The Post-Truth Era – Defend Your Reputation or Die
Trump’s rise to power has changed the public discourse: “alternative facts” and “fake news” have become familiar terms. The channels and tactics used to influence others are changing. False arguments are not corrected, let alone apologized for. Criticism is met with even stronger claims. It seems that the rules of rhetoric are also changing: traditionally, successful messages have struck a balance between emotion (pathos), ethics (ethos), and reason (logos). Now, it seems that reason has been left out of the equation.
This superficial impression, however, does not tell the whole story. Although strong emotional rhetoric is highly relevant, a skilled populist uses logical reasoning when selecting target audiences and the facts presented to them. Data analytics and target group profiling are influencing information warfare more than ever before. The values of potential supporters are researched, and messages are carefully tested and targeted. Disputes between target groups are also instigated.
There are roughly two levels of actors involved in information influencing. The higher level uses data analytics professionally and acts systematically based on research. The lower level consists of lone or loosely connected amateurs who are driven by ideology and emotions. They share and produce content that supports the goals of higher-level actors and may not even realize they are part of an organized information campaign.
Different interest groups use the same tools and methods. Entire industries, professions, or companies can be targeted. Actors who have not been carefully monitoring the shift in societal values or the demand for greater transparency are at risk. This is especially true for organizations that do not prioritize balanced reputation management; they will be walking on thin ice. These types of organizations are easy targets, and social media hate campaigns can be launched against them. If they lack defenders, their future looks bleak.
For example, Nordea Bank suffered a sharp decline in its reputation as a result of the global Panama Papers crisis. This decline would not have been so drastic if Nordea’s reputation had been stronger before the crisis. However, because of its poor reputation, no one came to its defense when the accusations began.
Nordea’s reputation and structure were assessed using the Reputation&Trust model in 2015 and 2016 as part of T-Media’s annual Reputation Research, which examined the companies in Finland with the best and worst reputations.
But what can companies and industries do to defend their position and counter information campaigns?
Professional and analytical defenders act systematically. This type of organization conducts an internal risk analysis and compares the results with analyses of the operational environment. They research and monitor changes in values and attitudes, and constantly evaluate and improve their operations. Potential risks and their probabilities are identified in advance. A proactive organization builds capabilities to address different scenarios. Successful actors rise to become the thought leaders of their industry—and thus the ones who wield the power of information themselves.
The best defense, however, lies in a strong organizational reputation, followed by strong stakeholder support. There are not enough communications professionals to defend an organization against thousands of trolls—thus, stakeholder support is vital. It is essential to understand the strengths and weaknesses of one’s reputation among different stakeholders and the factors that best build trust and foster support during a crisis. This requires systematic work and research-based decision-making. But it’s worth the effort: the organization gains stakeholder recommendations and increases their willingness to invest and make purchases. Using these tools, for example, the OP Group’s reputation improved, and the company gained 120,000 new customers.
An organization whose perception of its reputation and the reputation of its industry is based merely on an educated guess is in danger of self-deception. This type of actor might think it is riding the tiger when, in fact, it is only holding its tail.
Harri Leinikka
CEO, MSc(Tech.)
T-Media Oy
harri@reptrust-staging.fi-p.seravo.com
+358 40 505 5001
With Trump’s election and rise to power, “alternative facts” and “fake news” have become familiar terms. The methods and channels of influence are undeniably undergoing a transformation. Incorrect claims are not corrected, let alone apologized for. Criticism is met with an even more intense barrage of counterarguments. The rules of the game in rhetoric also seem to have changed. Traditionally, a successful message strikes a balance between emotion (pathos), character (ethos), and reason (logos). At first glance, it would seem that reason has now disappeared entirely from this triad.
However, this superficial impression does not tell the whole story. Although bombastic rhetoric plays a huge role, a populist who is skilled at selecting target audiences and facts employs cool, rational thinking. Data analytics and target audience profiling are having a greater impact than ever before behind the scenes of the information war. The values of potential supporters are scrutinized, messages are tested and targeted, and a wedge is driven between target groups.
There are two different levels of actors involved in information influence. The upper level makes professional use of data analytics and operates systematically based on it. The lower level, on the other hand, consists of individual or loosely networked “resonators” whose activities are amateurish and involve sharing content based on ideology and naivety. The first level uses the second level to amplify its messages.
Various interest groups use the same tools and methods. Entire industries, professions, and companies can come under attack. In particular, those actors who have not kept pace with changing societal values, demands for greater transparency, or ensured anseende balanced anseende are walking a tightrope. With the help of the hate machine on social media, it is easy to put such entities in the dock. If they have no defenders, they are headed for a dead end.
For example, the crisis Nordea faced in connection with the Panama Papers—and anseende , which was even reported on the front page of *Kauppalehti* —would hardly have been so severe if the Finnish public’s perception of Nordea’s responsibility had not already been low before the Panama Papers came to light. Its Achilles’ heel had been exposed, and there were no defenders.
Nordea's reputation and its structure Reputation&Trust in the years 2015 and 2016 as part of T-Media’s annual reputation survey, which identifies companies in Finland with good and bad reputations.
So what can companies and industries do to defend their position and prevent information manipulation?
A professional and analytical advocate works systematically. Such an organization conducts an internal risk analysis in advance of its own operations or those of its industry. It compares its findings with an analysis of the external operating environment, monitors changes in values and attitudes through research, and evaluates and develops its operations. Risks are identified in advance and their probabilities are assessed. The organization builds the capacity to act in accordance with various scenarios. Successful organizations emerge as thought leaders in their industry and thus become the very holders of information power.
An organization’s best defense, however, lies in the support of its stakeholders, which stems anseende good anseende . After all, no communications unit is large enough to defend itself alone against thousands of trolls; support from stakeholders is needed. It is essential to understand the strengths and weaknesses of one’s reputation among different stakeholders and to use analytics to determine which areas are most effective at building trust and support in the event of a crisis. This requires systematic work and decision-making based on research-backed data. However, the effort is worthwhile, as it simultaneously increases stakeholders’ willingness to purchase, recommend, and invest. Using these tools, for example, the OP Group’s reputation improved, and at the same time, they gained 120,000 new customers.
An organization whose perception of its own reputation and that of its industry is based on little more than an educated guess is in danger of falling into self-deception. Such an organization may imagine it is riding a tiger, but in reality, it is merely holding onto its tail.
Harri Leinikka
CEO
T-Media Oy
T-Media helps its clients build anseende gain stakeholder support through research and communication. At our reputation seminar on March 23, we will discuss the impact of corporate responsibility on business and the use of rhetoric in the post-truth era. Our guest speaker will be Simon Lancaster, a lecturer at the University of Cambridge and Henley Business School and one of the world’s most sought-after speechwriters. For more information about the event and T-Media’s research and communications services:
Harri Leinikka, M.Sc. (Eng.), CEO, T-Media Oy
harri@reptrust-staging.fi-p.seravo.com
+358 40 505 5001
Jirimiko Oranen, MBA, CEO, T-Media Relations Oy
jiri@reptrust-staging.fi-p.seravo.com
+358 40 756 6655
