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 for influencing 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 appeals are highly effective, a skilled populist uses logical reasoning to select target audiences and tailor the facts presented to them. Data analytics and target group profiling are having a greater impact on information warfare than ever before. The values of potential supporters are researched, and messages are carefully tested and targeted. Disputes between target groups are also deliberately instigated.

There are roughly two tiers of actors involved in information influencing. The higher tier employs data analytics professionally and acts systematically based on research. The lower tier consists of lone or loosely connected amateurs who are driven by ideology and emotions. They share and produce content that supports the goals of the higher-tier 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. Those who have not been carefully monitoring the shift in societal values or the demands 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 reputation as a result of the global Panama Papers scandal. This decline would not have been so severe if Nordea’s reputation had been stronger prior to the scandal. However, because of its poor reputation, no one came to its defense when the allegations 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 operate systematically. This type of organization conducts an internal risk analysis and compares the results with analyses of the operational environment. They research and monitor shifts in values and attitudes, and continuously evaluate and refine their operations. Potential risks and their probabilities are identified in advance. A proactive organization builds capabilities to address different scenarios. Successful players rise to become thought leaders in their industry—and thus become the very ones who wield the power of information.

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 garner 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 buy. With 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. Such an organization 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 in a state of flux. False claims are not corrected, let alone apologized for. Criticism is met with an even more intense barrage of attacks. The rules of the game in rhetoric also seem to have changed. Traditionally, a successful message balances emotion (pathos), character (ethos), and reason (logos). At first glance, it would seem that reason has now completely disappeared from this triad.

However, this superficial impression does not tell the whole story. While bombastic rhetoric plays a huge role, a skilled populist applies cool logic when selecting target audiences and facts. Data analytics and audience profiling are having a greater impact than ever before behind the scenes of the information war. The values of potential supporters are gauged, messages are tested and targeted, and a wedge is driven between target groups.

There are two distinct 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, involving the sharing of content based on ideology and good faith. 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 maintained a balanced reputation are walking a tightrope. With the help of social media’s hate machine, it is easy to put such entities in the dock. If there are no defenders, a dead end lies ahead.

For example, the crisis Nordea faced in connection with the Panama Papers—and the damage to its reputation, 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 accountability 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 2015 and 2016 as part of T-Media’s annual reputation survey, which identifies companies in our country 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 operates 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 according to different scenarios. Successful organizations rise to become thought leaders in their industry and thus become the holders of information power themselves.

An organization’s best defense, however, lies in the support of its stakeholders, which stems from a good reputation. After all, no communications department is large enough to defend itself against thousands of trolls on its own; support from stakeholders is essential. It is essential to understand the strengths and weaknesses of your reputation among different stakeholders and to use analytics to determine which areas best build trust and support in the event of a crisis. This requires systematic work and decision-making based on researched 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 educated guesswork runs the risk 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 their reputation and 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