Month: August 2023

Rebuilding trust vs. changing reputation

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a reputation problem, according to its new director. So do many universities, according to an Aug. 17 PR News story.

But neither the CDC director nor various university public relations advisers are talking about reputation. Comments in news stories focus on rebuilding trust. While trust is one product of reputation, a narrow focus on trust could limit how organizations try to solve their business problems. In fact, decision-makers focused on trust might overlook a key element of reputation: authenticity.

John Doorley, executive director of corporate communications at Merk & Company from 1987 to 2000 and later a communication professor at Rutgers, New York University, and Elon University, developed a reputation management formula in 2003:

Reputation = Performance + Behavior + Communication x Authenticity Factory

“Performance” represents financial returns (profits and losses) and the delivery of quality products or services. “Behavior” means organizational interactions with key groups, such as employees, customers, regulators, critics, and local neighbors. “Communication” covers messages sent through all channels to all groups.

The Authenticity Factor indicates how true all actions and messages are to an organization’s “intrinsic identity” (what it stands for). If an organization stays true to what it stands for, the Authenticity Factor is 1. Any action or message that is not authentic reduces the factor and lowers the sum of images derived from Performance, Behavior, and Communication.

Doorley explains the formula in Reputation Management: The Key to Successful Public Relations and Corporate Communication. He and Fred Garcia first published that book in 2006. It is now in its fourth edition (2021).

Trust reflects people’s confidence that individuals and organizations will do what they promise. Just as trustworthiness is one facet of reputation, so are credibility, reliability, and responsibility.

Dr. Mandy Cohen, the new CDC director, has said in recent news interviews and public statements that she wants to rebuild trust in the CDC, other government institutions, and the scientific process. Even though Cohen hasn’t mentioned reputation, she appears to recognize that CDC efforts must address elements in the reputation formula. She told NBC News July 20 that her “intentional plan” to rebuild trust in the CDC involved “good execution” of the CDC public health mission, transparency, and good communication.

Cohen again talked about good performance, transparency, and clear communication Aug. 1 on NPR’s All Things Considered. She added a fourth component to her plan: partnerships and relationships with various groups. “And we’re going to be focused on building those bridges and building that trust so that folks take vaccines,” Cohen said.

Cohen’s strategy covers three elements of the Doorley formula:

  • Performance—“making sure that we are doing what we say we’re going to do.” That performance should enhance trust as well.
  • Behavior—transparency in interactions with critics, members of Congress, and others.
  • Communication—delivering clear, simple messages that all segments of the public can understand.

But the director does not appear to have thought about the Authenticity Factor (the perception that all actions and messages are consistent with what Americans would expect from the nation’s top public health agency).

The Aug. 17 PR News story shows the same shortsightedness about reputation—this time related to universities in the wake of a June U.S. Supreme Court decision on affirmative-action standards in college admissions. That story asserts, “The schools will need to rebuild trust for not only potential students and their families, but alumni, employees and staff of the institutions.”

The story quotes three sources. Two of them, a public relations practitioner and a public relations educator, both said that universities should act transparently and send clear messages about future admissions policies to key publics to rebuild trust. The third, another practitioner, said that admissions policies needed to reflect core institutional values.

With these comments, the PR News story alluded to Performance, Behavior, and Communication by university administrators. But none of the sources talked about the need to be authentic.

The difference between “building trust” and strategically trying to shape an organization’s overall reputation isn’t just semantic. I’m sure some will accuse me of fussing too much about the distinction. But word choice frequently reflects the scope of a person’s or organization’s thinking.

Too many public relations practitioners—and CEOs, for that matter—avoid talking about reputation. One reason may be that reputation is intangible and supposedly hard to measure. Consequently, both business leaders and public relations practitioners often use measures of trust as proxies for measures of reputation. The annual Edelman Trust Barometer is an example of such a proxy measure.

From my perspective, the focus on trust isn’t enough. The Authenticity Factor can make or break an effort to change the way people think about an organization—especially in a polarized public opinion environment. Any strategy that leaves out the last part of the Doorley formula can’t effectively build trust or change reputation.

Determining what people in various constituencies would consider authentic is often a challenge. For example, critics during the COVID-19 pandemic effectively demonized the CDC’s traditional data-driven approach to public health policy. Simply doubling down on that approach—which Cohen seems to imply (“have good performance in what the CDC is meant to do”)—isn’t likely to be effective. Polls repeatedly show that many Americans have lost trust in medical scientists since the pandemic.

Similarly, universities—especially those named in the affirmative-action lawsuit (Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)—have had a hard time countering charges that they have unfairly used race to decide which students to admit.

Both the CDC and universities need to know what key constituents are willing to believe. Critics have controlled the public health and higher education narrative for the past few years. Changing current opinions among people in some groups, therefore, may be a genuine challenge.

The partnership aspect of Cohen’s strategy could help with authenticity in the CDC effort, but she didn’t provide enough details in the two news interviews for me to speculate further.

The PR News story appears to imply that making sure constituents understand the values driving university admissions decisions will help make actions appear authentic. But what if the people universities need to reach don’t share those values?

I hope public relations staffers at the CDC and various universities are wise enough and influential enough within their organizations to help their bosses reach their real management goal: a better organizational reputation. Broadening that vision beyond “building trust” might help. But supplying solid intelligence on what key constituencies would see as authentic would be even more important.

Unfortunately, I know from 28 years in Army public affairs that government public relations efforts often lack adequate research on key groups. We in the government know what we want to say, but we don’t know what people in those groups are willing to hear or believe.

University communication offices may have more information on their key publics, but I don’t know that for sure. I suspect that access to research on key publics varies from institution to institution.

I commend Cohen’s intentions. I wish the CDC and various universities success in their efforts to change their public image. In the process, I hope that organizational leaders come to recognize the importance of authenticity in shaping reputation as they promote excellent performance, transparent behaviors, and clear communication.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

In support of neopronouns

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

Pronoun ambiguity—especially the use of the singular “they,” “them,” or “their” in broadcast news reports—continues to introduce what I consider unfortunate barriers to clear communication. I have written about pronouns before. (See Aug. 31, 2015, post.)

English writers and speakers need gender-neutral neopronouns. Those new words could solve lots of comprehension problems. I recognize that such word-use evolution is unlikely.

Nevertheless, a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun could enhance clear communication and avoid the confusion I experienced with an Aug. 15 NPR story on Morning Edition. That story included these sentences:

“Pagonis is intersex but was never told this by their parents. Growing up they felt like they didn’t belong.”

Because I (1) was doing something else as I listened to Morning Edition in the background and (2) have been drilled throughout my schooling and career to think that pronouns are supposed to agree with the first noun of the same number and gender before the pronoun, I at first understood the broadcast story to say that the parents had felt excluded when they were growing up. As I began to listen to the story more closely, I thought it would tell me how that viewpoint had affected the way the parents had dealt with their intersex child.

In a few more seconds, I realized I was wrong. Pidgeon Pagonis, the subject of the story, used plural pronouns for self-reference. Consequently, so did the reporter conducting the interview.

I don’t object to the use of preferred pronouns. I don’t advocate that we violate anyone’s self-identity. The latest edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association says in Section 4.18: “The use of the singular ‘they’ is inclusive of all people, helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender, and is part of APA style.” I know that the singular “they” has become more common in academic writing since my 2015 post.

My issue in this instance is miscommunication—especially in broadcast writing. I contend that the broadcast writer should have recognized the possibility of listener confusion in this story and worked intentionally to avoid it.

The clear connection between a pronoun and its antecedent is especially important in broadcast writing. Listeners and viewers can’t go back to check the reference. Consequently, the singular “they” in broadcast newswriting can hinder listening comprehension.

The Association Press Stylebook (56th edition) makes a similar point about reading news stories. The stylebook notes on Pages 238 and 239: “They as a singular pronoun may be confusing to some readers and amount to a roadblock that stops them from reading further. At the same time, though, efforts to write without pronouns to avoid confusion may make people feel censored or invisible.”

The AP stylebook advises journalists to honor story subjects and readers by striving for clarity. Often, rewriting a sentence can achieve that goal.

I concur. That quest for clarity is even more important in broadcast writing. The message recipient has no easy way to review the text when something doesn’t make sense on the first hearing.

Another way to address pronoun ambiguity might be to adopt neopronouns. I, therefore, appreciated the Aug. 12 CNN story about these “new pronouns.” Words, such as xe/xyr or ey/em/eir, are gender-neutral. They could follow standard grammar rules and avoid the conceptual problem of referring to a singular entity as a plural.

Despite being called “new,” some of these pronouns were first used in English hundreds of years ago. However, most people have not encountered such words in their reading or listening.

Deciding which new third-person neopronoun to use would be a challenge. The CNN story lists at least four options. None of those options looks like any common English words. As a result, The Associated Press Stylebook says, “In general, do not use neopronouns such as xe or zim; they are rarely used and unrecognizable as words to general audiences.”

Getting people to make one of those pronouns the standard would take a long time. The New York Times reported that “Ms.,” the inclusive alternative to “Miss” or Mrs.,” was first suggested in 1901. While the honorific has become more common since the 1960s, some people still refuse to use it.

“Latinx,” an inclusive alternative to “Latino” or “Latina,” reportedly first appeared in 2004. While “Latinx” is popular in some business and academic circles, a 2020 Pew Research survey found that only 3% of Americans with ethnic backgrounds from Latin America or Spain used the word to describe themselves.

People can tell intuitively what “Ms.” and “Latinx” are trying to communicate—even if those same individuals would not choose to use those words. Neopronouns don’t have that intuitive quality. Therefore, broad adoption—if it were ever to happen—would probably take even more time than “Ms.” or “Latinx” has needed so far to gain just some recognition.

While I know that the adoption of neopronouns is unlikely, I still think we need a better alternative for inclusive third-person pronouns than the singular “they.” As long as most writers and speakers are satisfied with the ambiguity of using a plural word to stand for a singular noun, we’ll have to live with persistent possible miscommunication. Or we’ll have to wait for all the old geezers like me—who think that using a plural word for a singular meaning is a problem—to die off.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

Need for SPJ conduct code is troubling

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

The Aug. 12 email message from the Society of Professional Journalists surprised me. “SPJ needs feedback on Code of Conduct draft,” the subject line said.

The message invited me to register for an Aug. 14 online meeting “to discuss the working copy” of a Code of Conduct for SPJ events. I could submit questions or comments about the code by Aug. 13 through the SPJ website.

Wow, I thought. This situation is troubling. Why would an organization of print, online, and broadcast reporters and editors; journalism educators; news executives; and other news content creators need formal rules to govern interpersonal interactions at meetings? What have I missed?

The email message said the SPJ board of directors wanted “to foster a friendly, safe and welcoming culture.” A special task force “plans to have standards for expected behavior in place by the annual convention in Las Vegas on Sept. 28.”

The working SPJ conduct code specifically addresses “behavior that others would reasonably perceive as knowingly harassing or humiliating others” at “events and meetings sponsored by or affiliated with SPJ at the national and regional levels.” The proposed SPJ guidelines further prohibit “discriminatory conduct related to age, race, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, physical ability or appearance, religion, or political ideology.”

The conduct code covers all who attend SPJ events. “Violators can be immediately dismissed from events, excluded from in-person or online events and activities, and/or forfeit their SPJ membership,” the draft document says. The document proposes a procedure to warn, suspend, or expel members who violate code provisions.

A Google search yielded no background information on why SPJ might need such behavior rules now. I couldn’t determine if the proposed policies were proactive or reactive.

The SPJ website, where I could submit comments, included links to nine example codes of conduct from other journalism professional organizations. One link showed that SPJ had instituted a code of conduct for its 2019 joint Excellence in Journalism meeting with the Radio Television Digital News Association and National Association of Hispanic Journalists in San Antonio.

Clearly, the idea of conduct rules for meetings of journalists isn’t new or unique to SPJ. I’m obviously out of touch.

The website for the 2023 SPJ convention, by the way, already has “code of conduct” wording on it. The working document extends the rules to all SPJ events and sets up a Participation Standards Committee to respond to complaints about offensive behavior.

The need to establish rules for civil discourse at professional meetings of journalists, procedures for removing people for unruly speech or other behaviors, and a process for punishing offending members still troubles me. I support a “safe and collegial environment” (words from the proposed code) at professional meetings. But I expect those who attend such meetings to treat others with “dignity and respect” as a matter of course. I have always experienced such behavior at the professional meetings I have attended over the past 50 years. What’s changed?

Why would members of a professional organization want to behave in ways that would get them “immediately dismissed from events”? Why would a professional association decide it needed a formal structure to punish members? The whole thing baffles me.

I fully concur with the goal of the proposed code. A welcoming culture at meetings and robust civil discourse are both good. Nevertheless, I question the need for formal behavior guidelines and punishment procedures—no matter how the final wording evolves. To me, this discussion within SPJ—or any professional association, for that matter—of acceptable conduct is a sad commentary on the state of society today. I’m obviously becoming a crotchety old coot.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

Barbie, Ted Cruz, and the third-person effect

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz apparently believes in the third-person effect. His recent statements about the Barbie movie deftly illustrate third-person-effect thinking.

The Republican senator from Texas told the Daily Signal, a media website, that a cartoon world map in one Barbie scene subjected moviegoers to Chinese propaganda, the Houston Chronicle reported July 19. The map shows “nine dashes.” They represent the People’s Republic of China’s claim to sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.

Cruz said that movie producers included the “blatantly false” information “to kiss up to the Chinese communist censors.”

A statement from a Cruz staffer to DailyMail.com (reported July 4) said, “China wants to control what Americans see, hear, and ultimately think, and they leverage their massive film markets to coerce American companies into pushing CCP propaganda—just like the way the Barbie film seems to have done with the map. Sen. Cruz deserves credit for reversing these trends.”

Cruz maintains he is merely calling out Barbie producers for deciding to “appease the Chinese Communist Party” after Vietnam banned the film over the map.

But concerns about “blatantly false” information and control over “what Americans see, hear, and ultimately think” signal that the senator is motivated as well by what communication scholars call the “third-person effect.”

I’ve mentioned the third-person effect before (July 29). It was first identified by sociologist W. Phillips Davidson in 1983:

People think that a message will influence others even though that same message won’t influence them. Those people who won’t be influenced (won’t affect me [first-person objective pronoun]) then act to prevent that presumed effect on others (but will affect them [third-person objective pronoun]) without any evidence of message influence on those individuals.

Lots of Americans have seen Barbie (‘Barbie’ reaches $1 billion at box office, studio says) since it opened July 21. I have read no news reports so far that the movie has influenced public opinion about China. I noted that no Chinese moviegoers quoted in an Aug. 6 New York Times story (Why ‘Barbie’ became a sleeper hit in China) mentioned the world map or their country’s claim to the South China Sea. I asked a few friends and family members who had seen Barbie if they remembered the map. None did.

Evidence from my informal research is clearly not conclusive. But so far, I have seen none of the propaganda effects that Cruz seemed to fear.

I advised clients and students to avoid third-person-effect thinking. Actions in response to assumed effects of any information usually waste organizational resources, disrupt organizational priorities, and sometimes even call greater attention to the “threatening” message. For those reasons, planning for any action should start by gathering solid information about the groups that organizations want to reach.

Nevertheless, third-person-effect thinking is common in political discourse. If the presumed effect on others is plausible, the thinking can spark voter fears of unwanted outcomes and mobilize people to respond—even if such action is unnecessary.

The third-person effect is a very practical social science and communication theory. It helps us explain, analyze, and predict trends in public discourse.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

‘Filler’ words hide who’s really acting

Posted on by Douglas F. Cannon

Writers often pepper their work with unnecessary words (see July 8 post on “clutter” words). When we speak, we use fillers to give our brains time to figure out what we want to say and how we want to say it. In writing, we can review our messages to sharpen the wording.

Expletive constructions are specific examples of filler words. Expletive refers to a grammatical element that fills a space in a clause (often the subject position) but carries no meaning. The placeholder often hides the actor that should be the subject someplace else in the sentence. The results are unnecessary words and reduced readability scores.

The most common expletives used in this way are there is/are and it is. These sentences include expletives:

  • There is a loss of control that makes it difficult for decision-makers to think strategically.
  • It is critical for companies to take time to cultivate relationships with the right people.
  • To build a successful media relations program, it is important to involve communication professionals in setting a strategy.

The first example contains two expletives (“there is” and “makes it”). “There is” provides a crutch for starting a sentence while our brain tries to decide exactly what we want to convey. The pronoun “it” in the example has no clear antecedent (see the post on pronoun-antecedent agreement) and fills an object, rather than a subject, position. We can rewrite the sentence to eliminate unnecessary words and make actors and relationships between sentence elements clear:

Loss of control makes thinking strategically difficult for decision-makers.

The indirect wording of the second example doesn’t establish for whom relationships are critical. The writer apparently used the expletive to avoid a more directive statement:

Companies should take time to cultivate relationships with the right people.

The third example introduces a syntax issue. The introductory “to build” infinitive phrase modifies the pronoun “it.” But “it” has no clear antecedent (see the post on pronoun-antecedent agreement). Therefore, the word offers no meaning to modify. Consequently, the “to build” phrase is dangling (see post on dangling modifiers). The independent clause has no clear actor to involve “communication professionals” in planning. Fixing the problem requires rewriting the sentence to include a precise noun for the “to build” phrase to modify:

To build a successful media relations program, an organization should involve communication professionals in setting a strategy.

While expletive constructions are often wordy, they aren’t grammatically wrong. They are common in writing. They are seen in other languages, such as German, as well as in English. Expletives are sometimes used intentionally (often in business or government writing) to keep the wording indirect. The writer doesn’t want to name the actor (who may be the reader), or the writer doesn’t know the actor (It is raining.) Other times, an expletive reflects fuzzy thinking. We really haven’t determined who the actor in the sentence is.

Whenever you see an expletive in your writing, consider if that construction is the most precise way to communicate your intended message.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon