the latest, then latest Edelman trust research about the declining trust in government, the declining trust in media, the declining trust in pretty much everything, the one thing that was on the rise was the trust in business leaders. And the request was that business leaders communicate more clearly where they stand on issues.

And of course, this is somewhat problematic piece of data because business leaders don't want to make politics, many of them anyway, don't want to make politics part of their public Persona. They don't want a leadership brand tied to their private views. And I understand that and respect that.

But how do we navigate and how do you help clients navigate this landscape where people want to hear from brands, they want to hear from organizations about their views on issues?

And at the same time, we can't lose sight of the fact that organizations have a mission and companies have a mandate and they need to pursue those without getting caught up unnecessarily in some of the contentious debates. So what are your thoughts on that?

I think there's a difference between a leader at an organization making a stand on a political issue when that political issue will directly impact their business, their clientele, their customers, their employees.

So if they are a healthcare organization and policy changes are going to change the way that healthcare is delivered, then they have an obligation, in my opinion, to stand up and speak for or against whatever this impact might be. That is their line of business. That is what they are known for, and they should be taking a stand.

How they do that is what becomes the difficult conversation. Right? Is it a, you know, you put up a billboard, are you sending out a direct mail, are you blasting it across social media?

But those are the, you know, the nuances of how you communicate that.

But if your business and organization are directly impacted by something that is going to happen legislatively or culturally, is shifting psyche, then yes, I think you are to some extent obligated to be and take a stand. It becomes how you do that.

And then, you know, some someone said to me a while back when topics like this were sort of resonating, it has to be if would you have said this yesterday? Will you say it again tomorrow? And will you still say it six weeks from now?

And if that's the case, then it is something that your brand stands for and you should do it. I am not in favor of getting into conversations and into debates where you, it's your personal opinion only and not what, who you represent.

That personal opinion is, should be shared, you know, at the, at over a cup of coffee with your, your pals, not necessarily in the public forum. But this idea of influence and who has influence and who do we look for to get this?

You know, think about, you know, again, if we, if we use the recent election cycle as a place to think about that, the types of endorsements that were coming out and who was saying, I'm voting this way or I'm voting that way, and did it matter, you know, that so and so said I'm voting for this candidate or so and so, you know, voted for that candidate. We can armchair quarterback strategy, you know, for centuries on whether or not what that was.

But for a lot of individuals that are determining how they think about certain things, gathering opinions from others that they hold in high regard and respect will matter. You know, we, it's no different than if I ask you for a recommendation for a dry cleaner. I trust you. We're pals.

We like each other, we respect each other. And I need something. You're going to steer me in the right direction. And I wouldn't ask you if I didn't trust you.

And so this is trust at a much higher level. And it will be challenging for sure. But we, meaning communications professionals, have to acknowledge that this is where we are.

And these are the types of things that we have to consider as we are advising our organizations and we're thinking about how to message things, when to message things, where to message things. It isn't a simple answer any longer. We're trying to target males 25 to 34 and we're going to take an ad out on the sports page of the local paper.

That's just not it anymore. That's not how decisions can be made.

Yeah. That era of messaging and targeting, even at that level, is now painfully broad. You can't accomplish anything. You certainly can't in commerce, so why would you and other forms of communication.

I think this is something that we will continue to think about and develop our, not just our opinions, but our practitionership in which is as media consumption continues to fragment and who people follow and where they get their information continues to be more and more niche. How these messages are delivered, the distribution of the messaging, is becoming increasingly complicated. That's not news. That's been going on now for at least eight, maybe 10 years.

But we are in some way dealing with the algorithms and the platforms that are the primary source of information and entertainment and shopping and everything else that folks do happening on a small piece of glass they hold in their hand.

So for the legacy media, which is how I refer to the folks you were talking about earlier, the evening news and the morning paper, I can imagine, or I could hope anyway, that there is some hard thinking being done in newsrooms and at the level of the editorship about how we reach people with, for those that are still committed to it, the truth with, for those that are still committed to it, a certain level of objectivity about what's happening. And that's increasingly challenging in an environment where billionaires own platforms and influence editorial decisions, even if not directly.

There is clearly an indirect influence that has pushed many of these legacy media properties in one direction or another that maybe even the folks who work there aren't comfortable with. But people got to live and eat. They need a job, and so they got to go along with what's happening.

Complex times. What do you think about the shifting nature of media and how does that informing decisions your team is making in the way you are advising clients?

Sure. And, you know, the delivery aspect of that is really, you know, if you ask a certain demographic, the younger demographic, where do you get your news, they will tell you they get it from TikTok or YouTube or Instagram or whatever the latest social platform is. And that's true. That is where they're getting it. But they're getting a feed from CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the LA Times, wherever it is.

I mean, they're, they're the, those, let's call them the legacy media is using those platforms to deliver their content because they know subscribing, subscribing has gone down. We're not watching over the air broadcast in the same way anymore. We're streaming, we're fast forwarding, we're doing all that.

So they're using these platforms to reach a demographic, a target audience that they're trying to get to.

The algorithms of those platforms mean that when you click on a particular story, you continue to see stories in the same subject line in the similar fashion. And that's where the challenges are. Right, Is that as consumers of content, we should look for a variety of different places to get that information.

But it is certainly simpler to just scroll, click, read, you know, back scroll again, click, read, and not worry that it came from multiple places. So we're not going to. It's not going away, right? Those platforms are not going to go away. They are part of our world now.

So we need to recognize that and then work to use those platforms to further our organizational mission and the vision that we have and what we're trying to, you know, to get out there.

So how do we use it is, you know, I think maybe we are still a society that values the news, the value in having news and coming from sources that we can consider trustworthy and consider to be objective. And I will not give up that mindset.

I may be the only one left out there that says that, but I think that there are many, many more media outlets whose guiding principle is objectivity and fairness. And as a consumer of that content, we owe it to ourselves to be evaluating against a variety of different sources before we make some decisions.

So long way to get to an answer about how do we do it? And honestly, it is an ever evolving discussion about where do we pay attention and what platform is the best to do that in?

What visuals are we using to do that? What words are we using? Are we reaching our audiences in a language that is more culturally appropriate? Is the content culturally appropriate? Is the messaging in the right place? I remember in journalism school, the medium is the message. So is the, the platform the right place for the message, or is it the message that's in the wrong platform? Right. So how do we, how do we evaluate that?

And I think it is an opportunity for those of us that dive into this and pay attention to it to find a place for communication to or for these platforms to have a value in our communication strategy. We need to recognize that, you know, billionaires are owning media platforms. They are influencing editorial decisions.

Media right now is a bit chaotic, but it will still be influential. And because social in particular taps right into the target audience, they can speak directly to the public that they're trying to go after.

And we can't fight it. So let's figure out how to work within it and guide our organizations around using those things.

And as we're thinking about this, the new administration here in the United States and really around the world, because what happens here in the US Will impact the global world, the global economy and such. How are some of these new policies that are going to be enacted impacting how we do business, how we market our businesses?

You know, diversity, equity, inclusion is going to continue to be and should be top of mind.

So how do we invest in those types of things, ESG, right, the environmental and sustainability processes that are happening, you know, in Europe then, and how that will impact, you know, the US and as communications professionals and counsel to our clients, we have to be smart about these business decisions so that we can advise, counsel and direct how our businesses, how our organizations and our own workplace adjust to what the new policies are going to be.

Now, this conversation would have happened regardless of who was elected. Policies will change, philosophies will change, the culture of our communities will change each time we elect a new president.

And so whether you are happy about the outcome or you're not happy about the outcome, we still need as communicators to evaluate and work within the structure and move forward in a smart, cohesive, unifying way to put forth the information that needs to be out into the marketplace.

Thanks for listening to this episode of Copper State of Mind. If you enjoyed the conversation, please share it with a colleague who might also find this podcast valuable. It's easy to do. Just click the Share button in the app you're listening to now to pass it along. You can also follow Copper State of Mind in Apple Podcasts, Spotify or any other podcast app. We publish new episodes every other Friday.

Copper State of Mind is brought to you by HMA Public Relations, the oldest continuously operating PR firm in Arizona. The show is recorded and produced by the team at Speed of Story, a B2B communications firm in Phoenix, and distributed by PHX.fm, the leading independent B2B podcast network in Arizona.

For all of us here at Speed of Story and PHX.fm, I'm Adrian McIntyre. Thanks for listening and for sharing the show with others if you choose to do so. We hope you'll join us again for another episode of Copper State of Mind.